His statement, “the period previously mentioned concerning his inheritance,” refers—according to the established school—to the following: if the apparent circumstances of his disappearance indicate that he has perished, four years are to be awaited from the time he went missing. But if the apparent circumstances indicate that he is safe, one waits until he would have reached the full age of ninety, calculated from his birth. Thus, if he goes missing at the age of eighty-nine and the apparent circumstances indicate that he is safe, only one year is awaited; whereas if the apparent circumstances indicate that he has perished, four years are awaited. Logically, the matter would seem to require the reverse, but this is what they stated, relying on reports from the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, concerning this matter (1).

The reports transmitted from the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, on this subject concern particular cases whose circumstances called for them to set such periods. Particular cases do not establish a general ruling, for a given case may contain a factor that necessitated the ruling, of which we are unaware. This differs from the implication of wording, which remains general in scope. This is one of the principles of legal theory.

For example, if someone came to us and said, “My son has gone missing,” and we told him, “Wait five years, ten years, or four years,” would that ruling apply generally to every case? No; it applies only to that particular case. It is possible that the mufti considered that specific person and saw that, after five years, ten years, or more, his situation would become clear. Another person’s situation may become clear in less time, while yet another’s may become clear only after a longer period, depending on the man’s circumstances. Thus, if a minister went missing, or a labourer among the labourers