—and whether he disappeared before reaching the age of ninety or after it, one must wait until either decisive evidence of his death is produced or a period has elapsed after which it is overwhelmingly presumed that he could not still be alive.

Second opinion: a detailed differentiation, for the missing person may be in one of two situations:

1. The likelihood of death prevails—such as someone who disappears in a deadly place, or between two battle lines, or from a ship that sank with some passengers saved and others drowned, or even someone who vanishes while at home, like a person who goes out to pray and never returns. In such cases the heirship is suspended for four years from the date of disappearance, for that span allows several cycles of travelers and merchants to come and go; if no word is heard throughout that time, it is highly probable that he is no longer alive.

2. The likelihood of safety prevails—such as a person who travels for trade, or whose circumstances suggest that he would normally live beyond that period.

The preponderant view is the first: determining the waiting period for a missing person is left to the judge’s ijtihād (independent legal judgment), because it varies with different eras, lands, and individuals. In our own time the means of information and transportation are so abundant that the whole world has become, in effect, a single town, a situation very different from earlier ages.

If the estate-leaver of the missing person dies during the prescribed waiting period:

• If the missing person is the sole heir, the entire estate is placed in suspension until the matter is clarified or the period expires.

• If there are other heirs alongside the missing person, the scholars have disagreed over how