Mālik’s view in ʿĪsā’s transmission. According to this opinion, there is disagreement over whether she must return half of it if he returns after she has remarried and her new husband has consummated the marriage. In ʿĪsā’s transmission, she returns nothing; in Sahnūn’s transmission, she returns half. But if he neither returns nor is known to be alive or dead until he reaches an age beyond which no one lives, she returns none of the dower, even if she has remarried and her new husband has consummated the marriage. I know of no disagreement on this. Their agreement on this establishes the soundness of Ibn al-Mājishūn’s earlier opinion. This applies when the dower is payable immediately. If it is deferred, however, the disagreement is the same as that concerning the payment of his debts before they fall due.

Section

As for a man who goes missing in enemy territory, he is treated as a captive: his wife may not remarry, nor may his property be divided, until his death is known or enough time has passed for him to reach an age beyond which no one lives. This is the view of all our scholars except Ashhab, who applied the rules governing a missing man to both his property and his wife. There is disagreement concerning someone who sets sail for enemy territory and then goes missing. One opinion treats him like a man who goes missing in Muslim territory, since the wind may have driven him back to Muslim territory—unless it is known that he reached one of the Byzantine islands and then went missing. Another opinion treats him like a man who goes missing in enemy territory.

Section

As for a man who goes missing from the Muslim ranks while fighting the enemy, there are four opinions.

The first is Ibn al-Qāsim’s report from Mālik in ʿĪsā’s transmission: he is treated as a captive, so his wife may not remarry, nor may his property be divided, until his death is known or enough time has passed for him to reach an age beyond which no one lives.