according to the majority, and they are given this choice only upon his death. As for a missing man of whom no news has been received, if it is said that his wife must wait until his fate becomes known, she would remain neither unmarried nor living as a wife until she grows old and dies without learning what became of him. The Sharia has prescribed nothing of this kind. Thus, once she has been made to wait four years without any news of him emerging, he is presumed dead.

If it is said that the ruler may separate them out of necessity, this is only because he believes the husband to be dead; otherwise, if he knew him to be alive, the man would not be considered missing. This is analogous to the permissibility of disposing of property whose owners cannot be identified. When the man returns, it becomes clear that he had been alive, just as when the owner of such property appears. The ruler has acted concerning his wife by separating them, so this separation remains subject to the husband’s ratification. If he wishes, he may ratify what the ruler has done, and it then becomes equivalent to a separation he had authorized. Had he authorized the ruler to separate them, and the ruler had done so, the separation would undoubtedly have taken effect. In that case, the first husband’s marriage would be valid.

If he does not ratify what the ruler has done, the separation becomes invalid from the moment he chooses his wife, but not before that. Rather, what is unknown is treated as nonexistent, as in the case of lost property: when its owner appears, this does not invalidate what took place previously. Her marriage to him continues from the moment he chooses her, and she is thus his wife. The returning husband therefore has the choice of ratifying or rejecting what the ruler has done. If he ratifies it, he has relinquished his conjugal rights.

The loss of a husband’s conjugal rights is compensable according to the majority, such as Mālik,