the sale of whatever was sold stands valid, except that if a particular item of his goods is later found intact, or a female slave who has not yet borne a child, he may reclaim it—provided he first refunds to the one who has made use of it a portion of the purchase price. He may then pursue that user for the amount he has repaid.

Moreover, I hold that if the witnesses confess they deliberately gave false testimony, they are liable for every loss that befell the estate on account of their claim that the husband had died, whether that loss involves price or value.

If a house has been held by a man as his property for a long, continuous period—no less than ten years—during which he conducts himself as an owner by renting it out, living in it, demolishing, and building, and then someone comes forward who had all along been present, saw his actions, and voiced no objection in a place where he could easily have sought legal redress, yet never challenged any of this, then if that claimant is an unrelated outsider he has no standing and no right to the property; it belongs to the one whose possession has been established.

Should the claimant be an heir, and the same length of time has elapsed, he must swear by Allah that his silence, failure to object, and lack of interference with the resident possessor were motivated only by kindness and maintenance of kinship ties. Once he so swears, the judge awards him whatever portion of the property he is entitled to.

Some jurists have suggested a shorter period of possession, but that opinion is not acted upon and carries no weight—except where the property has been demolished, rebuilt, undergone a clear and evident change, or been transferred by sale or as bridal dower. In such cases, a shorter period may suffice according to the judge’s discretion, unless the claimant has a clear excuse for his silence and failure to object; if so, the judge will hear him and exercise judgment.

Possession among relatives requires a longer term, and the jurists of Medina have differed over its exact limit. To stipulate fixed numbers without precedent is not the practice of scholars versed in jurisprudence and reflection. For the judge and the mufti, whenever no explicit text or consensus exists, it suffices to exercise ijtihad, without departing from the opinions of the early authorities. In our day, the upper limit for possession among relatives and co-heirs is regarded as twenty to thirty years, owing to the intense disputatiousness that marks the people of our time.