the property of the deceased, for it is a substitute for his person, and thus the substitute belongs to him, just like the blood money for his limbs that were severed from him during his lifetime. Furthermore, if he were to waive it against the killer after having been wounded by him, it would be valid, and he has no authority to waive the right of the heirs. Also, it is inherited wealth, so it resembles his other properties. The second [view] is that it originates as the property of the heirs from the outset; for it is only entitled after death, and upon death, the established property rights of the deceased cease, he exits the state of being eligible for ownership, and the ownership is established for his heirs from the outset. I know of no disagreement that the deceased is to be shrouded and prepared for burial from it if he dies before his preparation; for if he had no property at all, his preparation would be mandatory upon the one responsible for his maintenance had he been poor, so it is more appropriate that it be mandatory from his blood money.

Section: On the inheritance of the missing person (al-mafqud), which is of two types. The first is that in which death is the most likely state, which is one who is lost in a place of destruction, such as one who is lost between two fighting ranks when a group has perished, or on a ship that broke apart and some of its occupants drowned, or in a wilderness where people typically perish, or is lost from among his family, or goes out for the evening prayer or other prayers, or for a nearby need and does not return, and no news of him is known. For this person, a period of four years is awaited. If no news of him appears, his property is distributed, his wife completes the waiting period of death (iddat al-wafat), and she becomes permissible for marriage; this is what Imam Ahmad explicitly stated, and this is the choice of Abu Bakr. The Qadi mentioned that his property is not to be distributed until the waiting period of death passes after the four years, because that is the time when it is permissible for his wife to marry (30). The first view is more correct, because the waiting period (idda) occurs only after death, so once his death is ruled, there is no justification for withholding the distribution of his wealth. If someone who would inherit from the missing person dies before the ruling of the missing person's death, his share of that inheritance is set aside for the missing person, along with what is doubtful regarding its entitlement, and the remainder is distributed. If he appears to be alive, he takes it and the excess is returned to its rightful owners. If it is known that he died after the death of the one he inherits from, his share is handed over to his heirs along with his property. If it is known that he was dead at the time of the death of the one he inherits from, the set-aside portion is returned to the heirs of the first [deceased]. If the period passes and no news of him is known, it is also returned to the heirs of the first, because his life was in doubt at the time of the death of the one he inherits from, so we do not grant him inheritance while in doubt, like the fetus