(Source: Fatāwā Muḥammadiyyah, Vol. 1, Page 754)
I am a woman whose husband has been missing for the past eight years. He was addicted to drugs, and we have no knowledge of whether he is alive or dead. His relatives also have no information about him. I have three young children, and for their upbringing and future, I want to remarry. I respectfully request a Shari‘ah ruling in this regard.
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu was-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, Ammā baʿd:
If the situation is as described in the question, then the woman in question — Shamim Akhtar — may remarry after observing the ʿiddah of four months and ten days, as per Islamic teachings. This is supported by multiple classical and authentic rulings and precedents.
Narrated in Sunan al-Kubrā and other books:
“A woman whose husband is missing should wait for four years. After that, she must observe the ʿiddah of four months and ten days, and then she may remarry.”
(Sunan al-Kubrā by Bayhaqī, Sunnan al-Shāfiʿī, cited in Sabil al-Salām vol. 3 p. 207-208)
This ruling was applied in a real case during the caliphate of ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه), where a woman came to complain that her husband had been missing. ʿUmar instructed her to wait four years, and after completing the ʿiddah, she was allowed to remarry. When the man eventually returned, ʿUmar offered him the choice: either to reclaim his wife (if still unmarried) or to receive her dower (mahr).
There are two main scholarly views:
"Those among you who die and leave wives behind, they (the wives) shall wait for four months and ten days..."
(Al-Baqarah: 234)
"A woman whose husband goes missing waits four years, then completes the ʿiddah, and then may remarry."
(Muwaṭṭaʾ Imām Mālik)
“If the husband has been missing for four years or more, it is not necessary to wait another four years. She should only observe the ʿiddah of four months and ten days.”
(Fatāwā Rūpṛiyah, Vol. 2, p. 538)
Narrated from Abū Hurayrah (رضي الله عنه):
“If a man is unable to financially support his wife, they should be separated.”
(Narrated by al-Dāraqutnī, Nayl al-Awṭār, Vol. 6, p. 321)
If separation is permissible merely due to lack of provision, then in a case of complete disappearance for eight years, remarriage is even more justified.
✔ Shamim Akhtar’s husband has been missing for eight years, with no trace or communication.
✔ According to the ruling of Sayyidunā ʿUmar and consensus of scholars, she may now observe ʿiddat al-wafāt (4 months and 10 days).
✔ After that, she is permitted to remarry, especially considering the welfare of her children.
✔ However, the remarriage should be done with the permission of a competent Sharʿī authority or a recognized Islamic court, to avoid legal complications.
This ruling is based on classical juristic precedent. Legal/formal proceedings may vary based on the country’s laws and should be followed accordingly.
Question:
I am a woman whose husband has been missing for the past eight years. He was addicted to drugs, and we have no knowledge of whether he is alive or dead. His relatives also have no information about him. I have three young children, and for their upbringing and future, I want to remarry. I respectfully request a Shari‘ah ruling in this regard.
Answer:
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu was-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh, Ammā baʿd:
If the situation is as described in the question, then the woman in question — Shamim Akhtar — may remarry after observing the ʿiddah of four months and ten days, as per Islamic teachings. This is supported by multiple classical and authentic rulings and precedents.
1. Sayyidunā ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb’s Ruling
Narrated in Sunan al-Kubrā and other books:
“A woman whose husband is missing should wait for four years. After that, she must observe the ʿiddah of four months and ten days, and then she may remarry.”
(Sunan al-Kubrā by Bayhaqī, Sunnan al-Shāfiʿī, cited in Sabil al-Salām vol. 3 p. 207-208)
This ruling was applied in a real case during the caliphate of ʿUmar (رضي الله عنه), where a woman came to complain that her husband had been missing. ʿUmar instructed her to wait four years, and after completing the ʿiddah, she was allowed to remarry. When the man eventually returned, ʿUmar offered him the choice: either to reclaim his wife (if still unmarried) or to receive her dower (mahr).
2. When Does the Four-Year Period Begin?
There are two main scholarly views:
- If the woman has already waited four years, even without official court involvement, she does not need to wait again.
- She must then only observe ʿiddat al-wafāt (waiting period for a deceased husband) which is four months and ten days, based on Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 234.
"Those among you who die and leave wives behind, they (the wives) shall wait for four months and ten days..."
(Al-Baqarah: 234)
3. Supporting Statements from Scholars
a) Mālik & Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib
"A woman whose husband goes missing waits four years, then completes the ʿiddah, and then may remarry."
(Muwaṭṭaʾ Imām Mālik)
b) Ḥāfiẓ ʿAbdullāh Rūpṛī (Ahl-e-Ḥadīth Scholar):
“If the husband has been missing for four years or more, it is not necessary to wait another four years. She should only observe the ʿiddah of four months and ten days.”
(Fatāwā Rūpṛiyah, Vol. 2, p. 538)
4. Aḥādīth on Separation Due to Neglect
Narrated from Abū Hurayrah (رضي الله عنه):
“If a man is unable to financially support his wife, they should be separated.”
(Narrated by al-Dāraqutnī, Nayl al-Awṭār, Vol. 6, p. 321)
If separation is permissible merely due to lack of provision, then in a case of complete disappearance for eight years, remarriage is even more justified.
5. Final Ruling Based on Current Circumstances
✔ Shamim Akhtar’s husband has been missing for eight years, with no trace or communication.
✔ According to the ruling of Sayyidunā ʿUmar and consensus of scholars, she may now observe ʿiddat al-wafāt (4 months and 10 days).
✔ After that, she is permitted to remarry, especially considering the welfare of her children.
✔ However, the remarriage should be done with the permission of a competent Sharʿī authority or a recognized Islamic court, to avoid legal complications.
Important Note:
This ruling is based on classical juristic precedent. Legal/formal proceedings may vary based on the country’s laws and should be followed accordingly.
