Islamic Fiqh > Endowments (waqf) and property > Luqata: the lost item found > The status of lost property in the finder's hands and witnessing the finding
Contents
Updated on 25 September 2026 at 6:57 PM
This part belongs to the full section: All sections of this part.
This first part of the chapter on the luqata (lost property) examines the status of lost property in the hands of the finder and the witnessing (ishhad) of the finding, returning it to the place of discovery, the case of one who finds but does not take, picking it up with the intention of misappropriation, and the reward (ju'la) offered for its return. It then sets out the rules of the announcement (ta'rif): its obligation according to the finder's intention, its duration, items of little value, whether it is immediate or deferred, and its place. The positions of the four schools are cited with their Quranic and prophetic evidence and classical references.
These words comprise two formulations: the first, that lost property is not picked up except by one who announces it; the second, that none picks up lost property except one who announces it. The meaning is one: it is only picked up by the one who announces it; and the second meaning: none picks it up except the one who announces it, in order to inform the people. Malik said: these two types of lost property are to be announced indefinitely (Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 2/229). The hafiz Ibn Hajar said (may Allah have mercy on him): the most correct of the scholars' positions is that this varies with persons and circumstances: whenever taking predominates, it becomes obligatory or recommended; whenever leaving it predominates, it becomes forbidden or disliked; otherwise, it is permitted (Fath al-Bari, 5/92).
The jurists agree that lost property is a trust (amana) in the finder's hands, like a deposit (wadi'a), and that he is only liable for transgression, negligence, or refusing to return it when demanded. If a person finds lost property and does not have the finding witnessed, and the property is neither destroyed nor lost, then its owner comes and the finder hands it over to him, there is no disagreement among the scholars: no liability and no problem fall upon the finder in this case.
Ibn Qudama said (may Allah have mercy on him): lost property, during the year, is a trust in the finder's hands; if it perishes without his negligence or diminishes, he bears no liability, like a deposit. When its owner comes and finds it, he takes it together with its connected and separate increase, for it is the growth of his property. If the finder destroys it, or it perishes through his negligence, he guarantees its like if it has an equivalent, or its value otherwise; I know of no disagreement on this (al-Mughni, 6/14).
They likewise agree that if he finds no one to witness for him, or fears that the tyrant will take it if he does, and leaves off witnessing, he bears no liability by consensus; and witnessing is not even recommended for him in this situation.
The jurists differ only over one who picks up lost property which then perishes in his keeping without transgression or negligence on his part, while he did not have the finding witnessed although he was able to: is he liable for it because witnessing is obligatory upon him, or is he not liable because witnessing is recommended and not obligatory?
Imam Abu Hanifa, Zufar (and Muhammad in one narration), and the Shafi'is in one of the two views, hold that witnessing the finding is obligatory: whoever picks up lost property must witness that he took it, in order to make it known and return it to its owner when he comes. If it perishes, he bears no liability; but if he does not witness and it is lost, he is liable. The rationale is that, in principle, every sane person acts only for himself: he admitted the taking, which is the cause of liability, then claims what would absolve him, so he is not believed without evidence. Witnessing also serves to negate the denial of possession. Even if the two agree verbally that he took it for its owner in order to return it, he bears no liability even without witnessing, for their agreement counts as evidence; and if he admits taking it for himself, he is liable by consensus, on account of his admission.
If he takes it without witnessing, it perishes, and he then claims he took it for its owner while the owner calls him a liar, he is liable: he admitted the cause of liability, namely the taking, and claimed what would absolve him, namely taking it for its owner, so he is not absolved.
Al-Kasani said (may Allah have mercy on him): Abu Hanifa has two lines of argument. The first: taking another's property without his permission is, in principle, a cause of liability, except when the taking is on the basis of trust, that is, to return it to its owner; and this is known only through witnessing: if he does not witness, it is not known that the taking was for its owner, and the taking remains, in principle, a cause of liability.
The second: in principle, each person's work is for himself, by His saying:
"And that man will have nothing but what he strives for"
Surah An-Najm, 39
and His saying:
"To it belongs what it has earned, and against it what it has committed"
Surah Al-Baqarah, 286
So his taking of the lost property is, in principle, for himself and not for its owner; and taking another's property without permission, for oneself, is a cause of liability, for it is usurpation. The taking on behalf of its owner is known only through witnessing; when that is absent, the taking for oneself is necessarily established, and he is liable (Bada'i' as-Sana'i', 6/201).
They adduced the condition of witnessing from what is reported from Iyad ibn Himar (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Messenger of Allah said:
Whoever finds a lost object, let him have the finding witnessed by an upright person (or two), and let him neither conceal it nor hide it away. If he finds its owner, let him return it to him; otherwise it is the property of Allah, which He gives to whomever He wills.Authentic hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (1709), Ibn Majah (2505), an-Nasa'i in as-Sunan al-Kubra (5808), and Ahmad (18369)
The manner of witnessing is to say: whoever among you sees someone searching for a lost item, let him direct him to me, whether the lost property is one item or several. If he says this and the property then perishes, his word is accepted along with his oath. This is when he was able to witness and did not; as for one who finds no one to witness, or fears that the tyrant will take it if he does, and leaves off witnessing, he bears no liability by consensus, as has preceded (Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama', 4/344-345; Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, 8/164-165; Bada'i' as-Sana'i', 6/201; al-Ikhtiyar, 3/37; al-Jawhara an-Nayyira, 4/188-190; Mukhtasar al-Wiqaya, 2/251; al-Lubab, 1/661-662).
The majority of jurists (Abu Yusuf and Muhammad in the second narration from him, the Malikis, the Shafi'is in the school's view, and the Hanbalis) hold that witnessing lost property is recommended and not obligatory: whoever finds lost property without witnessing the finding, and it perishes or is lost without transgression or negligence on his part, bears no liability, and his word is accepted with his oath. They cite the hadith of Iyad ibn Himar quoted above. Its non-obligation is also because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not mention it in the hadiths of Zayd ibn Khalid and Ubiyy ibn Ka'b (may Allah be pleased with them both). From Zayd ibn Khalid al-Juhani (may Allah be pleased with him): a man came to the Messenger of Allah and asked him about lost property, and he said:
Note its strap and its container, then make it known for a year; if its owner comes, well and good, otherwise it is yours. He said: What about a stray sheep? He said: It is for you, or for your brother, or for the wolf. He said: What about a stray camel? He said: What has it to do with you? It has its drink and its shelter: it goes to the water and eats from the trees until its master finds it.Reported by al-Bukhari (2297) and Muslim (1722)
In Ka'b's hadith reported at the beginning of the chapter, the Prophet commanded the two men to announce without witnessing; and delaying clarification beyond the time of need is not permissible: had witnessing been obligatory, the Prophet would have clarified it. He was asked about the ruling on lost property and could not have omitted mentioning the obligatory in it; the command in Iyad's hadith must therefore be interpreted as encouragement, and that is why he gave the choice between one upright witness and two. Likewise, the finder assumes a trust and thus has no need of witnessing, like the depositor: for apparently he did not take it for himself, since the Law only permitted him to take it for this purpose; his boldness in taking it shows he took it in the lawful manner, so his outward conduct testifies for him: his word is therefore accepted, but with an oath, for the word of the trustworthy is accepted with an oath.
The meaning the Hanafis adduced is not sound: if he safeguards it and announces it, he did not take it for himself. The benefit of witnessing lies in protecting himself against coveting it and concealing it, and in protecting it from his heirs if he dies and from his creditors if he goes bankrupt.
The scholars further agree that if the usurper were to witness against himself that he usurped the goods he seized by force, that witnessing would not bring them under the rules of trusts; likewise, the absence of witnessing over trusts does not bring them under the rules of usurped property. There is no disagreement: the finder is trustworthy (amin) and is only liable as trustees are: by transgression and wasting.
The two imams Ibn Batal and Ibn Abd al-Barr said: as for the hadith of Iyad ibn Himar, its meaning is that if the finder does not announce the lost property, does not witness the finding, conceals it, does not follow its sunna of proclaiming and announcing it, hides it, and then evidence is established against him that he found lost property and took it, and he joins denial to that evidence by claiming it perished, he is not believed and is liable, for by that conduct he has left the status of a trustee; he is therefore liable unless he establishes evidence of its loss. But if he announces it, proclaims it, and follows its sunna of proclaiming it in the markets and at the doors of mosques and the like, even without witnessing, he bears no liability (Ibn Batal's Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, 6/565; al-Istidhkar, 2/751; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 2/231; Mukhtasar Ikhtilaf al-'Ulama', 4/344-345; Sharh Mushkil al-Athar, 8/164-165; Bada'i' as-Sana'i', 6/201; al-Ikhtiyar, 3/37; al-Jawhara an-Nayyira, 4/188-190; al-Muhadhdhab, 1/430; Rawdat at-Talibin, 4/202; Asna al-Matalib, 2/487; an-Najm al-Wahhaj, 6/10; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/505; al-Mughni, 6/7; al-Kafi, 2/352).
The Shafi'is said: witnessing has two benefits. The first: he may later covet it; if he has witnessed, he will not be able to.
The second benefit of witnessing: he may die before its owner comes, and the heir takes it; if he has witnessed, he is safe. They said: the place of the recommendation of witnessing is when the ruler is not a tyrant who, if he learned of it, would be feared to take it; otherwise witnessing is to be avoided, and likewise the announcement (an-Najm al-Wahhaj, 6/10; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/505).
The jurists differ over the man who finds lost property, takes it in order to announce it, then changes his mind and returns it to the place where he found it: is he liable for it or not?
The Hanafis hold that if he takes it and then returns it to the place from which he took it, he bears no liability according to the doctrine of the apparent narrations (zahir al-riwaya), and Muhammad stated this explicitly in al-Muwatta. For he took it seeking Allah's reward, voluntarily, to preserve it for its owner; by returning it to its place he annulled the voluntary act at its root, as if he had never taken it; it thereby appears that preservation was not binding upon him, but that he undertook it voluntarily, and he revoked it by returning it to its place, so that everything reverts to as if it never was.
This is when he took it for its owner and then returned it to its place and it was lost, whether its owner believed him or called him a liar; but the finder may have had the finding witnessed. If he did not witness, liability falls upon him according to Abu Hanifa, and does not fall upon him according to the two companions, whether he witnessed or not; his word is accepted with his oath that he took it for its owner. If he admits taking it for himself, he is not absolved from liability except by returning it to the owner, for it appears he took it by usurpation, and he must then return it to its owner, per the Prophet's saying that "the hand is liable for what it takes until it returns it". If he is unable to return the object itself, he must pay its value, as in usurpation.
Some of our masters (the Hanafis) said: this answer applies when he lifts it and does not leave that place until he sets it down in its spot; but if he goes off with it and then brings it back to its place, he is liable. The doctrine of the apparent narrations, however, is stated in general terms, without need of this interpretation (Bada'i' as-Sana'i', 6/201).
Likewise, if he takes the stray animal and then releases it where he took it, its ruling is that of lost property, for this is one of the two forms of luqata; as Malik reported from Yahya ibn Sa'id, from Sulayman ibn Yasar, that Thabit ibn Dahhak al-Ansari informed him that he found a camel in the Harra and tethered it, then mentioned it to Omar ibn al-Khattab, who ordered him to announce it three times; Thabit told him it was distracting him from his estate, and Omar said to him: send it back where you found it (reported by Malik in al-Muwatta, 1447). This indicates that liability is not obligatory (Bada'i' as-Sana'i', 6/201-202; Majma' ad-Damanat, 1/468; Durrar al-Hukkam, 6/110).
The Malikis said: if the finder takes the lost property and then returns it to its place and it is lost after the return, this involves two cases. The first: that he took it for safekeeping, that is, to announce it. If he took it with the intention of safekeeping and kept it, then returned it after a while to its place or elsewhere, he is liable; if he returns it after a short time, there are two interpretations on whether he is liable or not. The second: that he took it for other than safekeeping, with no intention of preserving it or of taking it for himself. If he returns it promptly he bears no liability, without disagreement, and he is liable if he returns it after a long time, for returning lost property to its place is returning it to where its loss is feared.
All this applies when he does not fear for it a treacherous person and knows he can safeguard it, or is in doubt; but if he fears a treacherous person, he is liable by returning it, by agreement, whether he returns it from near or far. This concerns what he may lawfully pick up; as for what he may not lawfully pick up, he is liable for taking it if he does not return it to its place, for its return is obligatory (al-Istidhkar, 7/245; adh-Dhakhira, 9/106; at-Taj wal-Iklil, 5/39-40; Mawahib al-Jalil, 8/38-39; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 7/126; ash-Sharh al-Kabir ma'a Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi, 5/529; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar, 5/39-40).
The Shafi'is and Hanbalis hold that if he takes the lost property and then returns it to its place, he is liable in every case: it is a trust that came into his hands, so its preservation was binding upon him, and if he loses it he is liable as one who loses a deposit; for once it came into his hands its preservation became obligatory, and leaving it amounts to destroying it, unless he returns it to its place with the permission of the ruler or his deputy.
He bears no liability, for the ruler has oversight over property whose owner is unknown; likewise if he picked it up and handed it to the ruler or his deputy. As for Omar's report, it concerns the stray animal whose picking up is not permitted.
Ibn Qudama said: as for what is not lawful to pick up, if he takes it, it is possible that he may be absolved by returning it to its place without liability, for these considerations, and because it was initially obligatory upon him to leave it in its place, so this is granted to him after taking it. It is also possible that he is not absolved from liability by returning it, for it entered the sphere of his liability and he is not freed from it by returning it to its place, unlike stolen property and what may lawfully be picked up; on this view he is only absolved by returning it to the ruler or his deputy. As for Omar, he was the ruler: his command to return it was like taking it from him. As for Jarir's hadith, it is no proof, for he did not take the cow, nor did his servant take it: it joined the cows without any act or choice of his (al-Mughni, 6/15-16; Kashshaf al-Qina', 4/260-261; al-Ifsah, 2/61).
The Hanafis and Shafi'is state explicitly that if a person finds lost property on the ground and does not take it, and it is then lost, he bears no liability. The Hanafis said: if he finds something on the ground and does not take it before it is lost, he bears no liability, for it never came into his possession; likewise if he turns it over with his foot to see what it is without taking it, he bears no liability (Majma' ad-Damanat, 1/470).
The Shafi'is said: if he sees something lying on the ground and pushes it with his foot to learn its kind or size, and does not take it before it is lost, he bears no liability, for it never came into his possession (Rawdat at-Talibin, 4/223).
The jurists agree, as has preceded, that if the finder takes the lost property with the intention of trust and safekeeping on behalf of its owner, and has the finding witnessed, it is a trust in his hands for which he is not liable if it perishes without transgression or negligence.
But if he takes it from the outset with the intention of breach of trust, that is, he picks it up resolved to own it without announcing it, he has acted unlawfully by the agreement of the scholars, and it is not permissible for him to take it with this intention. If he takes it, liability for it is binding upon him, whether it perishes through his negligence or otherwise, according to what is reported from the Messenger of Allah:
None shelters a stray except one who is astray (culpable).Authentic hadith, reported by Abu Dawud (1702), Ibn Majah (2503), and Ahmad (4/360, 362)
Others reported it through Jarir ibn Abdallah (may Allah be pleased with him), and Muslim (1725) reported it from Zayd ibn Khalid al-Juhani (may Allah be pleased with him) with the wording: "Whoever shelters a lost object is astray so long as he does not seek its owner." The meaning is gathering it to oneself for oneself, not for its owner in order to return it to him; for gathering it to oneself for its owner is not unlawful. Moreover, he took another's property without its owner's permission for himself, which amounts to usurpation (Bada'i' as-Sana'i', 6/200; al-Hidaya, 2/175; al-'Inaya, 8/201; al-Ikhtiyar, 3/37; Tabyin al-Haqa'iq, 3/301; al-Jawhara an-Nayyira, 4/188; al-Lubab, 1/661; at-Taj wal-Iklil, 5/34-35; Mawahib al-Jalil, 8/30-31; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 7/123-124; ash-Sharh al-Kabir ma'a Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi, 5/526-527; Manh al-Jalil, 8/230; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar, 5/35-36; Bidayat al-Mujtahid, 2/228; Rawdat at-Talibin, 4/215; an-Najm al-Wahhaj, 6/27; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/513; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 7/627; ad-Dibaj, 2/559; al-Mughni, 6/11).
The Shafi'is, in the view contrary to the sound one, said: if he intends breach of trust without actually committing it, he is liable. Once the finder becomes permanently liable, whether by actual breach of trust or by its mere intention, if he then desists and wishes to announce it and own it, that is permitted to him on the sounder view of the Shafi'is (Rawdat at-Talibin, 4/215; an-Najm al-Wahhaj, 6/27; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/513; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 7/627; ad-Dibaj, 2/559; al-Mughni, 6/11).
As for the Hanafis and Malikis, they apply the detailed distinction, presented earlier, concerning the ruling on picking it up.
Taking a reward for lost property involves several cases, most of which have already been covered in the chapter on ju'ala in this book, for whoever wishes to refer to them.
First case: its owner fixes for the finder a known payment; this case takes one of two forms. First form: he picks it up after learning of the reward. The jurists of the four schools agree that if the owner of the lost property fixes a known payment for whoever finds it, the finder is entitled to it if he picked it up after the reward reached him.
Ibn Qudama said (may Allah have mercy on him): the ju'ala for returning a stray animal, a runaway slave and the like is permissible; this is the view of Abu Hanifa, Malik and al-Shafi'i, and I know of no dissenter. The basis is Allah's saying:
"And to whoever brings it, a camel's load [as a reward]"
Surah Yusuf, 72
The camel's load was, for them, a known measure like the wasq; and the law of those before us is a law for us, so long as our law contains nothing that contradicts it.
In the two Sahihs, Abu Sa'id (may Allah be pleased with him) reported:
A number of the Prophet's companions set out on a journey until they encamped near one of the Arab tribes. They asked them for hospitality, but they refused to host them. The chief of that tribe was stung, and they did everything for him, but nothing helped. One of them said: Why do you not go to those people who encamped near us? Perhaps one of them has something. They came to them and said: O company, our chief has been stung and we have done everything for him without benefit; does any of you have anything? One of them said: Yes, by Allah, I can recite a healing formula (ruqyah); but by Allah, you asked us for hospitality and refused to host us, and I will not recite for you until you fix a reward for us. They agreed on a flock of thirty sheep. He went and recited over him the opening of the Book (al-Fatiha), and it was as if a tether had been untied; he got up and walked with nothing wrong with him. When they came to the Messenger of Allah and told him, he said: And how would you know that it was a ruqyah? Then he said: You have done well; divide it up, and allot me a share with you. And the Messenger of Allah smiled.Reported by al-Bukhari (2156) and Muslim (2201)
The flock (qati'a) is thirty head of sheep.
This is also because need calls for it: the work may be unknown, such as returning a runaway slave or a lost animal, and no contract of hire (ijara) can be concluded on unknown work, while the need presses for their return. It may also be that no volunteer is found, so need led to permitting the offering of a reward despite the work being unknown, for such an undertaking is not binding, unlike hire. Indeed hire, being binding, requires the determination of a duration, whereas non-binding contracts, such as partnership and agency, do not require determining a duration, and either party may withdraw: thus no one is bound by something unknown, unlike a binding contract (al-Mukhtasar al-Fiqhi (Sharh Hudud Ibn Arafa), 12/365; al-Ma'una, 2/119; Mawahib al-Jalil, 7/450; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 7/59; Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi ma'a ash-Sharh al-Kabir, 5/429; Manh al-Jalil, 8/59; al-Muhadhdhab, 1/411; al-Bayan, 7/407; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/541; Asna al-Matalib, 2/439; Nihayat al-Muhtaj, 5/532; an-Najm al-Wahhaj, 6/89; al-Mughni, 6/20; al-Kafi, 2/332; Sharh az-Zarkashi, 2/220; Kashshaf al-Qina', 4/247-248; ar-Rawd al-Murbi', 2/152; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 4/280-281; Matalib Uli an-Nuha, 4/208).
It is stated in ad-Durr al-Mukhtar: the finder has, in principle, no share of a reward for money, an animal or a stray, except by stipulation, as when one says: whoever returns it shall have such-and-such; he then receives a similar wage, as a complimentary privilege (tarkhaniyya), like an invalid hire. Ibn Abidin said (may Allah have mercy on him): his saying (he receives a similar wage) was justified in al-Muhit on the grounds that it is an invalid hire. It was objected in al-Bahr that there is no hire at all, since there is no acceptor; and al-Maqdisi answered by interpreting that he said it for an assembly present (ad-Durr al-Mukhtar ma'a Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 4/280-281).
I say: what supports this is the case of the hires of al-Walwalijiyya: a man lost something and said: whoever directs me to it shall have such-and-such. The hire is void, for the hired party is unknown, and pointing is not work deserving a wage, so no wage is due. If he specifies, saying to one particular man: if you direct me to it you shall have such-and-such, and the man walks and points it out, a similar wage is due for the walking, for that is work deserving a contract of hire, though unquantified, so a similar wage is due; if he points it out without walking, it is like the first case. From this it appears that here, if he specifies, the hire is defective because the place of return is unquantified, so a similar wage is due; if he generalizes, it is void and no wage is due (ad-Durr al-Mukhtar ma'a Hashiyat Ibn Abidin, 4/280-281).
The jurists who permit the ju'la differ, as has preceded, over one who acts and brings the lost property before the reward reaches him: is he entitled to the reward? The Shafi'is, the Hanbalis and Ibn al-Qasim among the Malikis, with a distinction from him covered earlier under ju'ala, hold that if one says: whoever returns my lost item shall have such-and-such, and someone returns it without hearing his call or knowing of the reward, he is entitled to nothing.
The Shafi'is said: if he says: whoever returns my runaway slave shall have such-and-such, and someone returns it without having heard the call, he is entitled to nothing, for he acted gratuitously; and if he sought compensation because he believed that such work is never left unrewarded, he is likewise entitled to nothing according to the school, and his belief has no effect (Rawdat at-Talibin, 4/89; al-Bayan, 7/410; Mughni al-Muhtaj, 3/542; Nihayat al-Muhtaj ma'a Hashiyat ash-Shirbini, 5/535).
The Hanbalis said: whoever performs the work rewarded before the reward reaches him is entitled neither to the reward nor to any part of it, for he acted gratuitously, and taking it is forbidden to him as consuming wealth unjustly, unless his owner, informed of the situation, gives it to him voluntarily, whether he returned it before or after learning of the reward; for the reward is in exchange for the work, not the delivery, that is, handing over what was returned (al-Mughni, 6/25; Kashshaf al-Qina', 4/250; ar-Rawd al-Murbi', 2/153; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 4/281; Matalib Uli an-Nuha, 4/208).
The Malikis said: if the owner says: whoever brings me my runaway slave or my strayed camel shall have such-and-such, and a person brings it without having heard his words, but seeking lost items and runaways is his habit, he is entitled to a reward like it, whether the reward for such work equals the named amount, less or more. If the two dispute after the work is complete over the amount of the reward and neither account resembles the other, they take mutual oaths, and the worker receives a reward like it; whichever account is closer, its speaker's word is accepted; if both are equally close, the worker's word is taken, both swear, and judgment is given against the one who refuses to swear.
As for one who did not hear the owner say "whoever brings me my runaway slave shall have such-and-such" and brings it, when seeking lost items and runaways is not his habit, he has no reward: only expenses are due to him, that is, the expenses of the runaway, meaning what he spent on him in food, transport and clothing, not his own expenses or those of his mount during the search (ash-Sharh al-Kabir ma'a Hashiyat ad-Dasuqi, 5/435; al-Mukhtasar al-Fiqhi, 12/365-366; Sharh Mukhtasar Khalil, 7/64; at-Taj wal-Iklil, 4/544; Tahbir al-Mukhtasar, 4/621; Hashiyat as-Sawi 'ala ash-Sharh as-Saghir, 9/107-108).
Ibn Qudama said (may Allah have mercy on him): whoever returns lost property or a lost item, or performs for another work other than returning a runaway, without a reward having been offered, is entitled to no compensation; I know of no disagreement on this: it is work deserving compensation in exchange, and therefore not deserving it without exchange, like work under a contract of hire. If they dispute over the reward, one saying: you promised me such-and-such for returning your lost property, and the owner denies it, the word of the one who returned it is accepted with his oath, for the original situation favors him.
If they agree on compensation but dispute its amount, the owner's word is accepted, for the original is the absence of the disputed excess; and since his word governs the existence of the compensation, so too its amount, like the word of the capital partner in mudaraba. It is also possible that they take mutual oaths, like two parties to a sale disputing the price, or the hirer and the hired disputing the wage. On this view, if they dispute the distance, one saying: I fixed the reward for returning it from Aleppo, and the other: rather from Homs; or if they dispute which slave the reward was stipulated for, one saying: I returned the slave for which you stipulated the reward, and the other: I stipulated it for a slave you did not return, the owner's word is accepted, for he knows his stipulation better, and because the other alleges a condition in this contract which the owner denies, whereas the original is the absence of a condition (al-Mughni, 6/22; Sharh az-Zarkashi, 2/220; al-Insaf, 6/390-393; Kashshaf al-Qina', 4/250; ar-Rawd al-Murbi', 2/153-154; Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 284-285).