"The burden of proof is upon the claimant" (2). Also, the quality of a claimant does not entitle one to it, just like property that has been seized by force (maghsoub). Our argument is the statement of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "If someone comes to you informing you of its number, its container, and its tying, then deliver it to him" (3). Ibn al-Mundhir said: This is what is established from the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and it is the view I hold. Ibn al-Qassar (4) narrated it as: "If its seeker comes and describes its strap and its number, then deliver it to him." In the hadith of Zayd which we mentioned: "Recognize its tying and its container, then announce it for a year; if it is not identified, then spend it, and if its owner comes one day of time, then deliver it to him" (3). He means: if he mentions its characteristics, because that is what is mentioned at the beginning of the hadith, and he did not mention evidence in any part of the hadith. If it were a condition for delivery, it would not have been permissible to omit it, nor would he have ordered delivery without it. Furthermore, establishing evidence for a lost item is impossible because it [was only lost] (5) during a state of negligence and oversight, [so making its delivery dependent upon it] (6) is an absolute prevention of it ever reaching its owner. This defeats the purpose of picking up a lost item and leads to the wasting of people's property. That which is of this nature should have the requirement of evidence dropped, like spending on an orphan. Combining this position with the preference for picking up the lost item over leaving it is highly contradictory; for picking it up would then be a certain waste of a Muslim's property, an exhaustion of oneself through an announcement that is of no benefit, and a risk to one's religion by abandoning the obligation to announce it. That which is of this nature must be forbidden, so how can it be virtuous? Based on this, we say: if it were not mandatory to deliver it based on description, it would not be permissible to pick it up, for the reason we mentioned. As for the Prophet's (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) statement: "The burden of proof is upon the claimant," he means when there is a denier, because of his statement in its context: "And the oath is upon the one who denies." There is no denier here. Moreover, evidence varies, and the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) made the description the evidence for the claimant of a lost item. So, if he describes it, he has established his evidence. The analogy of a lost item to seized property (maghsoub) is incorrect; for the dispute there is over whether it was seized by force, and the original state is the absence of that, and the denier's statement contradicts his claim, thus requiring evidence. Here, however, it has been established that this property is a lost item and that it has an owner other than the one in whose possession it is, and there is no claimant for it other than the one who describes it, and his truthfulness has been deemed more probable; therefore, it should be delivered to him.