Such as his saying: "Whoever returns my slave shall have a third of him," or "Whoever returns my two slaves shall have one of them." If a person returns him, he is entitled to the fair wage (ajr al-mithl), because he performed work for compensation that was not delivered to him, so he is entitled to [the fair wage], just as in Ijarah (hiring).

Section: Whoever returns a lost item or a stray animal, or performs work for another person other than returning a runaway slave, [without a reward], is not entitled to compensation. We know of no disagreement regarding this; because it is work for which one is entitled to compensation only with a mutual contract (mu'awadah), so he is not entitled to it without one, like work in Ijarah. If they disagree regarding the reward, and he says: "You set a reward for me for returning my lost item," and the owner denies it, then the owner's statement is accepted with his oath, because the original state (asl) is with him. If they agree on the compensation but disagree on its amount, the owner's statement is accepted, because the original state is the absence of the disputed excess, and because his word is accepted regarding the existence of the compensation, so it is likewise for its amount, like the owner of capital (rabb al-mal) in Mudarabah. It is possible that they should swear oaths against each other, like the buyer and seller when they disagree on the price, or the employee and the employer when they disagree on the amount of the wage. Based on this, if they swear oaths, the contract is rescinded and the fair wage becomes due. The same ruling applies if they disagree regarding the distance, such as if he says: "I set the reward for you for returning it from Aleppo," and he says: "Rather, for [returning it from] Homs." If they disagree regarding the specific slave for whom the reward was set for his return, and he says: "I returned the slave for whom you stipulated the reward for me," and he says: "Rather, I stipulated the reward for you for the slave you did not return," the owner's statement is accepted because he is more knowledgeable about his condition, and because he claimed a condition in this contract against him which he denied, and the original state is the absence of the condition.

Section: [As for returning] the runaway slave, he is entitled to the reward for returning him even if he did not stipulate it for him. This has been narrated from Umar, Ali, and Ibn Mas'ud. This is the position of Shurayh, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, Malik, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). It has been narrated from Ahmad that he did not make that mandatory. Ibn Mansur said: Ahmad was asked about the reward for the runaway, and he said: "I do not know; people have discussed it." He had no authentic Hadith regarding it. The apparent implication of this is that there is no reward for him in it, and this is the apparent position of al-Khiraqi, for he said: "If a slave runs away, the one who brings him to his master is entitled to what he spent on him," and he did not mention a reward. This is the position of al-Nakha'i, al-Shafi'i, and Ibn al-Mundhir; because he performed work for another person without him stipulating compensation for him, so he is not entitled to anything, just as if he returned his stray camel. The justification for the first report is what was narrated by Amr ibn Dinar and Ibn Abi Mulaykah, that the Prophet (peace be upon him) set a reward for the runaway, if he brings him from outside the Sanctuary (Haram), of one dinar. Also, it is the statement of those we named from the Companions, and we do not know of any opponent for them in their time, so it was a consensus. Furthermore, in stipulating a reward for their return is an incitement to return runaways and a protection for them against returning to the Abode of War (Dar al-Harb), their apostasy from their religion, and strengthening the people of war with them, so it should be legislated for this public interest. Through this, it differs from returning a stray animal, as that does not lead to that. The other report is closer to being correct; because the original state is the absence of obligation, and the report narrated regarding this is mursal (a chain missing a companion), and there is discussion regarding it, and neither consensus nor analogy (qiyas) regarding it is established, for it is not established that the Lawgiver considered this mentioned interest, nor has it been realized. For it is not the norm for them to flee to the Abode of War except for those brought from it, if it is near, and this is unlikely for them. As for the first report, there is a difference in the report regarding the amount of the reward. It has been narrated from Ahmad that it is ten dirhams or a dinar, if he returns him from the city (misr). If he returns him from outside it, there are two reports: one is that he is obligated to pay a dinar or twelve dirhams, due to the report narrated regarding it, and because that is narrated from Umar and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them). The second is that he is entitled to forty dirhams if he returns him from outside the city. This was chosen by al-Khallal, and it is the statement of Ibn Mas'ud and Shurayh, as Abu Amr narrated.