The al-Shaybani said: I said to Abdullah ibn Mas'ud: 'I have found runaway slaves (27).' He replied: 'You have a reward and a bounty.' I said: 'This is the reward, but what is the bounty?' He said: 'For every head, forty dirhams (28).' Abu Ishaq (29) said: 'I gave the reward for a runaway in the time of Mu'awiyah, forty dirhams.' This indicates that it was widely known in the first era. Al-Khallal said: 'The hadith of Ibn Mas'ud is more authentic in its chain of transmission.' It is narrated from Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz that he said: 'If he finds him at a distance of three [days' travel], he is entitled to three dinars.' Abu Hanifah said: 'If he returns him from a distance of three days' travel, he is entitled to forty dirhams. If it is less than that, he is given compensation according to the extent of the place to which he labored (30) to reach him.' There is no difference, according to our Imam, between whether the reward exceeds the value of the slave or does not exceed it. This is also the position of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. Abu Hanifah said: 'If he is of low value, the reward is reduced from his value by one dirham (31), so that the slave does not become a total loss for him.' Our evidence is the generality of the proof, and because it is a reward earned by returning the runaway, he is entitled to it even if it exceeds his value, just as if his master had stipulated it for him. He is also entitled to it if his master dies (32) from his estate. This is the position of Abu Hanifah. Abu Yusuf said: 'If the one who returned him is one of the heirs of the master, the reward is void.' Our evidence is that this is compensation for his work, so it does not become void upon death, like the wage in a hiring contract, and just as if he were not among the heirs of the master. Once this is established, there is no difference between whether the one who returned him is known for returning runaways or not. This is the position of the Scholars of Reason (Ashab al-Ra'y). Malik said: 'If he is known for that, he is entitled to the reward; otherwise, he is not.' We have the report and the aforementioned tradition without distinction, and because he returned a runaway, he is entitled to the reward, just as one who is known for returning them is.