Abu Yusuf, and one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i, except that Abu Yusuf said: 'He should take a guarantor for him,' because the evidence has proven him by his descriptions, just as it is proven in a liability (dhimmah) by its description in a forward sale (salam). Abu Hanifah and Muhammad said: 'It is not obligatory to hand him over, because they do not testify to his identity (ayn), but rather they testify to the descriptions; and descriptions may coincide while the identities differ. This differs from the item in a forward sale, for what is obligatory there is the minimum level in which the description exists (38), and it is not specified.' Our position is that the letter of a judge to another judge regarding an absent person is accepted, and the one against whom the judgment is issued is seized for the right, even though there is no testimony to an identity; rather, the one against whom the judgment is issued is seized by his name, lineage, and description. Thus, it is the same here, once the obligation of handing him over is established. For the judge who hands him over shall tie a tight thread around his neck that cannot pass over his head, and he shall hand him over to the claimant or his agent to transport him to the writing judge, so that he may have the witnesses testify to his identity. If they testify to his identity, he is handed over to his claimant. If they do not testify, it becomes obligatory (39) to return him to the first judge, and he remains under the liability of the one who took him, because he took him without entitlement.

946 - Issue: He said: '(And if he had found it before that, and returned it for the sake of the reward, he is not permitted to take it.)'

This is only so because if he found it before the reward reached him, he found it without compensation, and he acted upon the property of another without a reward having been stipulated; therefore, he is not entitled to anything, just as if he had found it and its owner had not stipulated anything regarding it. This differs from the finder after the reward has reached him, for he only offered his services for a stipulated compensation, so he became entitled to it, like a hired worker (ajir) who works after the contract. It is the same whether his finding of it was after the reward or before it, for the reason we mentioned. He is not entitled to take the reward for returning it, because the return is incumbent upon him without compensation, so it is not permitted to take compensation for an obligatory act, like all other obligations. The finder only takes it in a situation where it is permissible for him to take it as compensation for the permissible act of finding. Once this is established, whoever finds it before