before the reward reaches him, he is not entitled to anything, whether he returned it for the sake of the reward or otherwise; for if he is not entitled to it despite intending it and acting for its sake, he is all the more unlikely to be entitled to it in the absence of that. Al-Khiraqi only mentioned returning it for the sake of the reward, God willing, to draw attention thereby to his lack of entitlement in cases where he returns it for reasons other than the reward, and because the need for knowing the ruling is only manifest in one who desires the reward, whereas as for one who abandons it and does not desire it, disputes regarding it rarely arise. And God knows best.

947 - Issue: He said: '(And if the one who found the lost item is a foolish person (safih) or a child, his guardian shall undertake its announcement. If the year is completed, he shall add it to the wealth of its finder.)'

The summary of this is that if a child, a person of unsound mind, or a foolish person finds a lost item, his possession (yad) of it is established due to the generality of the reports, and because this is a form of earning, so it is valid coming from him, like hunting and gathering firewood. If it perishes in his hand without negligence, there is no liability upon him because he took his own property just as he would take it. If it perishes due to his negligence, he is liable for it from his wealth. If his guardian knows of it, it becomes incumbent upon him to take it, because he (the child/foolish person) is not of the people of preservation and trustworthiness. If he leaves it in his hand, he becomes liable for it, because it is incumbent upon him to preserve that to which the right of the child relates, and this relates to his right. So, if he leaves it in his hand, he is wasting it. If the guardian takes it, he shall announce it, because its finder is not of the people of announcement. Once the period of announcement has elapsed, it enters into the ownership of its finder, because the cause of ownership has had its conditions fulfilled, so ownership is established for him, just as if he had hunted game. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, except that his companions said: 'If the period of announcement has elapsed, and the child or person of unsound mind is in such a state that one may borrow on their behalf, he takes possession of it for them; otherwise, he does not.' Some of them said: 'He takes possession of it for them in all cases,' because the apparent state is the non-appearance of its owner, so taking possession of it is in their best interest. Our position is the generality of the reports, and if this were treated as borrowing, the finding of a child for whom borrowing is not permitted would not be valid, because it would be a voluntary act of preserving another's wealth without benefit.