except with the permission of the ruler. If he is unable to do so, selling it himself is permissible because it is a state of necessity. However, if he is capable of seeking his permission, it is not permissible without his consent, because it is protected property over which he has no authority; therefore, it is not lawful for anyone other than the ruler to sell it, as with items other than lost property. Our argument is that it is property whose consumption has been made permissible for the finder, so its sale is also made permissible for him, just like his own property. Furthermore, it is property whose sale is permitted for him when he is unable to reach the ruler, so it is permitted even when he is capable of doing so, as with his own property. Once this is established, whenever he wishes to eat or sell it, he must preserve its description, then announce it for a year. If its owner comes, and he has already sold it and preserved its price, he shall hand it over to him. If he has eaten it or consumed its price, he shall be liable for its value on the day he consumed it. If the price is lost without negligence before he acquires it, or if it diminishes, or if the item itself is lost or diminishes without his negligence, then there is no liability upon the finder. If it is lost [or diminished] (22) or if the price diminishes due to his negligence, the finder is liable for it. Likewise, if the price is lost after he acquires it, or if it diminishes, he is liable for it.

The second type is that which can be preserved (23) through treatment, such as grapes and fresh dates. He considers what (24) is in the best interest of its owner. If drying it is beneficial, he dries it, and he has no choice but to do so, because it is another person's property, and he is obligated to do what is in the owner's best interest, like the guardian of an orphan. If he needs to incur a cost to dry it, he sells part of it for that purpose. If the best interest lies in selling it, he sells it and preserves its price, as with food and fresh dates. If it is impossible to sell it and it cannot be dried, he must eat it, as with watermelons. If eating it is more beneficial for the owner, he may eat it as well, because that is where the interest lies. The opinion of our companions implies that goods are not owned through the announcement process, and that he is not permitted to eat all of this, but rather he must choose (25) between giving it away as charity or selling it. Ahmad said regarding someone who finds food in his house that he does not recognize: "He should announce it as long as he does not fear it will spoil. If he fears it will spoil, he should give it as charity, and if its owner comes, he shall compensate him." Malik said the same. The scholars of opinion say regarding the lost item that does not last for a year: "He should give it as charity." Al-Thawri said: "He should sell it and give its price as charity." Our argument for the permissibility of eating it is the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)