[and its taker becomes its owner], similar to ears of corn that fall to the ground, and everything else that people abandon due to lack of desire for it.

Section: If someone leaves behind baggage, and a person rescues it, he does not own it. This is because it has no sanctity in itself, and there is no fear of its destruction as there is with an animal; for an animal dies if it is not fed and watered, and beasts of prey might consume it, whereas baggage remains until its owner returns to it. If what was left behind is a slave, he is not owned by taking him, because in the customary sense, a slave is able to save himself by reaching places where he can live, unlike an animal. It is permissible for him to take the slave or the baggage in order to save them for their owner, and he is entitled to a standard fee (ajr al-mithl) for saving the baggage. Ahmad stated this explicitly, and the same applies to a slave, based on analogy. Al-Qadi said: His statement regarding the necessity of the fee must be interpreted as meaning that the owner had promised it to him or commanded him to do so. However, if he did not promise him anything, then there is no entitlement to a fee, because he worked on another's property without a fixed reward, and thus deserves nothing, just like the finder of lost property (al-multaqit). This contradicts the apparent meaning of Ahmad's words; for if the owner had assigned him a fee, he would have deserved it, yet he did not assign him a standard fee. This case differs from the finder of lost property, for the finder of lost property does not rescue the item from destruction, and if he had left it, its owner might have returned to look for it in its location and found it. Here, if this person had not removed it, it would have been lost and perished, and its owner would not have returned to it. Therefore, assigning a fee in this instance preserves wealth without causing harm, so it is permissible, similar to the reward for returning a runaway slave. Furthermore, the Lawgiver has provided an incentive for taking up lost property, which is that one becomes its owner if the owner does not appear, and this suffices in lieu of a fee. Therefore, it is appropriate to legislate an incentive for saving this [property] as a matter of priority, and there is nothing for it but the fee. As for what passengers on a ship cast into the sea for fear of sinking, I am not aware of any statement from our scholars regarding it, other than the general application of the ruling we have mentioned. It is possible that whoever retrieves this owns it. This is the position of Al-Layth ibn Sa'd, and it was also held by Al-Hasan regarding whoever retrieves it; he said: "Whatever the water has receded from belongs to its owners."