that he spends on the foundling from his own wealth, whereas this is the opposite. Furthermore, spending on a boy from his father's wealth is conditional upon the boy being in need of that due to having no wealth and no maintenance left behind by his father; the statement of the trustee is not accepted regarding this, so it is necessary to establish that before the judge. This is not the case in our scenario; therefore, the necessity of seeking the judge's permission there does not necessitate its necessity for the foundling. Whenever he cannot find a judge, he may spend in any case, because it is a situation of necessity. Al-Shafi'i said: He does not have the right to spend without the judge's permission in a place where he can find a judge, and if he spends, he is liable, similar to if the young boy's father had deposits with a person, and he spent on him from it; this is because he has no guardianship over his wealth, but only the right of custody. If he cannot find a judge, there are two views regarding the permissibility of spending. Our position is what we mentioned initially, and we do not concede that he has no guardianship over his wealth; for we have clarified that he has the authority to take and protect him, and he is the person most entitled to him, and we have mentioned the difference between the foundling and that which they drew an analogy to. When this is established, it is recommended that he seek the judge's permission in a place where he finds a judge, because it is further from suspicion, more decisive in cutting off doubt, contains an exit from disagreement, and is a protection for his wealth from having to reclaim what he spent. When this is established, he ought to spend on him according to what is customary (al-ma'ruf), as we mentioned regarding the orphan's guardian. If the foundling reaches adulthood and they differ regarding the amount spent or about negligence in spending, the word of the spender is accepted, because he is a trusted agent (amin), so his word is accepted in that, like the orphan's guardian.

952 - Issue: He said: (And his wala' [clientage/patronage rights] belongs to all Muslims.)

He means his inheritance belongs to them, for the foundling is originally free, and there is no wala' upon him. Rather, the Muslims inherit from him because they have been granted the right to every wealth that has no owner, and because they inherit the wealth of one who has no heir other than the foundling; therefore, the same applies to the foundling. Al-Khiraqi's statement, "And his wala' belongs to all Muslims," is a figurative expression, due to the participation of all Muslims and the one who possesses the wala' in taking the inheritance and acquiring it entirely in the absence of an heir. This is the apparent view, and it is the view of Malik, al-Shafi'i, and most of the scholars.