it is not guaranteed that he will not tempt him and teach him disbelief; rather, the apparent case is that he will raise him upon his religion, and he will grow up on that, like his own child. If he picks him up, he is not to be left in his custody. If the child is ruled to be a disbeliever, he may pick him up, because the disbelievers are allies of one another.

Section: If two people pick him up and grasp him simultaneously, there are three scenarios. The first is that one of them is someone who may have the child left in his custody, such as a free, upright Muslim, and the other is someone who may not, such as a disbeliever (if the foundling is Muslim), a profligate, a slave whose master has not permitted him, or a mukatab (contracted slave). In this case, he is handed over to the one who may have him in his custody, and the participation of the others is as if it did not exist, because if he had picked him up alone, he would not have been allowed to keep him; therefore, if he shares it with someone who is qualified for pick-up, the latter is more entitled. The second is that both of them are such that the child cannot be left in the custody of either, in which case he is removed from both and handed to someone else. The third is that each of them is someone who would be allowed to have the child in his custody if he were alone, but one of them is more beneficial for the foundling than the other, such as one being wealthy and the other indigent; the wealthy one is more entitled, because that is more beneficial for the child. If a Muslim and a disbeliever pick up a child ruled to be a disbeliever, the Muslim is more entitled. Our companions and the companions of al-Shafi'i said: They are equal, because the disbeliever has guardianship over the disbeliever and he would be allowed to keep him if he picked him up alone, so he is equal to the Muslim in that regard. Our position is that handing him to the Muslim is more beneficial for him, because he will become a Muslim and thus attain happiness in this world and the Hereafter, be saved from the Fire, and be absolved of the jizya (poll tax) and humiliation; therefore, prioritizing based on this is better than prioritizing based on wealth, which only pertains to expanding his expenditure, and the wealthy person might be stingy, so the expansion might not materialize. If the two prioritization criteria conflict, such that the Muslim is poor and the disbeliever is wealthy, the Muslim is more entitled, because the benefit resulting from his Islam is greater than the benefit resulting from wealth combined with disbelief. According to the analogy of their view regarding prioritizing the wealthy, it would follow that the generous person should be prioritized over the stingy person;