its disbursement, which is the endowment (hubus), it is in the position as if its owner were known. It was said to Ahmad: "What about water buffaloes that are caught, and the enemy has driven them off to the Muslims, and they have been returned; may one eat from them?" He said: "If it is known to whom they belong, nothing may be eaten from them." It was said to Ahmad: "What about what the enemy captures from the Muslims, and then the Muslims seize it (25); are they required to hold it until its owner is identified?" He said: "If it is known, then it is said: It is (26) for so-and-so." And its owner was nearby. He was told: "A slave boy was captured in the lands of the Romans, and he said: 'I belong to so-and-so,' a man in Egypt (27)?" He said: "If the man is known, his property is not to be distributed (28), and it is returned to its owner." He was told: "We captured a ship in the lands of the Romans, in it were the sailors (29), and they said: 'This is for so-and-so, and this is for so-and-so.'" He said: "The owner of this has been identified, it shall not be distributed."

Section: The Qadi said: "The disbelievers take ownership of the property of the Muslims through force (qahr)." This is the view of Malik and Abu Hanifah. Abu al-Khattab said: "They do not take ownership of it." This is the view of al-Shafi'i. He (30) said: "It is the apparent meaning of Ahmad's speech, where he said: 'If its owner finds it before the distribution (31), he is more entitled to it.'" He (32) said: "He only forbade him from taking it after its distribution because the Imam's distribution of it functions as a legal judgment, and whenever a judgment encounters a matter subject to ijtihad, the judgment is executed." There are two narrations narrated from Ahmad on this. Those who said they do not take ownership of it argued based on the hadith of the Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) she-camel, and because it is protected property upon which a transgressive hand has fallen, so ownership is not established by it, like usurpation, and because whoever does not possess the personhood of another through force, does not possess his property through it, as is the case of a Muslim with a Muslim. The argument for the first [position] is that force is a cause by which a Muslim takes ownership of the property of a disbeliever, so by it, a disbeliever takes ownership of the property of a Muslim, like a sale. As for the she-camel, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) only took it because he caught it while it was neither distributed nor purchased. According to this, they take ownership of it before it is moved to the Abode of Disbelief (Dar al-Kufr). This is the view of Malik. The Qadi mentioned that they only take ownership of it upon possession in their abode. This is the view of Abu Hanifah. It is narrated in...