And his statement: "Spend it." If its ownership were contingent upon his taking ownership of it, he would have clarified that to him and would not have permitted him to use it before that. In one phrasing: "It is yours." In another phrasing: "Eat it." These phrasings all indicate what we have said. Also, because collection and announcement are a cause for ownership, so once complete, it must follow that ownership is established by it by way of ruling, like revival of barren land (ihya') and hunting. Also, it is "a cause by which one gains ownership, so ownership does not stop after it upon his statement or his choice, like other causes. This is because the accountable person (mukallaf) is only responsible for performing the causes, and once he has performed them, the ruling is established by force and decree from Allah Almighty, not contingent upon the choice of the accountable person. As for borrowing, it is the cause in itself, so ownership is not established without it.

Section: If two people collect it and announce it for a year, they both own it together. If we say that ownership is contingent upon choice, and one of them chooses it to the exclusion of the other, the one who chose owns half of it, not the other. If they see it together, and one of them rushes and takes it, or one of them sees it and informs his companion, and he takes it, then it belongs to the one who took it; because entitlement to the lost property is through taking, not through seeing, like hunting. If one of them says to his companion, "Take it," and he takes it, you must look at his intention; if he took it for himself, it is his, not the one who ordered him. If he took it for the one who ordered him, it is for him, just as if he had appointed him as an agent in hunting for his sake.

Section: The lost property is owned as a conditional ownership (mulkan mura'an), which ceases upon the arrival of its owner, and he guarantees its replacement for him if returning it is impossible. The apparent view is that he owns it without a consideration (iwad) that is established as a liability on him, and the obligation of the consideration only arises anew upon the arrival of its owner, just as the cessation of ownership over it arises anew upon his arrival, and just as the obligation of half of the dower arises anew for the husband, or its replacement if the establishment of ownership in it is impossible due to divorce. This is the opinion of some of the companions of al-Shafi'i. Most of them said: He does not own it except with a consideration that is established as a liability on him.