established his evidence. The analogy of a lost item to seized property (maghsoub) is incorrect; for the dispute there is over whether it was seized by force, and the original state is the absence of that, and the denier's statement contradicts his claim, thus requiring evidence. Here, however, it has been established that this property is a lost item and that it has an owner other than the one in whose possession it is, and there is no claimant for it other than the one who describes it, and his truthfulness has been deemed more probable; therefore, it should be delivered to him.

Section: If two people describe it, lots are cast between them. Whoever the lot falls to shall swear that it is his, and it shall be surrendered to him. Likewise, if they both produce two pieces of evidence, lots are cast between them, and whoever the lot falls to shall swear, and it shall be delivered to him. Al-Qadi mentioned this, while Abu al-Khattab said: It is divided between them because they are equal in what entitles one to receive it, so they are equal in it, just as if it were in their possession. The view we have stated is more correct and more akin to our principles regarding cases where two people claim an object in the possession of someone else. Furthermore, since they both claim an object in the possession of someone else and are equal in evidence, or lack thereof, it goes to the one upon whom the lot falls, just as if they both claimed a deposit in the hands of a person who said, "It belongs to one of you, but I do not know which one specifically." This is different from the case where it is in their hands, because the possession of each one of them covers his half, so his statement regarding it is given preference. If one person describes it and another produces evidence that it is his, it belongs to the owner of the evidence because it is stronger than description. If the one who described it has already taken it, it shall be seized from him and returned to the owner of the evidence because it has become clear that it belongs to him. If it has perished, the owner may hold whichever of them he wishes liable, whether the one who described it or the one who delivered it to him. Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i held this view. It is also possible to infer that no liability falls upon the finder (multaqit). This is the view of Ibn al-Qasim, the student of Malik, and Abu 'Ubayd, because he did what he was commanded to do, and he is a trustee who has neither been negligent nor remiss; therefore, he is not liable, just as if he had delivered it by the order of a judge. Moreover, since delivery is mandatory for him, the delivery occurred without his choice, so he is not liable, just as if he had taken it under duress. Our argument is that he voluntarily delivered the property of another to someone who is not entitled to it, therefore he is liable, just as if he had delivered a deposit to someone other than its owner when he strongly believed he was the owner. As for when he delivers it by the order of a judge, its owner has no right to demand it from the one who delivered it, because it was taken from him by force; thus he is not liable, just as if an usurper had seized it. Whenever the one who described it is held liable, he has no recourse against anyone because the aggression was from him and the loss occurred in his possession. If the one who delivered it is held liable, he has recourse against the one who described it, because he was the cause of his being fined, unless the finder had acknowledged to the one who described it that he was indeed the owner and rightful claimant, in which case he has no recourse against him, because he acknowledged that he was its owner and rightful recipient, and that the owner of the evidence wronged him by holding him liable, so he has no recourse against someone who wronged him. If the lost item had perished while in the possession of the finder, and he was held liable for it, he may have recourse against the one who described it for what he paid as a fine. The owner of the lost item does not have the right to hold the one who described it liable, because what he received was the property of the finder, not the property of the owner of the lost item, unlike the case where the actual item was handed over. As for when a person describes it and takes it, then another comes and describes it and claims it, he is not entitled to anything; because the first person became entitled to it by his description and the absence of any other claimant, and his possession of it was established, and nothing was found to necessitate seizing it from him, so it must be left for him, like the rest of his wealth.

Section: If a claimant for a lost item comes but does not describe it, and does not produce evidence that it is his, it is not permissible to deliver it to him, regardless of whether he strongly believes he is telling the truth or lying, because it is a trust; therefore, it is not permissible to deliver it to anyone who does not prove that he is the owner, just like a deposit. If he does deliver it, and another person comes and describes it or produces evidence, the one who described it must pay the indemnity for it to him, because he caused it to be lost for its owner through his negligence. He has the right of recourse against the claimant, because he took the property of someone else. Its owner has the right to hold the one who took it liable, and once he holds him liable, he has no recourse against anyone else. If no one comes to claim it, the finder has the right to demand it from the one who took it, because he is not secure from the owner coming to claim it, thus making him pay for it, and because it is a trust in his possession; therefore, he has the right to take it from the one who usurped it, just like a deposit.