Section: If one finds ambergris on the seashore, it belongs to him; because it is possible that the sea cast it up, and the original state is the absence of ownership over it, so it is permissible for the one who takes it, like game. Sa'id narrated, saying: Ismail ibn Ayyash informed us, from Mu'awiyah ibn 'Amr al-'Abdi (18), who said: The sea of Aden cast up a piece of ambergris the size of a camel, so some people in Aden took it. They wrote to Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, and he wrote back to us: "Take the fifth from it, and give the rest to them, and if they sell it to you, then buy it." We wanted to weigh it, but we could not find a scale that could accommodate it, so we cut it into two and weighed it, and found it to be six hundred ratl. We took its fifth and gave the rest to them, then we bought it for five thousand dinars and sent it to Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz. Not long after, he sold it for thirty-three thousand dinars.

Section: If one catches a gazelle and finds it dyed, or finds a charm on its neck, or an earring in its ear, or something similar that indicates possession has been established over it, it is a lost item (luqata); because that is evidence that it was owned. Ahmad said regarding someone who cast a net into the sea, and a fish fell into it, and it dragged the net, and it passed through the sea, and a man caught it: The fish belongs to the one who captured it, and as for the net, he must announce it and return it to its owner. He thus rendered the net a lost item because it was owned by a human, and the fish belongs to the one who caught it because it was permissible and the owner of the net did not possess it, as his net did not secure it, so it remained permissible. Likewise, if he set a trap or a snare, and game from the land fell into it, and he took it and went with it, and another person caught it, it belongs to the one who caught it, and he returns the implement to its owner, as it is a lost item that he must announce. Ahmad said regarding a man who came upon a snare containing a wild donkey or a doe, which was near death, and he rescued it and slaughtered it: It belongs to the owner of the snare, and whatever game was in the snare belongs to the one who set it, even if it was a falcon, a hawk, or an eagle. He was asked about a falcon, a hawk, a trained dog, or a cheetah that had gone away from its owner, and he called it but it did not answer him, and it passed through the land until it reached such-and-such days, then it came to a village and landed on a wall, and a man called it and it answered him? He said: He must return it to its owner. It was said to him: What if he called it and it did not answer him, so he set a snare for it and caught it with it? He said: He must return it to its owner. He thus granted this to its owner because he had already owned it, and his ownership did not cease by it wandering away from him. The fish in the net, he had neither owned it nor captured it. Likewise, he granted what fell into the snare of the falcon, hawk, and eagle to the owner of the snare, and he did not grant it here to the one in whose snare it fell; because (19) this pertains to that which is known to have been owned by a person and then wandered off, and this is only known by report, or by the presence of what indicates ownership upon it, such as finding a strap on its leg, or signs of training (20), such as it responding to the one who calls it, and the like. Whenever there is nothing to indicate that it is owned, it belongs to the one who caught it, because the original state is the absence of ownership over it and its permissibility.

Section: Whoever has his clothes taken from the bathhouse and finds a replacement for them, or his sandals are taken and a replacement left for him, he does not own it by that action. Abu Abd Allah said regarding someone whose clothes were stolen and he found others: He should not take them. If he does take them, he must announce them for a year, then give them away in charity. He only said that because the thief of the clothes did not engage in an exchange with the owner that would necessitate the loss of ownership over his clothes. Thus, when he takes them, he has taken someone else's property without knowing the owner, so he must announce it like a lost item. It is possible to consider this matter: if there is a context indicating theft, such as his clothes or sandals being better than the ones left behind, and they were of a type that would not be confused by the one who took his clothes and sandals, then there is no need for announcement; because the announcement was only instituted (21) for wealth lost by its owner, so that he may learn of it and take it. The one who left these is aware of them and is satisfied with its replacement as compensation for what he took, and he does not recognize that it is his, so there is no benefit in announcing it. Since it is not explicitly mentioned, nor is it in the meaning of the explicitly mentioned, there are three opinions on what he should do with them: first, that he gives them in charity as we mentioned. Second, that it is permissible for him to take them; because its owner, in appearance, abandoned them for him, offering them as compensation for what he took, so it became like the one who permitted him to take them with his words, so he became like one who overcame...