because the principle is its persistence until after the year has passed, its entry into his ownership, and the obligation of its substitute upon him. If it is said: You have stated that if its owner came [after the sale] (3) of the finder of it, or his gifting of it, he would have nothing but its substitute, so why did you say that if it transferred to the heir, its owner has the right to take it? We say: Because the heir is the successor to the one from whom it was inherited, and ownership is only established for him in it in the manner in which it was established for the one from whom it was inherited. The ownership of the one from whom it was inherited in it was a conditional ownership, contingent upon the non-appearance of its owner; therefore, the ownership of his heir is the same, unlike the ownership of the purchaser or the recipient of the gift, for they possess a stable ownership.

945 - Issue: He said: (And if its owner set a known reward for whoever finds it, he may take it if he found it after the reward reached him.)

The sum of this is that the reward (ju'alah) for returning a stray animal, a runaway slave, and others like them is permissible. This is the view of Abu Hanifa, Malik, and al-Shafi'i, and we do not know of any dissenter regarding it. The foundation for this is the saying of Allah, the Almighty and Exalted: {And for whoever brings it, there is a camel's load, and I am its guarantor} (1). Abu Sa'id reported that some of the companions of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) came upon a tribe from the Arab tribes, but they did not host them. While they were in that state, the leader of those people was stung. They said: Is there a reciter among you? They said: You did not host us, so we will not do so until you set a reward for us. So they set a flock of sheep for them, and a man began to recite the Mother of the Quran (Surah al-Fatiha), gathering his saliva and spitting, and the man recovered. They brought them the sheep, but they said: We will not take them until we ask the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) about it. They asked the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), and he said: "And what made you know that it is a ruqyah (incantation)? Take it, and assign a share for me along with you." Reported by al-Bukhari (2). And because necessity calls for this; for the work may be unknown, like returning a runaway slave or a stray animal and the like, and a hiring contract (ijarah) cannot be concluded for it, yet necessity calls for their return, and he may not find anyone who will do it voluntarily. Thus, necessity dictates the permissibility of offering a reward for it, despite the ignorance of the work, because it is not binding, unlike a hiring contract. Do you not see that since a hiring contract is binding, it required the specification of a duration, whereas non-binding contracts like partnership and agency do not require the specification of their duration? And because in a non-binding contract, it is permissible for each of the two parties to abandon it, so it does not lead to one being obligated by something unknown to him.