Ibn al-Mundhir said: He must return it to its owners, and he is not entitled to a fee. This is implied by the position of Al-Shafi'i and Al-Qadi, for the reasons previously mentioned. However, the implication of the statement of Imam Abu Abd Allah [Ahmad] is that whoever rescues it is entitled to a standard fee (ajr al-mithl), based on what we have mentioned. The reasoning for the possibility we suggested is that this is property which its owner cast into a situation where it would be destroyed if left there, as a matter of his own choosing; therefore, the one who takes it owns it, just like what they throw away out of a lack of desire for it. Furthermore, what they have mentioned [in opposing this] constitutes the actual destruction of the item, which is not permissible, akin to engaging in the act of destruction itself. As for if the ship breaks and a group of people retrieves the cargo, Malik said: The owners of the goods take their goods, and there is nothing for the one who found them. This is the position of Al-Shafi'i, Ibn al-Mundhir, and Al-Qadi. According to the analogy of Ahmad's explicit text, the one who extracts it in this instance should be entitled to a standard fee, because that is a means toward saving it, preserving it for its owner, and protecting it from drowning. For if a diver knows that he will be paid a fee, he will hasten to retrieve it in order to save it, whereas if he knows that it will be taken from him without compensation, he will not risk his life to extract it. Therefore, it is appropriate that he be awarded a fee, similar to the reward for returning a runaway slave.

Section: Al-Qadi mentioned that in the case where one finds a young male slave or a young female slave, the analogy of the school (Madhhab) is that he does not own them through public announcement (ta'rif). Al-Shafi'i said: One owns the male slave but not the female slave, because for him, ownership through public announcement is a loan (iqtirad), and according to him, a female slave cannot be owned through a loan. This issue requires examination, for a foundling (laqit) is legally presumed to be free. If he is of an age to speak for himself and acknowledges that he is a slave, his acknowledgement is not accepted, because a child's statement has no legal standing. Even if his statement were considered in this matter, it would have to be considered regarding identifying his master; and Allah knows best.