If he spent without the judge's order, intending to seek reimbursement from him, Ahmad said: The maintenance is paid from the public treasury. Shurayh and al-Nakha'i said: He may be reimbursed for the maintenance if he had witnesses to his spending upon him. Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz said: He must swear an oath that he did not spend it voluntarily, and if he swears, the foundling is made to work to pay it back. Al-Sha'bi, Malik, al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, Abu Hanifa, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, al-Shafi'i, and Ibn al-Mundhir said: He is a volunteer [and he does not reclaim anything, just as if he had volunteered] with it. Our argument is that he has performed what was incumbent upon someone else, so he is entitled to reimbursement from the one upon whom the obligation rested, like a guarantor who pays on behalf of the guaranteed. We have already mentioned the rule of this principle in its place.

Section: As for if something is found with the foundling, it belongs to him, and his maintenance is to be provided from it. This is the opinion of al-Shafi'i and the jurists (Ashab al-Ra'y). This is because an infant possesses property and has valid possession (yad sahiha), as evidenced by the fact that he inherits and is inherited from, and it is valid for his guardian to buy and sell on his behalf; and whoever has valid ownership has valid possession, just like an adult. Once this is established, everything that is connected to him or related to his benefit is under his possession, and by this, ownership is established for him in appearance. Among this is what he was wearing, or what was tied to his clothing, or in his hands, or placed with him, such as a cradle, a hamper (saft), and whatever is in it of bedding or dirhams, and the clothes beneath him [and upon him]. If it was tied to an animal, or tied to his clothes, or if he was in a tent, or in a house, then it belongs to him. As for what is separate from him, if it is distant from him, it is not in his possession. If it is close to him, like a garment placed by his side, there are two views: One is that it does not belong to him, because it is separate from him, so it is like something distant. The second is that it is his, and this is more correct, because the appearance is that it was left for him, so it is his, in the status of what is beneath him, and because that which is near...