Thus, no wala' (right of patronage) is established over him, similar to one whose lineage is known. Furthermore, if he were the son of two free people, there would be no wala' upon him, and if he were the son of two emancipated slaves, there would be no wala' for anyone other than their emancipator. The hadith of Wathilah is not established, as stated by Ibn al-Mundhir. Regarding the report of 'Umar, Ibn al-Mundhir stated: "Abu Jamilah is an unknown man, and his hadith cannot serve as a proof." It is possible that 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) meant by his statement "You have his wala'" that you have his guardianship, the responsibility for him, and his protection. For this reason, he mentioned it immediately after his 'arif (representative/leader) said: "He is a righteous man." This implies delegating the guardianship to him because he is deemed trustworthy regarding him, not inheritance.

Once this is established, the ruling of the foundling in matters of inheritance is the same as the ruling for one whose lineage is known and whose family has perished: he is turned over to the Bayt al-Mal (Public Treasury) if he has no heir. If he has a wife, she receives one-fourth, and the remainder goes to the Bayt al-Mal. If it is a woman who has a husband, he receives one-half, and the remainder goes to the Bayt al-Mal. If the foundling has a daughter or a relative of maternal lineage (dhu rahim), such as a daughter's daughter, she takes the entire estate because the return (radd) and the relative of maternal lineage take precedence over the Bayt al-Mal. And Allah knows best.

953- Issue: He said: (And if the one who found the foundling is not trustworthy, he shall be prevented from traveling with him.)

The essence of this is that if the finder is trustworthy, the foundling is left in his custody because 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) left the foundling in the custody of Abu Jamilah when his representative said to him: "He is a righteous man." And because he arrived at him first, he is more entitled to him, based on the statement of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace): "Whoever arrives first at something that no Muslim has arrived at before, he is more entitled to it." Is it obligatory to have witnesses for him? There are two views: One is that it is not obligatory, as it is not obligatory to have witnesses for a lost item (luqatah). The second is that it is obligatory, because the intent behind witnessing is the preservation of lineage and freedom, so it is uniquely required to have witnesses, like marriage; it differs from a lost item, for the intent in that case is the preservation of wealth, so witnessing is not required, like a sale. However, if he is not trustworthy, the apparent wording of al-Khiraqi is...