Unlike the lost item, wealth is a place for treachery, and human souls are inclined to acquire it, which is not the case for the foundling. Therefore, based on this, whenever the finder wishes to travel with the foundling, he is prevented from doing so, because he is moving him away from those who know his situation, and there is no guarantee that he will not claim he is his slave and sell him.

Section: If a foundling is picked up by someone of hidden status whose true justice or treachery is unknown, the foundling is left in his custody; for his rule is the rule of a just person regarding the lost item of wealth, guardianship in marriage, testimony, and most other legal rulings. This is because the default state of a Muslim is justice; this is why 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "Muslims are witnesses for one another." If he wishes to travel with the foundling, there are two views. The first is that he is not to be left in his custody. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, because his trustworthiness has not been verified, and thus treachery on his part cannot be ruled out. The second is that he is left in his custody, because he is left in his custody while in the city without a supervisor assigned to him, so he is like a just person; and because the apparent state is concealment and protection. As for the one whose justice is known and whose trustworthiness has become apparent, the foundling is left in his custody whether he is traveling or at home, because he is trusted with him, provided his travel is not for the purpose of relocating.

Section: If the trustworthy person’s travel with the foundling is to a place where he will reside, we examine the matter: if he picked him up in the city and intends to relocate with him to the desert, he is not left in his custody for two reasons. The first is that staying in the city is better for the foundling in his religion and worldly life, and more comfortable for him. The second is that if he was found in the city, the apparent state is that he was born there, so staying there offers more hope for discovering his lineage and the appearance of his family and their acknowledgment of him. If he intends to relocate with him to another city, there are two views. The first is that he is not left in his custody, because his remaining in his city offers more hope for discovering his lineage; thus, he is not left in the custody of the one moving away, by analogy to the one moving him to the desert. The second is that he is left in his custody, because his guardianship is established, and the second city is like the first in terms of comfort, so he is left in his custody, just as if he had moved from one side of the city to the other. This differs from the one moving him to the desert, because that causes him harm by depriving him of comfort. If he picked him up in the desert, he has the right to move him to...