and walking off with it, or he took it from a particular person but does not know who he is. In short, if he does not know its owner, the author says: “He should give it in charity on his behalf, while remaining liable for it.” There are two courses of action here:

The first is to hand it over to the ruler—that is, the judge—thereby absolving oneself of liability, without any dispute. That is, none of the scholars has disputed that if he does not know its owner, he should give it to the judge, who will dispose of it as he sees fit. Undoubtedly, this is easier for the individual.

At times, however, the judge may not be trustworthy. Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “As for these judges of ours, I do not think that anything should be handed over to them.” Imam Ahmad died in the third century AH, yet he said of the judges of his time that he did not think anything should be entrusted to them, because they were not trustworthy. So what then of the judges of our time?! Trustworthiness among them is rarer than red sulfur—unless Allah wills otherwise.

In any case, if the judge is untrustworthy and one fears that, if he gives it to him, he will direct it elsewhere, or if the judge refuses to accept it: in the first case—that is, when he is untrustworthy—it is not permissible to hand it over to him. As for the second case, is the judge required to accept it, or is he not required to do so? This is a matter requiring consideration and detail. It may be said: if the state has designated a particular authority to receive lost property, the judge may decline and say, “Go to the other authorities.” But if there are no bodies responsible for receiving lost property, then I am of the view that the judge must accept it.

This problem may arise only rarely in cases of usurpation, praise be to Allah, but it arises frequently with lost property in Mecca. Regarding lost property in Mecca, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: