then customary practice is followed. For example, if the one who returned the runaway slave says, “I spent one thousand riyals on him,” while his master says, “Rather, five hundred,” then we now have a claimant and a defendant, and the one liable for payment is the master. So do we accept the master’s statement, or do we consider what people’s customary practice indicates? The answer is the latter. If it is customary for one to spend one thousand on a runaway slave of this kind, we accept the statement of the one who returned him; but if it is customary to spend no more than five hundred on him, we accept the master’s statement. If the matter is unclear to us, we revert to the basic principle: the master’s statement is accepted, because he is the one liable for payment.
If he intended all of this—the return of the runaway slave and the expenditure on him—as a voluntary act of charity, but later regretted it after being told, “How could you intend it as charity when you have lost such-and-such and exerted yourself so much over him?!” and he then wishes to seek reimbursement, he has no right to do so, because at the time he acted, he did not act with the intention of compensation.
But if he intended to seek reimbursement for returning him and for the expenses, yet later resolved in his heart to absolve the slave’s owner, then regretted it and wished to seek reimbursement, he has the right to do so. For when he acted, he intended reimbursement and compensation; he only later intended to absolve him, but did not actually absolve him. When a person merely intends something without doing it, he retains the choice. This is like someone who sets aside money to give in charity, then changes his mind before giving it; or someone who builds a house intending to dedicate it as an endowment for the poor, but changes his mind after completing the house. This is permissible, because he has neither verbally declared it an endowment nor assigned it to the poor. Likewise, if he intends to offer this sheep as a sacrifice, then changes his mind and sells it, there is nothing due from him. There is no blame in this, because such matters are only finalized by actual execution; before that, when they are merely intentions, nothing is binding upon him.