Al-Sharḥ al-Mumtiʿ - Ibn al-'Uthaymin - (10/380)

Al-Sharḥ al-MumtiʿIbn al-'Uthaymin

However, if strong indications show that the owner abandoned it because he no longer wanted it and had no need for it—for example, if the animal is extremely emaciated, unfit for slaughter or, in the case of a riding animal, for riding, and entirely unfit for any use—then we say that the one who takes it becomes its owner.

His statement, “or because its owner is unable to care for it,” means that the animal has not become unable to continue; rather, it is still vigorous, but its owner is unable to manage it—for example, a camel that has become defiant toward its owner and refuses to go. The one who takes it then becomes its owner, because its owner abandoned it due to his inability to manage it.

The second view on this issue is that its finder does not become its owner; rather, it remains the property of its owner, since he did not abandon it. However, the taker is entitled to the customary wage. This is based on the previous point that whoever saves another person’s property from destruction is entitled to the customary wage.

The third view—and it is the preponderant one—is that a distinction should be made between one who leaves it because he is unable to manage it and one who leaves it because it can no longer continue. If he leaves it because it can no longer continue, the one who takes it becomes its owner; but if he leaves it because he is unable to manage it, the taker does not become its owner, though he is entitled to the customary wage, because he saved it from destruction.

As for belongings, they remain the property of their owner. If he leaves them in the open wilderness, the person who brings them to him is not entitled to the customary wage—unless he brings them to him in order to save them from being lost, in which case he is entitled to the customary wage. The difference between belongings and an animal is that the animal may perish, whereas the belongings do not perish.

There remains the question of a runaway slave: if his master is unable to recover him, does he belong to the finder?

No; rather, the finder is entitled to the customary wage. The difference between him and an animal is that the slave can free himself. Thus, when his owner leaves him, he has not abandoned him in complete despair, because he is able to free himself; he is therefore not like an animal. Whoever finds him must return him to his owner, but is entitled to the customary wage.

لكن إذا علمنا بالقرائن القوية أنه تركه رغبة عنه، وأنه لا حاجة له فيه، كما لو كان الحيوان هزيلاً جداً، لا يصلح للذبح ولا للركوب إن كان من المركوبات، ولا يصلح لشيء أبداً، فهنا نقول: يملكه آخذه. وقوله: «أو عجز ربه عنه» يعني أن الحيوان لم ينقطع، بل هو نشيط، لكن عجز عنه، كبعير تمرد على صاحبه وأبى أن يذهب، فإنه يملكه آخذه؛ لأن صاحبه تركه عجزاً عنه. والقول الثاني في هذه المسألة: أن واجده لا يملكه، بل يبقى على ملك صاحبه؛ لأنه لم يتركه، ولكن للآخذ أجرة المثل، وهذا مبني على ما سبق أن من أنقذ مال شخص من هلكة فله أجرة المثل. والقول الثالث وهو الراجح: أنه يفرق بين من تركه عجزاً ومن تركه لانقطاعه، فمن تركه لانقطاعه ملكه آخذه، ومن تركه عجزاً لم يملكه آخذه وله أجرة المثل؛ لأنه أنقذه من هلكة. أما المتاع فإنه لمالكه، فإن تركه بالفلاة فإن من أحضره إليه ليس له أجرة المثل، إلا إذا أحضره إليه إنقاذاً له من الضياع فله أجرة المثل، والفرق بين المتاع والحيوان، أن الحيوان يهلك وهذا لا يهلك. بقي العبد الآبق إذا عجز عنه سيده فهل يكون للواجد؟ لا، ولكن له أجرة المثل، والفرق بينه وبين الحيوان أن العبد يمكنه أن يخلص نفسه، فصاحبه إذا تركه لم يتركه يأساً بالكلية؛ لأنه يستطيع أن يخلص نفسه فليس كالحيوان، فمن وجده فهو لمالكه ولكن له أجرة المثل.