His statement, “If someone’s sandals or the like are taken, and he finds something else in their place, then it is lost property”: sandals are well known. “Or the like” includes his walking stick, cloak, book, and similar things. This is why the author said, “or the like,” without specifying particular items. But he “finds [something else] in its place”—that is, in the place where it was. Here, “place” is in the accusative as an adverbial of location, while “something else” is the object of “finds.” “Then it is lost property” means that what he finds in its place is deemed lost property.

An example is the shelves provided for sandals. If a man places his sandals on a shelf and, when leaving the mosque, finds different sandals where he had placed his own, while his own sandals have been taken, we say to him: What you found is lost property; as for your sandals, search for them. This is because it is possible that a thief stole them, after which another person came, found the space empty, and placed his own sandals there. This applies all the more if he had left his sandals at the door of the mosque.

But suppose someone says: There was no one in the mosque except myself and another man. We entered together, or he entered before me; there were only my sandals and his. Then the man left and took my sandals, and when I came out, I found only these sandals. In such a case, one may be certain that the man who had been in the mosque made a mistake and took the other man’s sandals—or did so deliberately. So how can we say that they are lost property?! For deeming them lost property entails one of two things: either the person leaves them and returns to his family barefoot, or he takes them and publicly announces them as lost property, which is difficult. Yet the jurists—may Allah have mercy on them—say that they are lost property, because even if there is only a one-in-a-hundred possibility, the basic principle is the inviolability of another person’s property; therefore, he cannot take them and dispose of them.