meaning that the person responsible for this child has cast him aside and abandoned him, not wanting him. It is known that this is generally conceivable only in the case of one who cannot walk—for example, an infant in a cradle whom we find in a mosque, in the public baths, or on the pavements, with contextual indications leading us to believe that he has been abandoned. One such indication is that, when he is abandoned, a note is written on his cradle: “This child has no one.” This occurs when—may Allah protect us—adultery has taken place and the woman bears a child from that adultery. If it is known that she is unmarried, she may abandon this child. Sometimes this happens frequently in mosques, and at other times it is less common. In any case, if he has been abandoned, then it is clear that he is a foundling.

His statement, “or has gone astray,” means: or has become lost. In fact, there is an evident problem with this. If we know that this child is five or six years old and has become separated from his family, and is now crying and searching for them, can we say that he is a foundling, such that a person may take him and keep him? No. This resembles lost property, in the sense that his family must be sought. This occurs frequently during the seasons of Hajj and Umrah. Yet, by Allah’s grace to this government—the Saudi government—it has appointed people to receive such lost children. It is well known that when someone loses a child of this age, the first place he goes is to the police, who receive such children. Much good is thereby achieved.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that whoever finds him takes him as a foundling. But this is evidently problematic. The correct view, then, is that a foundling is only a child whose lineage and status of slavery are unknown and who has been abandoned. We should not say, “or has gone astray”; rather, we say that the family of a lost child should be sought.