the treasury; for the public treasury benefits all Muslims, whereas this benefits the finder, who has taken pains over him and cared for him. Moreover, he may himself have been the cause of the child acquiring wealth. Thus, this view is correct: one of the causes of inheritance is patronage through finding a foundling.
His guardian in a case of deliberate killing is the imam, who may choose between retaliation and blood money. If a man, or a married woman whose husband is Muslim or non-Muslim, acknowledges that he is his child, the child is ascribed to him, ..........
His statement, “His guardian,” means: the guardian of the foundling.
His statement, “in a case of deliberate killing,” means: when the foundling is killed deliberately.
His statement, “The imam may choose between retaliation and blood money,” means that he acts according to whichever is more beneficial. At times retaliation is more beneficial, and at other times blood money is more beneficial. If the matter is uncertain, then blood money is chosen.
Retaliation is more beneficial when the one who deliberately killed him is known for evil, corruption, and aggression. In that case, retaliation is more beneficial. If someone were to say, “If you exact retaliation against him, you forfeit his blood money for the public treasury,” we would reply: When we consider the public interest, we give preference to retaliation.
At times, however, the deliberate killer is not known for evil and corruption. Perhaps a dispute arose between him and this foundling, and he killed him. In such a case, we may say that taking the blood money is preferable. But is this choice between retaliation and blood money a choice of personal preference or a choice governed by benefit? It is the latter: a choice governed by benefit. Whenever someone is given a choice between two matters while acting on another’s behalf, what is intended is that which serves the latter’s interest. As for one who is given a choice between two matters merely to grant him latitude, where no one else’s rights are involved, this is a choice of personal preference, because its purpose is to make things easier for the legally responsible person.
There remains a third option: pardon. But pardon is not possible here, because pardon means that there is to be no compensation for this foundling who was killed, and thus he would lose out in this respect.