the public or private interest. Thus, the imam chooses only between retaliation and blood money.

The author’s statement, “His guardian in a case of deliberate killing is the imam,” does not mention his deputy, nor does it say “the ruler,” meaning the judge. It may be said: As for the first, it is understood from the jurists’ writings that the imam’s deputy takes the imam’s place. For example, according to our present-day convention in matters of retaliation, prescribed punishments, and the like, the imam’s deputy in this regard is the Minister of the Interior. The Minister of the Interior has deputies—the regional governors and provincial governors. Accordingly, we say: the imam or his deputy, as is stated in many places in the jurists’ writings. As for the ruler, he undertakes judicial office; if the imam has appointed him to act in such matters, then he is his deputy in that capacity.

His statement, “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,” means that if a man acknowledges the foundling as his own, we ascribe the child to him without evidence, even after the foundling’s death. This is because the Sacred Law seeks to establish lineage. Hence the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “The child belongs to the marital bed, and the adulterer receives the stone.” (1) Thus, the Lawgiver seeks to establish lineage. This is why a person is forbidden to marry a woman during her waiting period, lest lineages become intermingled and confused.

For example, a man learns of a foundling, then comes to the judge, the regional governor, or the provincial governor and says, “This is my child.” The child is then ascribed to him on two conditions: