A report in the same sense is transmitted by Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī from ʿUmar, Ibn Masʿūd, Ibn ʿUmar and ʿĀʾishah. All of them concur that, should the finder consume the property, he must reimburse its owner—apart from the literalist (Ẓāhirī) school.

Imām Mālik and al-Shāfiʿī base their position on the Prophet’s—peace and blessings be upon him—words, “Then it is at your disposal,” a statement that draws no distinction between rich and poor. Among the proofs they cite is the report recorded by al-Bukhārī and al-Tirmidhī from Suwayd ibn Ghaflah, who said:

“I met Uways ibn Kaʿb, and he told me: ‘I found a purse containing one hundred dinars, so I went to the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him. He said, “Announce it for a year.” I announced it but found no claimant. I then came to him three times, whereupon he said, “Keep its container and its cord; if its owner appears, hand it over; otherwise make use of it.”’”

Al-Tirmidhī and Abū Dāwūd record a variant wording: “then spend it.”

The source of the disagreement is the apparent sense of the ḥadīth on lost property, which seems to conflict with a fundamental legal maxim: “The property of a Muslim is not lawful except with his willing consent.”

• Whoever gives precedence to this maxim over the literal text—namely the phrase, “then it is at your disposal”—holds that the finder may only give the item in charity, and he remains liable if the owner later disallows the charity.
• Whoever gives precedence to the ḥadīth and views it as an exception to the maxim rules that, once a year has passed, the article lawfully becomes the finder’s wealth and he bears no liability should the owner eventually turn up.
• A middle position allows the finder to use the property after a year, yet only while remaining answerable for it.

As for handing the article over to one who claims it, the jurists agree that it is not to be given to him unless he can identify both the container (ʿifāṣ) and the cord (wikāʾ). They differ, however, once he does identify them: is further evidence required or not?

• Mālik says the identifying marks suffice; no additional proof is necessary.
• Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī say he is entitled to it only with corroborating testimony.

The root of their dispute is the clash between the general rule that testimony is requisite for a claim and the surface meaning of this ḥadīth. Those who prioritise the rule demand evidence; those who prioritise the ḥadīth dispense with it. Al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Ḥanīfah insist on testimony because the Prophet’s—peace be upon him—words, “Note its container and its cord; if its owner comes, otherwise it is at your disposal,” can be understood as instructing the finder merely to be able to hand it over upon those two marks. Given that possibility, they revert to the legal maxim, for foundational principles are not overridden by mere possibilities unless an unequivocal additional text—soon to be mentioned—establishes an exception.

Mālik and his companions maintain that the claimant must, besides describing the container and the cord, specify the type and number of the dinars. They argue that this requirement appears in some versions of the ḥadīth, whose wording is: “If its owner comes and describes its container and its cord …”