“…and the number of coins—then hand it over to him.” They add:

Ignorance of the exact number does not vitiate the claim as long as the claimant can describe the purse and its cord, nor is the claim invalidated if he overstates the amount. They differ, however, when he understates the number—there are two opinions—and they likewise disagree when he does not know the coin’s description but does identify the purse and the cord. If his description is simply wrong, he is entitled to nothing.

If he knows only one of the two identifying marks mentioned in the text and is ignorant of the other, one view says he receives nothing unless he can name both; another says it may be given to him after suitable verification; a third holds that if he pleads ignorance an inquiry is made, but if his description proves erroneous the property is not delivered to him.

The school further disagrees, once the proper identifying mark is produced, whether the article should be handed over with or without an oath: Ibn al-Qāsim allows delivery without an oath, whereas Ashhab requires an oath.

Stray sheep: The scholars concur that whoever finds a stray sheep in a barren area far from settled habitation may eat it, because the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said of such a sheep, “It is yours, or for your brother, or for the wolf.” They differ, though, over whether the finder must later pay its value to the owner. The majority say he is liable; in Mālik’s most famous opinion he is not. The cause of the dispute is the tension between the ḥadīth’s surface meaning and the established legal principle. Here Mālik gives priority to the apparent meaning and rules accordingly, yet he does not permit similar disposal of items that must be announced for a full year, owing to the stronger wording in that case. A second report from him does impose liability, and the same ruling applies to any perishable food that is likely to spoil if left.

Mālik’s view, as set out by his followers, divides such property into three categories:

1. Property that remains in the finder’s possession yet is liable to perish if left—such as a sheep in the wilderness or food that spoils quickly.

2. Property for which there is no fear of spoilage.

As for the first category—what stays in the finder’s hand yet may perish—it itself splits into three sub-types:

(1) Something trifling, of no real worth, whose owner is presumed not to seek it owing to its insignificance. Such an item need not be announced and belongs to whoever finds it. The proof is the report that “the Messenger of Allah—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—passed by a date lying on the road and said, ‘Had it not been from the charity collections, I would have eaten it,’” and no announcement was required. The same rule applies to things like a stick or a whip, although Ashhab nevertheless deemed it preferable to announce even these.

(2) An item that is small yet still of some value and utility. All agree it must be announced; they dispute only the length of the announcement—some say a full year, others merely a few days.