to do so. Property and actions are alike in this respect.

This category is prohibited only because another person has a right to it. If that person does not exist, is wholly unknown, or is entirely beyond reach, his claim upon it lapses altogether. Likewise, when there is hope of identifying him or being able to deliver it to him, his claim is suspended until his identity becomes known or delivery becomes possible. This is exactly the case with lost property, as the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, indicated by saying:

“If its owner comes forward; otherwise, it is Allah’s property, which He gives to whomever He wills.”

For if the owner ceased to exist, ownership would pass from him by consensus. The same therefore applies when knowledge of his identity is permanently unavailable or when delivering the property to him is permanently impossible. The former case is clear. An example of the latter is property that kings have taken from its owners—through levies and the like—which we know with certainty we cannot restore to them. Spending it on purposes that serve its owners’ interests, such as jihad on their behalf, is better than leaving it in the hands of oppressors to consume. When it is spent, it is lawful for those who receive it rightfully, just as it is unlawful for those who consume it wrongfully.

The second proof, “analogical reasoning”—in addition to the Sunnah and consensus already mentioned—is that such property must either be withheld, destroyed, or spent. Destroying it constitutes corruption:

“And Allah does not love corruption.”

It also amounts to wasting it.