the rulers, they possess authority over property of unknown ownership received by their deputies that others do not possess. Once it has been taken, identifying the owner of each head has become impossible. The beneficial course is to sell the heads and distribute the proceeds among those entitled to them. If they sell them but do not distribute the proceeds, the purchaser bears no sin; the sin rests solely upon whoever withholds the proceeds from their rightful owners. The same applies if an orphan’s guardian, an endowment’s administrator, or the administrator of the public treasury sells property but does not pay the proceeds to those entitled to them: the sin rests upon him, not upon the person who bought from him.

Furthermore, those who bought them—even if the purchase was invalid—have paid for them and are entitled to recover the sums they paid. Several scholars, including Ahmad and others, have expressly stated that someone who buys something and subsequently discovers that it was wrongfully seized, but does not know its owner, may sell it and retain the amount he paid, while giving any profit in charity.

The cooks who bought the heads, when returning them has become impossible, may sell them and retain an amount equivalent to their purchase price, if the original sale was not valid. In that case, the purchase is valid. They have ratified the sale, so it is valid according to the majority of scholars, including Mālik, Abū Hanīfah, and Ahmad according to the stronger of the two reports from him.

These, then, are several grounds advanced by those who permit purchasing them. Anyone who purchases them following these scholars is not to be censured. Nor is anyone to be censured who has grounds for doubt or believes purchasing them to be forbidden and therefore refrains. One cannot categorically declare transactions of this kind forbidden;