Likewise, al-Kifaya states that the second opinion is the sound one, because Saʿid’s mursal traditions contain elements that are never transmitted with an authentic chain. Al-Bayhaqi says: We have cited mursal reports of Ibn al-Musayyab that al-Shafiʿi rejected when they were unsupported, and others—transmitted by people besides him—that al-Shafiʿi accepted once corroborating evidence was present. He adds: What singles Ibn al-Musayyab out is that, according to the ḥadith specialists, he is the most reliable of the Successors in sending mursal traditions. He continues: As for al-Qaffal al-Marwazi’s statement, at the beginning of his Sharḥ al-Talkhīṣ, that “al-Shafiʿi said, in the chapter on a minor pledge, ‘The mursal report of Saʿid is proof for us,’” it must be understood in light of the distinction that we have just quoted from al-Bayhaqi, al-Khaṭīb and the other critical scholars. See al-Bayhaqi, Manāqib al-Shāfiʿī, 2/30. (1) Reported from Abu Hurayra by: Malik, al-Muwaṭṭaʾ 2/678 (Book of Sales, chapter on the bankruptcy of a debtor); al-Bukhari 5/47 (Book of Loans, chapter: when a creditor finds his property with a bankrupt buyer or borrower); Muslim, no. 1559 (Book of Share-cropping, chapter: whoever finds what he sold in the possession of a buyer who has become bankrupt); al-Tirmidhi, no. 162 (Book of Sales, chapter: when a man’s debtor becomes bankrupt); Abu Dawud, no. 3519 (Book of Sales, chapter: when a man becomes bankrupt and the owner finds his merchandise intact); al-Nasaʾi 7/311 (Book of Sales, chapter: a man buys goods then becomes bankrupt); Ibn Majah, no. 2358 (Book of Judicial Rulings, chapter: whoever finds his property intact); and al-Bayhaqi 6/46-47, whose wording is: “Whoever finds his property intact with a man who has become bankrupt is more entitled to it than anyone else.” Al-Tirmidhi comments: some jurists act on this ḥadith; it is the view of al-Shafiʿi, Ahmad and Ishaq. Others hold that he stands on a par with the other creditors; this is the position of the Kufan scholars. Al-Lakhnawi states in al-Taʿlīq al-Mumajjad, p. 34, that the Hanafi school considers the owner of the goods to have no priority, whether the purchaser is alive or dead, because once the buyer has taken possession the goods become his exclusive property and the seller is, like the other creditors, a stranger to them. If the buyer has not yet taken possession, then the seller does have precedence. This would be obvious were it not for the explicit text distinguishing the two cases. Their forerunner in this is ʿAli, for Qatada reports from Khalas b. ʿAmr that ʿAli said: “He is on a par with the creditors if he finds the article itself.” The chains of Khalas from ʿAli are weak, and a similar opinion is related from Ibrahim al-Nakhaʿi. (2) The account is found in Adab al-Shafiʿī, pp. 231-232; Abu Nuʿaym, Ḥilyat al-Awliyāʾ 9/105; and al-Bayhaqi, Manāqib al-Shāfiʿī 1/167-168. The ḥadith on ʿumrā is transmitted by Jabir b. ʿAbd Allah, who reported that the Prophet ﷺ said: “If a man grants a life-estate (ʿumrā) to someone and to that person’s descendants, it belongs to the recipient; it does not revert to the donor, because he has made a gift that passes to the heirs.” Reported by Malik, al-Muwaṭṭaʾ 2/756 (Book of Judicial Rulings, chapter on verdicts concerning ʿumrā), and by Muslim, no. 1625, through Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri from Abu Salama b. ʿAbd al-Rahman from Jabir. The clause “because he has made a gift that passes to the heirs” is interpolated from the words of Abu Salama; Ibn Abi Dhiʾb pointed this out, as recorded in Tanwīr al-Ḥawālik 2/225 and in Muslim (no. 1625, variant 24).