someone else from whom al-Mizzi transmitted it? Or has an error crept into our copy, whether on the part of the printer or the copyist? Both possibilities are outwardly conceivable, but what lends greater weight to the second is that al-Hafiz al-Mizzi cited the hadith in Tuhfat al-Ashraf fi Ma‘rifat al-Atraf (1/75), and al-Nabulsi followed him in al-Dhakhair (1/17), through al-Nasa’i’s route from Amr ibn Mansur, with the same chain. He cited it there, as he did in al-Tahdhib, with the correct wording.

He then said: “Ishaq ibn Rahuyah likewise narrated it from Abd al-Razzaq. It was also said to be from Usayd ibn Hudayr, but this is an error.” It is thus clear that what appears in our copy of al-Nasa’i is an error by either the copyist or the printer. If this is so, then Ibn Zuhayr was a Companion who was considered too young at the Battle of Uhud; besides Ikrimah, his son Rafi‘ and Mujahid also narrated from him. Thus, the hadith is established and the error has been removed. Allah is the Granter of success.

The hadith contains two important benefits:

First: if someone finds his stolen property in the possession of a man not suspected of wrongdoing, who had bought it from the usurper or thief, he may not take it back except by paying its price. If he wishes, he may pursue the transgressor before the judge. As for the contrary hadith of Samurah, worded: “Whoever finds the very property that belongs to him in a man’s possession has the greater right to it, and the purchaser may pursue the one who sold it to him,” it is a defective hadith, as I explained in my commentary on al-Mishkat (2949). It is therefore unfit to stand in opposition to this authentic hadith, especially since the Rightly Guided Caliphs ruled in accordance with it.

Second: in passing judgment, a judge is not obliged to adopt the caliph’s view if it becomes clear to him that it conflicts with the sunnah. Do you not see how Usayd ibn Zuhayr refused to rule according to what Muawiyah had commanded and said: “So long as I remain in office, I shall not judge according to what Muawiyah said.”

This constitutes an explicit refutation of those Islamic parties today that maintain that obedience to a righteous caliph is obligatory regarding the rulings he has adopted, even if they conflict with the textual evidence in the view of the person commanded to implement them. They further claim that this was the established practice among the early Muslims—a baseless claim which they have no means of substantiating,