I say: In light of this, his restricting himself to grading the hadith as good, despite these corroborating reports and chains, is a clear shortcoming—especially since Ahmad’s first chain is authentic in itself, as you have seen. Another of its chains and wordings is found in the hadith that follows.

Ibn Majah (2/72) said: Hisham ibn Ammar and Abd al-Rahman ibn Ibrahim al-Dimashqi related to us; they said: Muhammad ibn Shuʿayb related to us, from Abd al-Rahman ibn Yazid, from Saʿid ibn Abi Saʿid, from Anas, who attributed it to the Prophet, with the same wording.

The author of al-Zawaʾid (The Additions) said: “This is an authentic chain. Abd al-Rahman ibn Yazid is Ibn Jabir, who is trustworthy; and Saʿid ibn Abi Saʿid is al-Maqburi.”

I say: Muhammad ibn Shuʿayb is Ibn Shabur, and he is unanimously regarded as trustworthy. He added to Ibn al-Mubarak’s report by identifying the Companion as Anas. This is therefore an acceptable addition and does not contradict Ibn al-Mubarak’s narration, as is apparent.

Al-Zaylaʿi was far off the mark when, in Nasb al-Rayah (4/58), he attributed the hadith solely to al-Tabarani in Musnad al-Shamiyyin, through the chain of Hisham ibn Ammar: Muhammad ibn Shuʿayb related to us, with the same chain. Al-Hafiz followed him in al-Dirayah (p. 290)!!

611 — “A borrowed article must be returned; a usufructuary grant must be returned; and whoever finds a tied-up lost item may not undo its fastening until he has made it known.”

Ibn Hibban narrated it in his Sahih (1174): Ahmad ibn al-Hasan ibn Abd al-Jabbar al-Sufi informed us: al-Haytham ibn Kharijah related to us: al-Jarrah ibn Malih al-Bahrani related to us: Hatim ibn Hurayth al-Taʾi related to us, saying: I heard Abu Umamah say: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said it. He then mentioned it.

I say: This is a good chain. Besides this al-Jarrah, Muʿawiyah ibn Salih also narrated from this Hatim. Ibn Abi Hatim said (1/2/257):