“Taʿjīl al-Manfaʿah” (p. 469), contrary to Ibn Abi Hatim, who stated in “al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl” (4/2/342), on his father’s authority, that Muhammad ibn Zayd ibn al-Muhajir was the brother of this Abu Bakr. Allah knows best.

Al-Bayhaqi also recorded the hadith (10/3) through another route, from Abd al-Rahman ibn Ishaq, from his father, from Umayr, omitting from the chain this Abu Bakr and the other narrator alongside him, the uncle of Ishaq ibn Abdullah. Al-Hakim recorded it (4/132) through a third route, from Abdullah, with a connected chain; however, some textual corruption occurred in its chain of transmission, though I do not know whether this came from the printer or from one of the narrators. He said: “Its chain of transmission is authentic.” Al-Dhahabi agreed with him.

I say: Were it not for a measure of weakness in this Abd al-Rahman due to his memory, I would have judged the hadith authentic. Thus, it is only good. Allah knows best.

From the jurisprudence of the hadith: It proves that, in cases of necessity, it is permissible to eat from another person’s property without his permission, provided that compensation is owed. Al-Bayhaqi noted this.

Al-Shawkani said (8/128): “It proves that a thief is liable for the value of what he takes in cases where the prescribed punishment is not applicable, and that need does not permit one to take another person’s property when one possesses something from which one can benefit, or benefit from its value—even if it is something that people need. For in this case, he took one of his two garments and gave it to the owner of the date-palm orchard.”

From this, the error of Shaykh Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani becomes clear in his book “The Economic System in Islam,” in which he permitted (pp. 20–21) an individual, if he is unable to find work and no provision has been made