Azami 5949

Abu Dawud (1718) narrated it from Makhlad bin Khalid, who said, Abdul-Razzaq narrated to us, and it is in his Musannaf (18599), Mamar informed us, from Amr bin Muslim, from Ikrima, who said, I think it is from Abu Hurairah, and he mentioned it.Munziri criticized it, saying, "Ikrima did not affirm with certainty that he heard it from Abu Hurairah, so it is mursal."I say, but his statement "I think" implies a strong presumption that it is from Abu Hurairah, and the meaning of the hadith also indicates this, because a companion has no right to rule on a fine of this kind on his own authority.However, its weakness lies in Amr bin Muslim Jundi (with fatha on the jim and nun), for there is disagreement about him. Ahmad and Nasai declared him daif, and Ibn Main's opinion of him varied, at one time saying, "There is no harm in him," and at another time saying, "He is not strong." Ibn Hibban mentioned him among the trustworthy narrators. Ibn Adi said, "He has no hadith that is extremely objectionable." Saji said, "Truthful but prone to error." A narrator of this kind, his hadith is graded hasan.Khattabi said, "The approach to this hadith follows the same approach as what was mentioned earlier regarding threats that are meant to prevent an act from occurring, it is merely a deterrent and a restraint. Umar bin Khattab used to rule by it, and Ahmad bin Hanbal held this view as well. As for the majority of jurists, they hold the opposite." End of quote.I say, Zuhri and Ishaq bin Rahawayh also held this view, and it is the position chosen by Sheikh Islam bin Taymiya, that whoever conceals a stray camel is subject to a doubled fine for it.It becomes clear from the hadiths mentioned earlier that the rulings concerning lost property differ from the rulings concerning stray animals. The Lawgiver permitted, in some of its forms, the taking of lost property, while forbidding the taking of stray animals. For more, see Minna Kubra (5/505).