"a good ḥadīth, there is nothing in what is narrated about the loan that is authentic except it." Thus he said: and in the chapter, there are two other established ḥadīths that I will mention after this. Its isnād is authentic, all its narrators are trustworthy, and the ḥāfiẓ said in "Bulūgh al-Marām": "It was narrated by Aḥmad, Abū Dāwūd, and al-Nasāʾī, and Ibn Ḥibbān authenticated it." I said: and it is not with al-Nasāʾī in "al-Mujtabá," so it appears that it is in his "al-Sunan al-Kubrā"! The ḥadīth indicates the obligation to return the loan as long as its essence remains, and if it is destroyed in the borrower's hand, he is not liable for it, because it differentiates between liability and return, obligating return without liability. This is the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfah and Ibn Ḥazm, and it was chosen by al-Ṣanʿānī who said: "The ḥadīth is evidence for those who hold that the loan is not guaranteed, except by stipulation, and it is the clearest of opinions." The exception mentioned is supported by the ḥadīth of Ṣafwān ibn Umayyah, which is: "No, but a guaranteed loan."

- "No, but a guaranteed loan." It was recorded by Abū Dāwūd (2/265), al-Bayhaqī (6/89), and Aḥmad (6/465) from Sharīk, from ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Rufayʿ, from Umayyah ibn Ṣafwān ibn Umayyah, from his father, that the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) borrowed shields from him on the day of Ḥunayn, and he said: "Is it seizure, O Muḥammad?" He said: so he mentioned it