"taʿjīl al-manfaʿah" (p. 469) in contrast to Ibn Abī Ḥātim, for he mentioned in "al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl" (4/2/342) from his father that Muḥammad ibn Zayd ibn al-Muhājir is the brother of this Abū Bakr. And Allāh knows best. The ḥadīth was also recorded by al-Bayhaqī (10/3) through another chain from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq from his father from ʿUmayr, omitting from the isnād this Abū Bakr and his peer, the uncle of Isḥāq ibn ʿAbd Allāh. It was also recorded by al-Ḥākim (4/132) through a third chain from ʿAbd Allāh in a connected form, but there is some distortion in its isnād, which I do not know if it is from the printer or from some of the narrators, and he said: "Authentic isnād." Al-Dhahabī agreed with him. I said: If it were not for the slight weakness in ʿAbd al-Raḥmān due to his memory, I would have judged the ḥadīth as authentic, but it is only ḥasan. And Allāh knows best. From the fiqh of the ḥadīth: It provides evidence for the permissibility of eating from another's property without their permission in cases of necessity, with the obligation of compensation. This was noted by al-Bayhaqī. Al-Shawkānī said (8/128): "It provides evidence for obligating the thief to pay the value of what he took in cases where the ḥadd is not required, and that necessity does not permit taking another's property when there is something available that can be used or its value, even if it is something that a person needs, as he here took one of his garments and gave it to the owner of the palm tree." From this, it becomes clear the error of Shaykh Taqī al-Dīn al-Nabhānī in his book "al-Niẓām al-Iqtiṣādī fī al-Islām," where he permitted (pp. 20-21) for an individual, if unable to work and no..