[Machine] There is no obligation for a Muslim's wealth to be returned, meaning transfer, if someone else narrates it from Shu'bah absolutely. There is no transfer in it. Al-Shafi'i said in the narration of Al-Muzani in Al-Jami' Al-Kabir, that Muhammad bin Al-Hasan argued that Uthman bin Affan said about transfer or guarantee, that it is not obligated to return to a Muslim's wealth. So I asked him about this Hadith, and he claimed that it is from an unknown person, from a known person, cut off from Uthman. It is the basis of his statement, it nullifies it from two angles. Even if it is confirmed from Uthman, it would not be a proof, because he does not know whether that applies to transfer or guarantee. The Sheikh said, the unknown person in this story is Khalid bin Jafar and Khalid Busri, Muhammad bin Ismail Al-Bukhari did not cite them in his authentic book, and Muslim bin Al-Hajjaj narrated their Hadith, which he narrated with Al-Mustamir bin Al-Rayyan from Abu Nadrah from Abu Sa'id in musk and others. Shu'bah bin Al-Hajjaj, when they narrated from him, praised him. And Allah knows best. The intended known person is Abu Iyas, Muawiyah bin Qurrah Al-Muzani, who is cut off as he said. So Abu Iyas is from the third category of the followers of the people of Basra, he did not encounter Uthman bin Affan, nor was he in his time.  

لَيْسَ عَلَى مَالِ امْرِئٍ مُسْلِمٍ تَوًى يَعْنِي حَوَالَةً وَرَوَاهُ غَيْرُهُ عَنْ شُعْبَةَ مُطْلَقًا لَيْسَ فِيهِ يَعْنِي حَوَالَةً قَالَ الشَّافِعِيُّ فِي رِوَايَةِ الْمُزَنِيِّ فِي الْجَامِعِ الْكَبِيرِ احْتَجَّ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ بِأَنَّ عُثْمَانَ بْنَ عَفَّانَ قَالَ فِي الْحَوَالَةِ أَوِ الْكَفَالَةِ يَرْجِعُ صَاحِبُهَا لَا تَوَى عَلَى مَالِ مُسْلِمٍ فَسَأَلْتُهُ عَنْ هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ فَزَعَمَ أَنَّهُ عَنْ رَجُلٍ مَجْهُولٍ عَنْ رَجُلٍ مَعْرُوفٍ مُنْقَطِعٌ عَنْ عُثْمَانَ فَهُوَ فِي أَصْلِ قَوْلِهِ يَبْطُلُ مِنْ وَجْهَيْنِ وَلَوْ كَانَ ثَابِتًا عَنْ عُثْمَانَ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِيهِ حُجَّةٌ؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَا يَدْرِي أَقَالَ ذَلِكَ فِي الْحَوَالَةِ أَوْ فِي الْكَفَالَةِ قَالَ الشَّيْخُ الرَّجُلُ الْمَجْهُولُ فِي هَذِهِ الْحِكَايَةِ خُلَيْدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ وَخُلَيْدٌ بَصْرِيٌّ لَمْ يَحْتَجَّ بِهِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ الْبُخَارِيُّ فِي كِتَابِ الصَّحِيحِ وَأَخْرَجَ مُسْلِمُ بْنُ الْحَجَّاجِ حَدِيثَهُ الَّذِي يَرْوِيهِ مَعَ الْمُسْتَمِرِّ بْنِ الرَّيَّانِ عَنْ أَبِي نَضْرَةَ عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ فِي الْمِسْكِ وَغَيْرِهِ وَكَانَ شُعْبَةُ بْنُ الْحَجَّاجِ إِذَا رَوَى عَنْهُ أَثْنَى عَلَيْهِ وَاللهُ أَعْلَمُ وَالْمُرَادُ بِالرَّجُلِ الْمَعْرُوفِ أَبُو إِيَاسٍ مُعَاوِيَةُ بْنُ قُرَّةَ الْمُزَنِيُّ وَهُوَ مُنْقَطِعٌ كَمَا قَالَ فَأَبُو إِيَاسٍ مِنَ الطَّبَقَةِ الثَّالِثَةِ مِنْ تَابِعِي أَهْلِ الْبَصْرَةِ فَهُوَ لَمْ يُدْرِكْ عُثْمَانَ بْنَ عَفَّانَ وَلَا كَانَ فِي زَمَانِهِ