As in the present case. Yet Ibn Ḥibbān still listed him in al-Thiqāt 5/386, and that is probably why al-Mundhirī remained silent about the hadith in al-Targhīb 3/187—relying on Ibn Ḥibbān’s declaration of authenticity. For that reason al-Mundhirī introduced it with the wording: “ʿan …”. Likewise, Ibn al-Qayyim stated in two places of Ighāthat al-Lahfān 1/347 and 1/361, “This isnād is ṣaḥīḥ,” and Ibn Taymiyyah deemed it ḥasan, as will be shown later.

In truth, the ḥadith is sound for the reasons already mentioned, for the corroborating chain that will follow, and because the passage about metamorphosis is supported by many parallel reports collected in al-Ṣaḥīḥah 1887.

As for the self-deluded critic who was not satisfied with weakening this isnād on the ground of the anonymity I had already acknowledged in al-Ṣaḥīḥah 90, but went further to question Ḥātim b. Ḥarīth’s reliability—saying at the end of his previously cited article:

“Ḥātim is weak; his case requires further scrutiny, for his condition is that of an unknown.”

I reply: Let the reader ponder this pedantry—or rather, sophistry. The last clause, “unknown,” is indeed what some leading scholars have said, yet it is not decisive, as will be clarified. What precedes it, however, is mere verbiage, quibbling, or even misrepresentation, for none of the authorities ever declared him weak or said, “He needs further scrutiny.” The most that has been reported is Ibn Maʿīn’s statement, “I do not know him,” and even that was rebutted by his pupil, the ḥāfiẓ ʿUthmān b. Saʿīd al-Dārimī, who recorded in his Tārīkh, quoting Ibn Maʿīn 101/287: