On the contrary, a number of the early critical scholars—among them Imām Aḥmad—declared him reliable, and none of the well-known ḥadith masters ever branded him weak. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, summarising the verdicts of the leading authorities, wrote: “Truthful, though he sometimes errs.”

Al-Dhahabī says in al-Kāshif, “Truthful, an authority,” and in Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ 7/158 he describes him as “the learned, reliable ḥadith master, judge of Ḥoms.” He then cites a narration from him through his own chain and remarks, “This ḥadith has a sound isnād.”

Imām Muslim relied upon him, and the present ḥadith on musical instruments would be fully sound were it not for the unknown status of Mālik ibn Abī Maryam. Even so, it is acceptable as a supporting route—especially since al-Bukhārī preferred his version to that of Hishām ibn ʿAmmār, as noted on p. 51. Ibn Ḥazm himself used it as evidence for the prohibition of wine, as mentioned a little earlier. Ibn Taymiyyah, in Ibtāl al-Taḥlīl, p. 27 (Kurdī ed.), wrote: “Its isnād is ḥasan (good), for Ḥātim ibn Ḥarīth is a recognised shaykh, and Mālik ibn Abī Maryam belongs to the earliest transmitters of Syria.”

Before moving on to the next ḥadith that Ibn Ḥazm weakened in this first category, I consider it important to conclude the discussion of this initial report by reminding the reader of those