"Ibn Maʿīn said: I do not know him, and I asked my father about him, and he said: An elder." Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Tahdhīb": "I said: Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in 'al-Thiqāt', and ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd al-Dārimī said: Reliable. Ibn ʿAdī said: Due to the rarity of his ḥadīth, Ibn Maʿīn did not know him, and I hope there is no harm in him." I said: Someone like him is considered ḥasan in ḥadīth, if Allāh wills, and the rest of the men are those of the authentic collections, except for Aḥmad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Ṣayrafī, who is reliable, as declared by al-Dāraqutnī and al-Khaṭīb as in "Tārīkh" (4/82-84). Al-Ḥāfiẓ referred to the ḥadīth in "al-Talkhīṣ" and said (p. 25): "Ibn Ḥibbān authenticated it through the route of this Ḥātim, and ʿUthmān al-Dārimī declared him reliable." The ḥadīth was narrated by al-Nasāʾī from this route, saying: ʿAmr ibn Manṣūr informed us, al-Haytham ibn Khārijah informed us about it. Ibn Ḥazm mentioned it (9/172) and criticized it by saying: "Ḥātim ibn Ḥurayth is unknown." This is what he said, and it seems he did not come across al-Dārimī's authentication of him or did not consider it, so I do not know his reasoning then, especially with Ibn ʿAdī's statement: "There is no harm in him." Know that the first part of the ḥadīth "The loaned item is to be returned" has been narrated through another route from Abū Umāmah, and through other routes from the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), mentioned by Ibn Ḥazm, who weakened all of them, missing the first route with the initial wording with Aḥmad, which is authentic according to us as you know, even though it is known about Ibn Ḥazm that he does not accept the narration of those Companions who are unnamed, contrary to the majority. And it is undeniable by any rational person that these routes, even if it is said that their individual chains are not free from weakness, collectively indicate that the ḥadīth has a solid basis, especially when the route..