he said: "The ninth category is for those from whom only one person narrated and who have not been declared reliable, and this is indicated by the term: unknown." However, I notice that his statement in the seventh category: "and has not been declared reliable" does not apply to (Hārūn) in this case; because Ibn Ḥibbān explicitly declared him reliable, as did those who implicitly authenticated his ḥadīth, which is why I previously considered his isnād to be good. With what has been mentioned, the argument of those claiming weakness falls into the abyss, and the authenticity of the ḥadīth is more likely established at the level of ḥasan at the very least from this isnād. As for his bluster over four pages (18-21) filled with what his arrogance and conceit dictated to him, it does not deserve a response even if there were time to spare! Because it does not go beyond what he clung to from Abū Ḥātim's statement: "unknown," and the ḥāfiẓ's statement: "unknown status," and the response has already been given, and all praise is due to Allāh. Yes, on page 18 there is something that must be presented to the readers, as it will reveal the nature of this person who weakens authentic ḥadīths, which is that he errs—at the very least—in perceiving material things that both the righteous and the wicked can see, so how can his perception be trusted regarding the immaterial, which can only be seen with the heart's insight that is unique to true believers? He claimed that I and others erred in my previous statement about al-Ḥākim's authentication: "and al-Dhahabī agreed with him," saying, may Allāh guide him: "This is a great delusion, they blindly followed al-Munāwī in 'Fayḍ al-Qadīr,' claiming that the ḥadīth about which al-Dhahabī remained silent was one he agreed with al-Ḥākim on!" And to the esteemed readers, here is the image of the ḥadīth from "al-Mustadrak," with al-Ḥākim's authentication of it along with al-Dhahabī's agreement encircled at the bottom of the page; so they may know who truly deserves the description of being "greatly deluded."
قال: "التاسعة من لم يروِ عنه غير واحدٍ ولم يُوَثّق، وإِليه الإِشارةُ بلفظِ: مجهول". إِلاّ أنّني أُلاحظُ أنَّ قولَه في المرتبةِ السابعةِ: "ولم يوثَّق" لا ينطبق على (هارون) هذا؛ لأنّه قد وثقه ابن حبّان صراحةً، والذين صححوا حديثَه ضمنًا، ولهذا كنتُ ذهبتُ إِلى تحسينِ إِسنادِه فيما تقدّم. وبما تقدّمَ يسقطُ في الهاوية ما تشبثَ به مدعي التضعيفِ، ويترجحُ ثبوتُ الحديثِ بمرتبةِ الحسنِ على الأَقلِّ من هذا الإِسناد. وأمّا جعجعته فىِ أَربعِ صفحات (١٨-٢١) سوّدها ممّا أَملاه عليه عُجبُه وغرورُه، فهي ممّا لا يستحقُّ الردَّ ولو كانَ في الوقتِ فراغٌ! لأنّه لا يخرجُ عمّا كانَ تشبَّثَ به من قولِ أَبي حاتمٍ: "مجهول"، وقول الحافظ: "مجهول الحال"، وقد سبقَ الجوابُ والحمدُ للهِ. نعم، في (ص ١٨) ما لا بدَّ من عرضِه على القرّاءِ، فإِنّه سيكشف عن طبيعةِ هذا المضعف للأَحاديثِ الصحيحةِ، وهي أنّه يخطئُ -على الأَقل- في رؤيةِ الماديات التي يشتركُ في رؤيتها الصالح والطالحِ، فكيفَ تكونُ رؤيتُه للمعنويّاتِ الّتي لا تُرى إلاّ بالبصيرةِ القلبيّةِ التي ينفردُ بها المؤمنونَ الصادقون؟ لقد زعمَ أَنّني أَخطأتُ أَنا وغيري في قولي المتقدّمِ في تصحيحِ الحاكمِ: "ووافقه الذهبيُّ"، فقال هداه الله:"هذا وهمٌ عظيمٌ، قلدوا فيه المناوي في "فيض القدير"، زعموا أنَّ الحديثَ الّذي سكتَ عنة الذهبيُّ فقد وافقَ فيه الحاكمَ"! وإِلى القرّاءِ الكرامِ صورة الحديثِ من "المستدرك"، وتصحيحِ الحاكمِ إِيّاه مع موافقةِ الذهبيِّ محاطة بدائرةٍ في أسفل الصفحة؛ ليعلموا من يستحقُّ الوصفَ بأنّه "ذو وهمٍ عظيمٍ"؟