It is reported that Abū Isḥāq heard only four hadiths from al-Ḥārith, and that everything else he relates from him is mursal (transmitted with a broken chain).

Abū Bakr ibn Abī Dāwūd said: “Al-Ḥārith was the most learned jurist of his time and of the noblest lineage; he studied the laws of inheritance directly with ʿAlī (may Allah be pleased with him).”

Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn said: “I found the people of Kūfa preferring five men above all others. Whoever began his list with al-Ḥārith al-Aʿwar would place ʿUbayda al-Salmanī second; whoever began with ʿUbayda put al-Ḥārith second—then came ʿAlqama, then Masrūq, then Shurayḥ.” (1)

I say: Al-Ḥārith was indeed one of the great vessels of knowledge and among the earliest partisans of ʿAlī.

He used to say: “I mastered the Qur’an in two years, and the knowledge of revelation in three.”

As for al-Shaʿbī’s remark—“Al-Ḥārith is a liar”—it should be understood that by “lying” he meant inadvertent error, not deliberate fabrication. Otherwise, why would he continue to transmit from him and esteem him if he believed Al-Ḥārith consciously lied about the religion?

Similarly, ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī and Abū Khaythamah said, “He is a liar.”

By contrast, Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn said, “He is reliable,” and on another occasion, “There is nothing wrong with him.”

Imām al-Nasāʾī likewise said, “There is nothing objectionable about him,” though he also observed, “He is not strong.”

Abū Ḥātim said, “He is not to be taken as proof.”

Yet al-Nasāʾī and the authors of the Sunan still used al-Ḥārith’s reports as evidence.

In my own view, one should hesitate before relying on him as an authority.

ʿIlbāʾ ibn Aḥmar related that ʿAlī once addressed the people, saying, “People of Kūfa, half a man has prevailed over you.” (2)

Shuʿbah said: “Abū Isḥāq heard only four hadiths from al-Ḥārith.”

Manṣūr narrated from Ibrāhīm: “Al-Ḥārith was accused [of unreliability].”