“The correct view is that the report of the mastūr (one whose state is concealed) and the like—whose reliability is merely possible—should neither be summarily rejected nor unconditionally accepted. Rather, it is to be held in abeyance until his status becomes clear, as Imām al-Ḥaramayn categorically stated.”

I say: His status can only become clear if an imām whose judgements on reliability are trusted declares him trustworthy. Al-Ḥāfiẓ seems to point to this when he says, “A majhūl al-ḥāl (narrator of unknown standing) is one from whom two or more transmit, yet he has not been declared reliable.”

I have said “whose judgements are trusted” because there are some hadith critics who cannot be relied upon in this matter, having parted from the majority and declared unknown narrators reliable—among them Ibn Ḥibbān. I clarify this in the next principle.

Nevertheless, his narration may be accepted if a number of reliable transmitters narrate from him and nothing objectionable is detected in his hadith. This is the practice of the later hadith masters such as Ibn Kathīr, al-ʿIrāqī, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, and others. See several examples below, pp. 204–207.