“Unknown,” as indicated by his statement (4/286):

“I say: Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi, Muslim ibn Qutaybah, and Umar ibn Sufyan narrated from him.”

So where is the alleged inconsistency? Even if we were to assume that there is an inconsistency, the views must then be weighed against one another, and the only sound conclusion is to authenticate it, for the reasons that follow.

Secondly: His rejection of the declarations of reliability and authentication on the grounds of laxity is countered by the fact that the narrator’s unknown status, upon which he relies, is the verdict of someone known for his strictness: Abu Hatim, may Allah have mercy on him. Al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi said in his biography in Siyar (13/260):

“If Abu Hatim declares a man reliable, then hold fast to his statement, for he declares reliable only a man sound in hadith. But if he judges a man weak, or says of him, ‘His reports are not to be used as proof,’ then withhold judgment until you see what others have said about him. If anyone declares him reliable, do not base your judgment upon Abu Hatim’s disparagement, for he is excessively stringent regarding narrators. Indeed, he said of a number of narrators found in the Sahih collections: ‘He is not a proof’; ‘He is not strong’; or similar remarks.”

Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar likewise described him as excessively stringent in Muqaddimat al-Fath (p. 441); consult it if you wish.

Thirdly: As for the claimant who declares it weak citing al-Hafiz’s description of Harun as mastur (of unascertained standing), and his statement in his introduction:

“One from whom more than one person has narrated, but who has not been declared reliable; this is indicated by the term mastur or majhul al-hal (unknown in status).”

I say: One who is unknown in status is better than one who is majhul al-ayn (unknown in identity). This is why al-Hafiz distinguished between them in both rank and definition. Regarding the former, he said: “The seventh category: one from whom...” And regarding the latter