"unknown" by saying (4/286): "I said: Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī, Muslim ibn Qutaybah, and ʿUmar ibn Sufyān narrated from him." So where is the alleged contradiction? And if we assume there is a contradiction, it is necessary in this case to weigh the evidence, and this is only to be corrected by what follows. Secondly, as for rejecting the authentication and correction on the grounds of leniency, it is countered by the fact that the ignorance relied upon is from someone known for strictness, namely Abū Ḥātim (may Allāh have mercy on him). Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī said in his biography in "al-Siyar" (13/260): "If Abū Ḥātim authenticates a man, adhere to his statement; for he does not authenticate except a man whose ḥadīth is sound. And if he criticizes a man or says about him: 'He is not to be relied upon,' then pause until you see what others have said about him. If someone else authenticates him, do not base your judgment on Abū Ḥātim's criticism; for he is very strict with men, as he has said about a group of men from (al-Ṣiḥāḥ): 'He is not a proof, not strong,' or similar expressions." Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar also described him as strict in "Muqaddimah al-Fatḥ" (p. 441), so refer to it if you wish. Thirdly, as for the citation of the claimant of weakening by the statement of al-Ḥāfiẓ regarding Hārūn: "unknown," and his statement in "Muqaddimah": "One from whom more than one has narrated and has not been authenticated, and to whom the term 'unknown' or 'unknown status' refers." I say: unknown status is better than unknown identity, and therefore al-Ḥāfiẓ differentiated between them in rank and definition. In the first, he said: "The seventh: one who narrated..." In the latter