Ibn Abī Ḥātim said, “I asked my father about him, and he replied, ‘Reliable (thiqa).’ I then asked, ‘May his ḥadīth be cited as proof?’ He answered, ‘Yes—provided that those who narrate from him are themselves trustworthy. The only ones who objected to him were Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd and Mālik, and that was on account of his doctrinal view.’

Someone asked my father, ‘Who are the freedmen of Ibn ʿAbbās?’ He said, ‘Kurayb, Sumayʿ, Shuʿbah, and ʿIkrimah—and he is the foremost of them.’

My father was also asked about ʿIkrimah and Saʿīd ibn Jubayr: ‘Which of the two is more knowledgeable in tafsīr (Qurʾanic exegesis)?’ He replied, ‘All of Ibn ʿAbbās’s companions are dependants of ʿIkrimah.’ (1)

The ḥāfiẓ Ibn ʿAdī said in his Kāmil: “I have not reproduced any of ʿIkrimah’s narrations here, because whenever reliable transmitters relate from him his reports are sound. The problem only arises when a weak narrator transmits from him, in which case the fault lies with the weak narrator, not with ʿIkrimah. The leading imams never abstained from relating from him, and the compilers of the Ṣaḥīḥ collections incorporated his ḥadīths—whenever a trustworthy person narrated from him—into their books. He is too well known for me to feel the need to cite any of his reports, and there is no problem with him.” (2)

Abū Aḥmad al-Ḥākim said, “The early leading scholars employed his ḥadīth as evidence, though some of the later critics have removed his reports from the category of the sound.”

I say: I am aware of only a single ḥadīth for which Muslim cites him, and even that is coupled with another chain: Ibn Jurayj narrates—from Abū al-Zubayr, from ʿIkrimah—and from Ṭāwūs, from Ibn ʿAbbās—concerning the ḥajj of Dubāʿah. (3)

Khaṣīb ibn Nāṣiḥ said: “Khālid ibn Khaddāsh narrated to us: I was present with Ḥammād ibn …”