ʿAbbās—meaning that he practised tadlīs (concealing the intermediary).

Ibn Maʿīn said, “He is ʿAṭāʾ ibn Maysarah; he heard from Ibn ʿUmar.” Mālik said, “He is ʿAṭāʾ ibn ʿAbd Allāh.” Al-Nasāʾī stated, “He is Abū Ayyūb, ʿAṭāʾ ibn ʿAbd Allāh, originally from Balkh who settled in Syria; there is nothing objectionable about him.” On another occasion he said, “He is ʿAṭāʾ ibn Maysarah.” Aḥmad declared him “reliable,” and Yaʿqūb ibn Shaybah said, “Trustworthy—well known for issuing legal verdicts and for jihad.” Abū Ḥātim observed, “There is no harm in him.”

Ḥajjāj ibn Muḥammad related, “Shuʿbah told us: ʿAṭāʾ al-Khurasānī narrated to us, but he was forgetful.” ʿUthmān ibn ʿAṭāʾ, quoting his father, said: “I arrived in Medina after most of the Companions had already gone.”

Al-Bukhārī mentioned him in al-Duʿafāʾ, as did al-ʿUqaylī and Ibn Ḥibbān. Al-Tirmidhī records in his ʿIlal that Muḥammad—meaning al-Bukhārī—said, “I am unaware of any transmitter from whom Mālik narrates whose ḥadith deserve to be left aside except ʿAṭāʾ al-Khurasānī.” I asked, “What is wrong with him?” He replied, “Most of his narrations are maqlūb (reversed).” Al-Tirmidhī then added, “He is trustworthy; authorities such as Mālik and Maʿmar reported from him, and I have not heard any of the early critics speak against him.”

It has been claimed that the narration found in the commentary on Sūrat Nūḥ in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is through ʿAṭāʾ al-Khurasānī, but that is unsound; it is actually through ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ. (1)

Accordingly, on this basis there is nothing