Among those who narrated from him were Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn—his own teacher—Abū Isḥāq al-Fazārī, Bishr ibn al-Mufaḍḍal, the two Ḥammāds, Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah, Khālid ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Ṭaḥḥān, Shuʿbah ibn al-Ḥajjāj, Muʿtamir ibn Sulaymān, ʿAlī ibn ʿĀṣim, ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn ʿAṭāʾ, and many others.

Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn, and a number of scholars declared him trustworthy. His narrations appear in the Ṣaḥīḥ collections.

Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī said, “His ḥadith may be recorded, but they are not to be used as proof (1).”

ʿAbbād ibn ʿAbbād related: “Shuʿbah wanted to disparage Khālid al-Ḥaddāʾ, so Ḥammād ibn Zayd and I went to him and said, ‘What is the matter with you—have you lost your mind? You are the most knowledgeable!’ We threatened him, and he desisted.”

Yaḥyā ibn Ādam said: “I asked Ḥammād ibn Zayd, ‘What is wrong with Khālid al-Ḥaddāʾ in his narrations?’ He replied, ‘He came to us once from Syria, and we found his memory wanting.’ ”

ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad reported: My father told me that when Ismāʿīl ibn ʿUlayyah was asked about this ḥadith, he said, ‘Khālid used to narrate it, but no one paid attention to him.’ Thus Ibn ʿUlayyah judged him weak—that is, al-Ḥaddāʾ.

Yaḥyā ibn Ādam also said: “ʿAbd Allāh ibn Nāfiʿ al-Qurashī, Abū Shihāb, narrated to us that Shuʿbah told him, ‘You should take from Ḥajjāj ibn Arṭāh and Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq, for both are reliable preservers. And keep what I say hidden from the Basrans regarding Khālid al-Ḥaddāʾ and Hishām’—meaning Hishām ibn Ḥassān.”

I say: This personal assessment of Shuʿbah is rejected and carries no weight. Indeed, both Khālid and Hishām are cited as authorities in the two Ṣaḥīḥs; they are far more reliable than Ḥajjāj and Ibn Isḥāq, whose weakness is plainly evident (2), yet even they were not totally discarded.