a trustworthy narrator, Abū Saʿd.
He related traditions from his father, from Nāfiʿ, Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar ibn ʿAṭāʾ, Saʿīd al-Maqburī, his father’s uncle ʿUmar ibn al-Ḥakam, Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb, and many others.
Transmitters who reported from him include Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān, Ibn Wahb, Abū Usāmah, Abū ʿĀṣim, al-Wāqidī, Bakr ibn Bakkār, and others besides.
Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal said, “There is nothing wrong with him,” and al-Nasāʾī said the same.
Sufyān al-Thawrī criticized him for taking part in the uprising alongside Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Ḥasan (1), even though he was regarded as one of the jurists of Medina.
Ibn al-Madīnī said: “I heard Yaḥyā say, ‘Sufyān used to speak harshly of ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, so I asked him about it, saying, “What do you hold against him?”’ Yaḥyā later remarked, ‘I have no idea what his problem with the man was!’”
ʿAbbās transmitted from Ibn Maʿīn that Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd considered ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd ibn Jaʿfar weak, even though he himself narrated from him.
Ibn Maʿīn also said, “ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd was reliable, but he was accused of qadar (embracing the Qadari doctrine).”
I say: more than one narrator was tainted with qadar, yet their reports are found in the Two Ṣaḥīḥs—or in one of them—because they were known for truthfulness and precision.