in his narrations from Yaḥyā ibn Abī Kathīr; outside the route of Iyās ibn Salamah his reports are confused, whereas what he relates from Iyās is sound.

Abū Zurʿah al-Dimashqī said: “I heard Aḥmad declare the narrations of Ayyūb ibn ʿUtbah (1) and ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAmmār from Yaḥyā ibn Abī Kathīr to be weak, but he added, ‘ʿIkrimah is the more reliable of the two.’ ”

Al-Faḍl ibn Ziyād reported: I asked Aḥmad, “Was anyone in al-Yamāmah preferred over ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAmmār—such as Ayyūb ibn ʿUtbah, Mulāzim ibn ʿAmr, and the like?” He replied, “ʿIkrimah is above those men— or words to that effect.” He then remarked, “Shuʿbah transmitted several ḥadiths from him.”

Al-Ghalābī related from Ibn Maʿīn: “He is firmly established.”

Al-Bukhārī said: “He is inconsistent in his narrations from Yaḥyā ibn Abī Kathīr, and he possessed no written copy.”

Abū Dāwūd stated: “He is trustworthy, yet there is confusion in his reports from Yaḥyā. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal preferred Mulāzim ibn ʿAmr to him. The most accurate in narrating from Yaḥyā are Hishām al-Dastuwāʾī (2) and al-Awzāʿī (3).”

Al-Nasāʾī said: “There is nothing wrong with him—except in his narrations from Ibn Abī Kathīr.”

Abū Ḥātim declared: “Truthful; he may occasionally err in his narrations and sometimes engage in tadlīs, and in his reports from Yaḥyā there are a few mistakes.”

Zakariyyā al-Sājī said: “Trustworthy.”

Shuʿbah and Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān both narrated from him. He was judged reliable by Aḥmad and Ibn Maʿīn, although Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān regarded him as weak in his transmissions from Yaḥyā ibn Abī Kathīr and preferred Mulāzim to him.