Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmmār said, “In their estimation, ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAmmār is reliable.”

Ibn Mahdī narrated from him, remarking, “I have heard nothing but good about him.”

Ṣāliḥ ibn Muḥammad observed, “He would single-handedly transmit lengthy reports in which no one else shared.” When he arrived in Basra the people flocked to him, and he exclaimed, “So I appear to be a jurist without even realizing it!” He added, “ʿIkrimah is truthful, though there is something questionable in his ḥadiths.” Many people narrated from him.

Isḥāq ibn Aḥmad ibn Khalaf al-Bukhārī, the ḥāfiẓ, said: “ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAmmār is trustworthy.” Sufyān al-Thawrī related from him and spoke of him with praise, yet he (i.e., ʿIkrimah) made many mistakes and would report matters on his own that no one else related.

Ibn Khirāsh stated, “He was truthful, but there is some irregularity in his narrations.” Imām al-Dāraquṭnī said, “Trustworthy.” Ibn ʿAdī commented, “His ḥadith is sound provided that a reliable narrator transmits it from him.” ʿĀṣim ibn ʿAlī said, “His supplications were answered.”

I (the author) say: al-Bukhārī cited him only for corroboration and did not rely on him as primary evidence, whereas Muslim relied on him sparingly and mostly as supporting narration. Al-Ḥākim Abū ʿAbd Allāh noted, “Muslim frequently used ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAmmār for corroboration.”

I further say: Muslim has, in the main body of his Ṣaḥīḥ, included one problematic ḥadith of his—the report he transmits from Simāk al-Ḥanafī, from Ibn ʿAbbās, concerning the three requests that Abū Sufyān made of the Prophet ﷺ (1).