—and you reject.

Aḥmad said, “His ḥadith, in my estimation, is inconsistent; he does not keep the chain of transmission upright (1). Nevertheless, I write down his reports and use them only for comparison.”

Aḥmad ibn Abī Yaḥyā narrated from Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal that he said, “From Abū Maʿshar’s narrations one may record only his reports from Muḥammad ibn Kaʿb on Qur’anic exegesis.”

ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad said, “I asked my father about him, and he replied, ‘Trustworthy, yet he does not establish the chain.’ I then asked Ibn Maʿīn about him, and he said, ‘He is not strong.’”

Ibn Abī Ḥātim said, “I heard my father say, ‘Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal regarded him favorably and would say, “He was well-versed in the Maghāzī (the Prophet’s military campaigns).”’”

Abū Ḥātim added, “I used to hesitate over his ḥadith until I saw Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal relating—through an intermediary—several narrations from him; after that I broadened my scope in recording his material (2). Abū Nuʿaym also transmitted to me a ḥadith from him that ʿAbd al-Razzāq related from al-Thawrī, from him.”

He then said, “He is acceptable, though his ḥadith is soft.”

Aḥmad ibn Abī Maryam transmitted from Ibn Maʿīn that he said, “He is weak; only his exhortative reports (al-riqāq) should be written. He was an illiterate man, and one should avoid citing his fully-chained transmissions.”

Aḥmad ibn Zuhayr narrated from Yaḥyā [ibn Maʿīn] who said, “Abū Maʿshar is but wind; Abū Maʿshar is nothing.”

Al-Bukhārī said, “His ḥadith is objectionable (munkar).”

Abū Dāwūd and al-Nasā’ī said, “Weak.”