who had transmitted from the scholars of Syria; whenever he narrates through the people of Syria he is reliable, but when he narrates through others he becomes confused. If he reports from unknown transmitters, the responsibility lies with them, not with him. He is a ḥadith scholar who relates from both juniors and seniors, while senior scholars also report from him. Such, then, is the portrait of Baqiyyah.

Ibn Ḥibbān said: “Baqiyyah heard sound reports from Shuʿbah, Mālik and others; later he listened to people who fabricated ḥadith in the names of Shuʿbah and Mālik. Through tadlīs he then ascribed to the trustworthy what he had actually taken from the weak.”

Abū Mushir al-Ghassānī said: “Baqiyyah’s ḥadiths are not pure; handle them with caution.”

Abū Isḥāq al-Jūzajānī said: “May Allah have mercy on Baqiyyah; when he came across a fanciful report he did not care from whom he took it. Yet if he narrates from reliable transmitters, there is no objection to him.”

ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad said: “I asked my father about Ḍamrah and Baqiyyah, and he replied, ‘Ḍamrah is dearer to us; Ḍamrah is trustworthy, a righteous man.’”

Abū Dāwūd said: “Baqiyyah is in a better state than al-Walīd ibn Muslim, though people do not view it that way.”

Ḥajjāj ibn al-Shāʿir reported: “Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah was asked about one of those entertaining anecdotal reports and he said, ‘Abū al-ʿAjab narrated to us—Baqiyyah ibn al-Walīd narrated to us.’”

The Imām of the Imāms, Ibn Khuzaymah, said: “I do not cite Baqiyyah as proof.”

He went on to say: “Aḥmad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Tirmidhī related to us: I heard Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal say, ‘I used to think Baqiyyah only narrated objectionable reports from unknown transmitters, but it turned out he narrates objectionable reports from famous transmitters as well. That is when I realized where the fault lay.’”

Abū Ḥātim ibn Ḥibbān said: “I entered Ḥimṣ, and my principal concern was to examine the case of Baqiyyah…"