ʿUthmān ibn Abī Shaybah said: “He was reliable, though his ḥadīth were subject to a slight degree of inconsistency.”

Ibn Saʿd said: “Trustworthy, yet he often errs in his narrations.”

Yaʿqūb ibn Shaybah (1) said: “Trustworthy and truthful, but there is weakness in his narrations, and people have nevertheless transmitted from him.” (2)

Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī said: “Acceptable in ḥadīth; his reports are to be written down but not used as proof—similar to Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq*—and he is dearer to me than Sulaymān ibn Kathīr.” (3)

Al-Nasāʾī said: “There is no problem with him—except in what he narrates from al-Zuhrī.”

Abū Ḥātim al-Bustī, in his book al-Ḍuʿafāʾ (4)—having included him therein—wrote:

“He reports from al-Zuhrī inverted narrations, but when he transmits from others, his ḥadīth resemble those of the firmly established transmitters. This happened because al-Zuhrī’s notebook became mixed up for him, so he would cite it by conjecture. A fair assessment, therefore, is to record what he narrates from al-Zuhrī while relying on what he narrates from others for proof.”