-
Ibn Abī Shaybah said: “He narrated objectionable hadiths from Ayyūb and ʿIkrimah.”
-
Abū Bakr al-Bazzār said: “He narrated hadiths from ʿIkrimah, but did not hear from him.”
-
Al-ʿIjlī said: “There is no harm in him; his hadith may be written down.” On another occasion, he said: “His hadith is acceptable.”
-
Ibn Saʿd said: “They considered him weak, and he narrated objectionable hadiths.”
-
Al-Jūzajānī said: “He was accused of Qadari views, had a poor memory, and deteriorated toward the end of his life.”
I say: After this survey of what has been said about ʿAbbād, it becomes clear to you that all these imams agreed in declaring him weak—apart from what is stated in report no. 2 from Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd, for an explanation of what contradicts it will follow; and apart from al-ʿIjlī’s statement (15): “There is no harm in him; his hadith may be written down.” On another occasion, he said: “His hadith is acceptable.” As you can see, this is not explicit in affirming his trustworthiness. Rather, anyone familiar with the statements of the imams concerning narrators, and with their expressions in positive and negative evaluation, will share my sense that this statement of al-ʿIjlī indicates that the man had some weakness, even if slight. It is therefore impermissible to rely on it as an unqualified attestation of ʿAbbād’s trustworthiness, for two reasons:
The first is that it is not explicit in this regard, as we have mentioned.
The other is that, even if it were explicit, al-ʿIjlī is known to be lenient in declaring narrators trustworthy, just like Ibn Ḥibbān. Thus, his positive evaluation is rejected when it conflicts with the statements of imams whose critical discernment and negative evaluations are trusted. Moreover, with some latitude, his words may be understood as agreeing with their statements, since they are not explicit in affirming his trustworthiness, as we have mentioned.
As for Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd’s statement in the second report from him, “Trustworthy,” it may be answered in two ways:
The first is that it is contradicted by what is found in the first report from him, which is to be given preference over it for two reasons:
- It is more authentic, because it is narrated by the authoritative and highly reliable imam, ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī, whereas the other is narrated by