Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd, of whom the hadith master says no more in his biographical notice than: “Truthful”!

2. It contains detailed criticism, and detailed criticism takes precedence over positive accreditation when the two conflict, as is well known in hadith terminology.

There is another consideration: it is contradicted by the statements of the other imams, which unanimously declare the man weak, while many of them also state the reason for this weakening. For example, Ibn Saʿīd himself said that he did not retain hadith well; and similarly—though more explicitly—al-Jūzajānī said that he had a poor memory and deteriorated toward the end of his life. Likewise, Abū Dāwūd said that he had hadiths containing objectionable material.

He seems to have taken this from the statement of his teacher Aḥmad: “His hadiths are objectionable.” Similarly, Ibn Saʿd said: “He has objectionable hadiths.” Some accused him of concealment in transmission, and Aḥmad’s wording is broader and more comprehensive than that of Ibn Ḥibbān, which suggests that his concealment in transmission was restricted to what he narrated from ʿIkrimah.

I say: Thus, it is better to rely on the critical statements of these imams concerning ʿAbbād than on Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd’s statement accrediting him, especially since Yaḥyā’s first statement agrees with them, as is plainly apparent. All praise is due to Allah, the Exalted.

I say: Once you have understood this, consider what the eminent scholar Aḥmad Shākir did. He mentioned the statements of al-Nasāʾī and Ibn Saʿd declaring him weak, then immediately remarked (4/6): “Their criticism of him goes back to his views regarding divine decree and to his concealment in transmission: he narrated hadiths from ʿIkrimah which he had not heard from him. No one impugned his truthfulness.”

I say: This is what he said, and it is astonishing. How can their statements declaring him weak be construed contrary to what most of them explicitly stated to be the reason for weakening him? Al-Nasāʾī himself declared him weak without qualification and did not accuse him of Qadari views; rather, he added that he had deteriorated. Likewise, al-Jūzajānī attributed deterioration to him, as in item (17), and further stated that he had a poor memory. Similar is the statement of Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd in report no. (1): “He did not retain hadith well.”