Here is Ibn Saʿd: after attributing the judgment of his weakness to the hadith imams, he followed it with the statement: “He has objectionable hadiths.” Similar is the statement of Ibn Abī Shaybah, no. (13), while Aḥmad’s statement, no. (12), is broader: “His hadiths were objectionable.”

In addition to being explicit criticism, these statements also explain the reason for that criticism: he would narrate hadiths independently for which the trustworthy narrators provided no corroboration. This accords with the statements of those who described him as having a poor memory and as having deteriorated. Such is explained criticism; so how can it be valid, despite all this, to say: “Their criticism of him goes back to his views regarding divine decree”?!

The fact is that, had ʿAbbād’s trustworthiness, sound retention, and freedom from concealment in transmission been established, his views regarding divine decree would not have harmed his narrations. For what matters in evaluating them is integrity, precision, and freedom from a discrediting hidden defect, such as concealment in transmission. Yet these qualities are lacking here. As for precision, the statements of the imams cited above have already shown that he did not retain hadith well. From this, you may understand that this does not conflict with Shaykh Aḥmad’s statement: “No one impugned his truthfulness.” For, in order for him to be trustworthy, it is also necessary that no one impugn his retention—and that is not the case here, as has preceded.

As for concealment in transmission, Shaykh Aḥmad categorically denied that he practiced it. The response to this will follow. Here ends the discussion of his claim that he was trustworthy, and it becomes clear that he was weak and had a poor memory.

Second: his claim that he was not a concealment practitioner at all.

The statement of Imam Aḥmad, section (12), is sufficient to refute this: