“His hadith is acceptable.”

Abū Ḥātim said: “His hadith may be recorded, but it is not cited as proof. He is comparable to Ibn Isḥāq, the historian of the Prophetic campaigns: his hadith is good, but he is not firmly reliable, and he is better than al-Wāsiṭī.”

Al-Nasāʾī and Ibn Khuzaymah said: “There is no harm in him.”

Ibn ʿAdī said: “Some of his hadiths contain matters that are objectionable and for which he is not corroborated; nevertheless, his hadith is acceptable, as Aḥmad said.”

Al-Dāraquṭnī said: “Weak.”

Al-ʿIjlī said: “His hadith may be recorded, but he is not strong.”

Al-Ḥāfiẓ summarized this in al-Taqrīb by describing him as “truthful.”

Muslim transmitted reports from him as supporting evidence.

In al-Tirmidhī, his name appears simply as “ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq,” without identification as a Qurashī. Consequently, its commentator, al-Mubārakfūrī, may Allah have mercy on him, assumed that he was the Wāsiṭī previously mentioned, and said: “He is al-Wāsiṭī al-Kūfī, known as Abū Shaybah.”

I say: He is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq ibn Saʿd ibn al-Ḥārith, Abū Shaybah al-Wāsiṭī.