Al-‘Uqayli then said after citing this hadith:

“It has no basis among the narrations of ‘Awf; rather, it is narrated from Anas through a chain that is not established.”

Ibn Abi Hatim (1/2/370–371) said:

“I asked my father about him, and he replied: ‘Narrations are reported from him.’”

Ibn Hibban mentioned him in al-Thiqat (The Trustworthy Narrators) and said:

“He was an extreme Murji’ite. I deemed it preferable to avoid his hadith because of his partisanship and his hatred of those who adhere to the Sunnah.”

Al-Khalili said: “He was truthful and well-known. He was described as a man of integrity, righteousness, and asceticism, and he was a jurist according to the views of the Kufans.”

Al-Dhahabi included him in al-Mizan and said:

“Abu Sa‘id was one of the eminent jurists of Balkh.” He then mentioned some of the preceding remarks concerning him and said: “I say: He was a man of knowledge, righteous practice, and devotion. The ruler of Balkh visited him, but he turned away from him.”

In al-Du‘afa’, he said:

“The mufti of Balkh; Ibn Ma‘in deemed him weak.”

Al-Hafiz al-‘Asqalani said something similar in al-Taqrib.

I say: I was not persuaded by the disparagement of this man, for it is unexplained criticism—except perhaps for Ibn Hibban’s statement. Yet Ibn Hibban’s words clearly indicate that he found no grounds to criticize him other than his being a Murji’ite, and this cannot be regarded as valid criticism by the discerning hadith scholars. Thus, we find al-Bukhari citing in his Sahih reports from some Kharijites, Shi‘ites, Qadariyyah (those who deny divine decree), and other adherents of heterodox doctrines, since the decisive criterion in hadith transmission is a narrator’s trustworthiness and precision. It seems that this was why al-Hafiz did not categorically declare