the ḥadīth in his commentary on "al-Musnad" (3318). and now it has become clear to me that it is necessary to clarify what we pointed out there because some of the scholars engaged in verification, upon reviewing it, found it problematic. So I say: the scholar Aḥmad Shākir, may Allāh have mercy on him, based his authentication mentioned on important matters: first: that ʿAbbād ibn Manṣūr is trustworthy (vol. 4 / 6, 5 / 108). second: that he was not a mudallis at all. third: his doubt in the authenticity of the words reported from some of the ḥadīth scholars indicating that ʿAbbād was a mudallis, and his doubt in their implication if they are authentic! fourth: that Ibn Abī Yaḥyá whom ʿAbbād allegedly practiced tadlīs on is not Ibrāhīm ibn Abī Yaḥyá, the liar, but rather Muḥammad ibn Abī Yaḥyá, the trustworthy! these are the pillars upon which the aforementioned shaykh based the authenticity of the ḥadīth. in response to that, I say, and with Allāh's guidance: first: we do not know of any of the early scholars, nor the later ḥadīth masters, who declared ʿAbbād ibn Manṣūr as trustworthy as the shaykh, may Allāh have mercy on him, did, except for a narration from Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd which is opposed by a stronger one. before explaining that, I will list for you the statements of the scholars mentioned by al-Ḥāfiẓ in "al-Tahdhīb" in the biography of this ʿAbbād: 1 - ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī said: I asked Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd: Was ʿAbbād ibn Manṣūr changed? He said: I do not know, but when we saw him, he did not memorize, and I did not see Yaḥyá approving of him. (al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl 3 / 1 / 86), Ibn ʿAdī (folio 238 / 1). 2 - Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd said: My grandfather said: ʿAbbād is trustworthy, he should not..