Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd, about whom the ḥāfiẓ did not add in his biography more than saying "truthful"! that it included a detailed criticism, and detailed criticism takes precedence over commendation when there is a conflict, as is known in "al-Muṣṭalaḥ". And there is another aspect: its opposition by the statements of other imams, for they agree on weakening the man, with many of them explaining the reason for the weakening, such as Ibn Saʿīd himself saying he does not memorize, and more explicitly than that is al-Jawzjānī's statement that he had poor memory and that he changed in the end. And similar is the statement of Abū Dāwūd that he had ḥadīths with objectionable content. It is as if he received that from the statement of his teacher Aḥmad: his ḥadīths are objectionable. And similar to it is the statement of Ibn Saʿd: he has objectionable ḥadīths. Some accused him of tadlīs, and Aḥmad's expression is broader and more comprehensive than Ibn Ḥibbān's expression, which suggests that his tadlīs was specific to what he narrated from ʿIkrimah. I said: So adhering to the statements of these imams who criticized ʿAbbād is better than adhering to the statement of Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd who vouched for him, especially since his first statement agrees with them, as is clearly apparent, and all praise is due to Allāh. I said: So if you understand this, look at what the scholar Aḥmad Shākir did. He mentioned the statement of al-Nasāʾī and Ibn Saʿd who weakened him, then immediately said (4/6): "Their statements about him refer to his opinion on al-Qadar and that he practiced tadlīs, narrating ḥadīths from ʿIkrimah which he did not hear from him, and no one impugned his truthfulness." I said: Thus he said, and it is one of the oddities, for how can it be permissible to interpret their statements weakening him contrary to what the majority of them explicitly stated as the reason for the weakening. For al-Nasāʾī himself issued the weakening and did not accuse him of al-Qadar, but added that he had changed! Likewise, al-Jawzjānī attributed change to him as in section (17), and added that he had poor memory. And similar is the statement of Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd number (1): he did not memorize
أحمد بن يحيى بن سعيد الذي لم يزد الحافظ في ترجمته على قوله فيه " صدوق "! أنها تضمنت جرحا مفسرا، والجرح المفسر مقدم على التعديل عند التعارض كما هو معلوم في " المصطلح ". وثمة وجه آخر: معارضته بأقوال الأئمة الآخرين، فإنها متفقة على تضعيف الرجل مع بيان سبب التضعيف في كثير منها مثل قول ابن سعيد نفسه إنه لا يحفظ ومثله وأصرح منه قول الجوزجاني أنه كان سيء الحفظ، وأنه تغير أخيرا. ومثل قول أبي داود أن عنده أحاديث فيها نكارة. وكأنه تلقى ذلك من قول شيخه أحمد: أحاديثه منكرة. ونحوه قول ابن سعد: له أحاديث منكرة. وبعضهم رماه بالتدليس، وعبارة أحمد أعم وأشمل من عبارة ابن حبان التي توحي بأن تدليسه خاص بما رواه عن عكرمة. قلت: فالأخذ بأقوال هؤلاء الأئمة الجارحة لعباد خير من الأخذ بقول يحيى بن سعيد الموثق له، لاسيما وقوله الأول موافقه لهم، كما هو بين ظاهر، والحمد لله تعالى. قلت: فإذا عرفت هذا فانظر إلى ما صنع العلامة أحمد شاكر، لقد ذكر قول النسائي وابن سعد المضعفين له ثم قال عقبه مباشرة (٤ / ٦) : " وكلامهم فيه يرجع إلى رأيه في القدر، وإلى أنه يدلس، فيروي أحاديث عن عكرمة لم يسمعها منه، ولم يطعن أحد في صدقه ". قلت: كذا قال، وهو من الغرائب، إذ كيف يسوغ أن يوجه كلامهم المضعف له بخلاف ما نص جمهورهم على سبب التضعيف. فهذا النسائي نفسه أطلق التضعيف، ولم يرمه بالقدر، بل أضاف إلى ذلك أنه كان تغير! وكذلك نسبه إلى التغير الجوزجاني كما في الفقرة (١٧) ، وزاد على ذلك أنه كان سيء الحفظ. ونحوه قول يحيى بن سعيد رقم (١) : كان لا يحفظ.