and this is Ibn Saʿd, who after attributing his weakening to the imams of ḥadīth, followed it with the statement: "He has objectionable ḥadīths." Similar is the statement of Ibn Abī Shaybah number (13), and more general than that is the statement of Aḥmad (number 12): "His ḥadīths were objectionable." These statements, in addition to being clear criticism, also simultaneously explain the reason for the criticism, which is that he narrates ḥadīths that the trustworthy do not corroborate. This aligns with the statements of those who described him as having poor memory and change, which is an explicit criticism. So how can it be said in light of all this: "Their statements about him revert to his opinion on predestination"? The truth is that if ʿAbbād's reliability, memory, and lack of deception were established, his opinion on predestination would not harm his narration, because the main criteria are integrity, precision, and freedom from a critical flaw like deception, which is absent here. As for precision, it has been previously explained by the statements of the imams that he did not memorize. From this, you learn that this does not contradict Shaykh Aḥmad's statement: "No one impugned his honesty." Because to be reliable, it is also necessary that no one impugns his memory, and this is not realized here as previously mentioned. As for deception, Shaykh Aḥmad has decisively denied it, and the response to him will come later. Here ends the discussion on his statement: that he is reliable, and it becomes clear that he is weak and has poor memory. Second: his statement that he was not a deceiver at all. It suffices to refute this with the statement of Imām Aḥmad (paragraph 12):