ʿIkrimah? He said: Ibn Abī Yaḥyá narrated them from Dāwūd from ʿIkrimah. This clearly indicates that Yaḥyá had doubts—at least regarding ʿAbbād hearing the mentioned ḥadīths from ʿIkrimah. Therefore, he asked him if he heard them from him. ʿAbbād did not respond in a way that would remove the doubt; rather, he answered in a way that confirmed it, saying: Ibrāhīm narrated them..., without saying: I heard them. This establishes that ʿAbbād was a mudallis. Otherwise, what prevented him from explicitly stating that he heard them, even with a simple "yes," instead of using ambiguous language akin to that of politicians, which is not clear in response and can bear multiple interpretations?! This is something in which, in my critique, the scholar Aḥmad Shākir himself became entangled. He said at the end of his statement: "If these questions (meaning from Yaḥyá to ʿAbbād) and these answers from ʿAbbād were authentic, then the closest to correctness would be that he said: Ibn Abī Yaḥyá and Dāwūd ibn al-Ḥuṣayn narrated them from ʿIkrimah, intending to strengthen his narration by indicating that Dāwūd ibn al-Ḥuṣayn and Muḥammad ibn Abī Yaḥyá also narrated these ḥadīths from ʿIkrimah as he did, not that he wanted to establish upon himself a tadlīs that he had no need for"! I said: Yes, if he had the choice in that, he could have avoided establishing tadlīs upon himself, he would not have done so. But since he was asked by the imām Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd whether he heard them, and it is assumed that he heard them as the shaykh claims, what prevented him from explicitly stating that in response to the imām's question? To say that he followed Ibn Abī Yaḥyá and Dāwūd in narrating from ʿIkrimah! How astonishing it is that the shaykh is satisfied with his interpretation, which is far from answering the question, especially since it deviates from the text of the narration, which states: "Ibn Abī Yaḥyá narrated them from Dāwūd," while the shaykh says: "Ibn Abī Yaḥyá and Dāwūd"! Yes, it may be said that the shaykh permitted such a statement contrary to the narration because he doubted its authenticity, as he indicated with his previous statement "If these questions were authentic..." and similarly his previous statement "We do not see it as authentic"! The response to this will come in the following paragraph. All of this is assuming that the narration is with the wording "narrated them" as the shaykh preferred. However, according to the other narration: "narrated to me," it is a text that does not allow for the meaning the shaykh mentioned at all. Thus, it is established that ʿAbbād was a mudallis, and the shaykh's denial of this is unfounded