"righteous in ḥadīth." Abū Ḥātim said: "His ḥadīth is written, but not used as evidence, and he is close to Ibn Isḥāq, the author of the maghāzī, and his ḥadīth is good, but not firm, and he is more upright than al-Wāsiṭī." al-Nasāʾī and Ibn Khuzaymah said: "There is no harm in him." Ibn ʿAdī said: "In his ḥadīth, there are some things that are rejected and not followed, but he is righteous in ḥadīth as Aḥmad said." al-Dāraquṭnī said: "Weak." al-ʿAjlī said: "His ḥadīth is written, but he is not strong." The ḥāfiẓ summarized this by saying in "al-Taqrīb" "truthful." Muslim included his work in "al-Shawāhid." His name appeared in al-Tirmidhī as "ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq" without attribution to Quraysh, so his commentator al-Mubārakfūrī thought he was al-Wāsiṭī mentioned earlier and said: "He is al-Wāsiṭī al-Kūfī, known as Abū Shaybah." I say: He is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq ibn Saʿd ibn al-Ḥārith Abū Shaybah al-Wāsiṭī