Al-Nawawī explicitly says that al-Fazārī’s complete avoidance of Ismāʿīl b. ʿAyyāsh differs from the majority of hadith critics. Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn called him «ثِقَةٌ», specifically «ثِقَةٌ فِيمَا رَوَى عَنِ الشَّامِيِّينَ» (reliable in what he narrated from Syrians). Al-Bukhārī considered his material from Syrian teachers more sound. ʿAmr b. ʿAlī distinguished sound reports from his own region from weak reports taken from Medinan teachers such as Hishām b. ʿUrwah and Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd, describing the latter «فَلَيْسَ بِشَيْءٍ». Abū Ḥātim said «لَيِّنٌ، يُكْتَبُ حَدِيثُهُ» (not strong, but his reports may be recorded), rather than adopting al-Fazārī’s blanket refusal.
Cause of the distinction: In Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn’s account, Ismāʿīl’s written material for Ḥijāzī teachers was lost, and his recall then became confused: «فَإِنَّ كِتَابَهُ ضَاعَ فَخَلَطَ فِي حِفْظِهِ عَنْهُمْ». The critical ruling therefore distinguishes a specific subcorpus defined by teachers and region from a blanket grade for the man. It does not make every Syrian report automatically authentic.