وَحَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ قُهْزَاذَ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبَا إِسْحَاقَ الطَّالَقَانِيَّ يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ الْمُبَارَكِ يَقُولُ: لَوْ خُيِّرْتُ بَيْنَ أَنْ أَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ وَبَيْنَ أَنْ أَلْقَى عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ مُحَرَّرٍ لَاخْتَرْتُ أَنْ أَلْقَاهُ ثُمَّ أَدْخُلَ الْجَنَّةَ، فَلَمَّا رَأَيْتُهُ كَانَتْ بَعْرَةٌ أَحَبَّ إِلَيَّ مِنْهُ.
Translation: Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Quhzādh transmits Ibn al-Mubārak’s severe remark: he had greatly desired to meet ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥarrar, but after seeing him he expressed extreme aversion, saying even a piece of dung was preferable.
The report shows how sharply a critic’s assessment could change after direct acquaintance. It records historical severity, not a general permission to use gratuitously insulting language in criticism.