❖ Objective of the Article
This research article examines a claim made by a social media user, Abu ‘Umar al-Shawkānī, who presented a statement of Imām Abū Dāwūd رحمه الله in a way that suggested he considered ‘Amr ibn Thābit to be ṣadūq (truthful) in ḥadīth.
In this article, we aim to:
❀ Present the statements of the majority of ḥadīth critics who declared ‘Amr ibn Thābit weak.
❀ Clarify the actual context of Imām Abū Dāwūd’s comment about ‘Amr ibn Thābit.
❀ Demonstrate, using statements from Imām al-Bayhaqī and others, that this statement of Imām Abū Dāwūd was a scholarly oversight (ʿilmī taṣāmuḥ).
📜 Criticisms (Jarḥ) of the Majority of Ḥadīth Critics on ‘Amr ibn Thābit
① Imām ‘Abdullāh ibn al-Mubārak رحمه الله
Arabic:
ترك ابن المبارك عمرو بن ثابت
📚 al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl (Ibn Abī Ḥātim)
Translation:
Ibn al-Mubārak abandoned ‘Amr ibn Thābit.
② Imām Yaḥyá ibn Maʿīn رحمه الله
Arabic:
عمرو بن ثابت بن أبي المقدام ليس بثقة ولا مأمون
📚 al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl
Translation:
‘Amr ibn Thābit ibn Abī al-Miqdām is not trustworthy nor reliable.
③ Imām Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī رحمه الله
Arabic:
ضعيف الحديث… كان ردي الرأي شديد التشيع
📚 al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl
Translation:
He is weak in ḥadīth, and had bad opinions, being extremely Shīʿī.
④ Imām Abū Zurʿah al-Rāzī رحمه الله
Arabic:
ضعيف الحديث
📚 al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl
Translation:
He is weak in ḥadīth.
⑤ Imām al-Nasāʾī رحمه الله
Arabic:
متروك الحديث
📚 al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa al-Matrūkīn
Translation:
He is abandoned in ḥadīth.
⑥ Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī رحمه الله
Arabic:
عمرو رافضي متروك
📚 Talkhīṣ al-Mustadrak
Translation:
‘Amr was a Rāfiḍī and rejected (matrūk).
⑦ Ibn Ḥibbān رحمه الله
Arabic:
كان ممن يروي الموضوعات، لا يحل ذكره إلا على سبيل الاعتبار
📚 al-Majrūḥīn
Translation:
He used to narrate fabricated reports. His mention is allowed only for cautionary reference, not for evidence.
📜 What Did Imām Abū Dāwūd Actually Say?
In his Sunan, Imām Abū Dāwūd did not narrate any marfūʿ ḥadīth from ‘Amr ibn Thābit. The only narration is a mawqūf (companion-level) statement from Ḥamnah bint Jaḥsh رضي الله عنها, transmitted via ‘Abdullāh ibn Muḥammad ibn ‘Aqīl (who himself is weak).
Arabic (Sunan Abū Dāwūd):
وعَمْرُو بْنُ ثَابِتٍ رَافِضِيٌّ… وَلَكِنَّهُ كَانَ صَدُوقًا فِي الحَدِيثِ
Translation:
‘Amr ibn Thābit was a Rāfiḍī, but he was truthful in ḥadīth.
This is the statement misused by some to suggest a general authentication of ‘Amr. But Abū Dāwūd never reported any marfūʿ narration from him.
📜 Clarification by Imām al-Bayhaqī رحمه الله
Imām al-Bayhaqī clarified that the narration of ‘Amr ibn Thābit was not presented as a Prophetic ḥadīth but only as a statement of a female companion.
Al-Bayhaqī clearly stated that this narrator is not to be used as proof (ghayr muḥtajj bihi).
Arabic (al-Sunan al-Kubrā):
وعَمْرُو بْنُ ثَابِتٍ هَذَا غَيْرُ مُحْتَجٍّ بِهِ
Translation:
This ‘Amr ibn Thābit is not a reliable source for evidence.
📜 Abū Dāwūd’s Stronger Statement Elsewhere
In Suʾālāt al-Ājurī, Imām Abū Dāwūd is also reported to have said:
من شرار الناس
“He was from among the worst of people.”
✿ Conclusion
❀ According to the explicit statements of the majority of imāms, ‘Amr ibn Thābit is severely weak and matrūk al-ḥadīth (abandoned in ḥadīth).
❀ Imām Abū Dāwūd calling him “ṣadūq” in one place was his scholarly oversight (ʿilmī taṣāmuḥ), which he also made clear in practice by not bringing any marfūʿ narration from him in his Sunan.
❀ Imām al-Bayhaqī and others have explicitly stated that ‘Amr ibn Thābit cannot be used as proof.
❀ Therefore, considering the narrations of ‘Amr ibn Thābit ṣaḥīḥ or ḥujjah (evidence) contradicts the principles of the majority of ḥadīth scholars.
