✍ Compiled by: Abu Hamzah Salafi
❖ 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 was a case of lenient expression (taṣāmuḥ) on Abū Dāwūd’s part.
📜 Statements from Major 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 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, which proves he did not actually trust him for legislative texts.
📜 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.
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:
“Min shirār al-nās”
“He is from among the worst of people.”
This statement reinforces that his earlier “ṣadūq” label was not a general authentication, but perhaps an isolated expression of leniency.
✿ Conclusion
❀ The majority of ḥadīth critics (including Ibn al-Mubārak, Yaḥyá ibn Maʿīn, Abū Ḥātim, al-Nasāʾī, al-Dhahabī, Ibn Ḥibbān, etc.) have clearly declared ‘Amr ibn Thābit to be weak, rejected, and even accused of fabricating ḥadīth.
❀ Imām Abū Dāwūd’s use of the word “ṣadūq” must be understood in its context and likely reflects academic leniency, especially since he did not report any marfūʿ ḥadīth from him.
❀ Imām al-Bayhaqī and others have explicitly stated that ‘Amr ibn Thābit cannot be used as proof.
❀ Therefore, using him as a valid narrator or accepting his narrations as ḥujjah (evidence) contradicts the principles of the majority of ḥadīth scholars.
