Is ‘Amr ibn Thabit a Trustworthy Narrator? Refuting the Misuse of Imam Abu Dawud's Statement

✍ 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.