الاحتجاج برواية عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده
These pages are my English rendering of Shaykh Ibrāhīm al-Ṣabīḥī's monograph al-Iḥtijāj bi Riwāyat ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb ʿan Abīhi ʿan Jaddihi, "The Authority of the Narration of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his Father from his Grandfather", written in Riyadh in 6/3/1412 AH. The chain of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather is among the most discussed in the science of ḥadīth, a chain that bears upon the laws of diyāt, zakāt on jewellery, and many other questions; and yet, despite its centrality, the author's patient survey of the imāms' positions on it has not, to my knowledge, been available in English. I have produced this version so that English-language students of uṣūl al-ḥadīth can engage with the material and weigh the imāms' words for themselves.
My method has been to render the author's narrative analysis in fluent English while preserving the Arabic for what should not be paraphrased: the Qurʾānic verses, the ḥadīth texts, and, above all, the explicit verdicts of the named scholars, which are themselves the objects of al-Ṣabīḥī's study. Each Arabic block is followed by an English translation; the translation is mine and aims at faithful sense rather than a word-for-word equivalent. Footnotes follow the source exactly: the page and line references trace back to the classical works as al-Ṣabīḥī recorded them. Technical terms appear italicised on first use, tadlīs, wijādah, mursal, munqaṭiʿ, and are explained where needed.
I am a student of these sciences, not their master. Where I have understood al-Ṣabīḥī correctly, the merit is the author's and the teachers from whom I learned to read him. Where I have erred, the fault is mine alone, and I ask the reader's correction and duʿāʾ.
To proceed: the narration of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather is a chain well known among the scholars; their words about it have circulated widely, both in earlier and later periods. They have studied it carefully, taken pains to clarify what bears upon its connection (ittiṣāl), discontinuity (irsāl), authenticity, and weakness, to the point of composing several monographs on it.
When I prepared the study The Jurisprudence of Zakāt on Jewellery, it became clear to me that there was a renewed need to revisit this chain, to gather the scholars' statements about it, and to expose the misunderstandings that some who consult those statements have fallen into. There is a need for an independent investigation that gives the time and care required to clear up the obscure aspects, the weaker positions, and the attributions that cannot rightly be ascribed to those they are ascribed to, so that the soundest and weightiest opinions emerge. The aim is to safeguard the Prophetic Sunnah preserved through this route, and to set the scholars' words in order, for their views often interweave in ways that make the study of them difficult.
Perhaps the strongest cause of this difficulty is the well-known fact that many critics held more than one position over their lifetime: their views diverge to the point that no one of them is reported as weakening this chain without also being reported as accepting it or relying upon it. This has led many researchers to disagree over what each imām of al-jarḥ wa al-taʿdīl actually held, and that, in turn, prompted me to expand the present study.
I have divided the work into three sections. The first treats the biographies of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb and his forefathers Shuʿayb and Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr, may Allāh be pleased with them; the second takes each imām's view independently, gathering everything reported from him, addressing apparent contradictions, and offering reconciliations; the third takes a single example of what the critics counted among ʿAmr's rejected reports, the ḥadīth on the obligation of zakāt on jewellery, and traces its routes, weighs its variants, and addresses the grounds of its weakening.
Dr. Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad ibn Manṣūr al-Ṣabīḥī, Riyadh, 6/3/1412 AH
ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr, may Allāh be pleased with him, is among the foremost of the Companions in the volume of his transmission from the Prophet ﷺ, because he was one of those who wrote down the Sunnah during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ. Imām al-Dhahabī mentioned that the Group (i.e., the Six Books authors collectively) reported approximately seven hundred ḥadīth from him. Of these, al-Bukhārī and Muslim agreed on seven; al-Bukhārī narrated eight individually and Muslim narrated twenty.1
Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ, in his commentary on al-Dhahabī's remark, observed that Imām Aḥmad reported 626 ḥadīth from him in his Musnad. Reviewing Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir's numbering of ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr's Musnad within Imām Aḥmad's Musnad, al-Ṣabīḥī found 627, one more than the number Shaykh Shuʿayb gave. The discrepancy is due to the inclusion in ʿAbdullāh's Musnad of one ḥadīth of Jarīr ibn ʿAbdullāh al-Bajalī (no. 6905). ʿAbdullāh's Musnad begins at no. 6477 and ends at no. 7103, confirming Shaykh Shuʿayb's count for the strictly musnad reports from the Prophet ﷺ alone.
To this number must be added sixteen ḥadīth that ʿAbdullāh narrated from seven Companions: Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq (nos. 8 and 28); ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (no. 118 directly, plus nos. 147, 148, 183, 324, 346 via ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather from ʿUmar); ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Sāʾib (nos. 15394, 15395, 15397, 15400); Abū Muwayhibah, the freedman of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ (no. 15997); his father ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ (no. 17824); Ubayy ibn Kaʿb (no. 21108); and Muʿādh (no. 22093). The Musnad's indexers listed seventeen, but al-Ṣabīḥī notes that no. 349 is in fact narrated by Mālik ibn Aws ibn al-Ḥadathān from ʿUmar, not by ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr. The total of what Imām Aḥmad reports from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr is therefore 716 ḥadīth.
Shuʿayb in turn narrated many of these ḥadīth from ʿAbdullāh, and ʿAmr (Shuʿayb's son) carried most of what his father narrated. The narrations of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather, in the books of the Six Imāms, reach 168, as Imām al-Mizzī gives in Tuḥfat al-Ashrāf: they begin at no. 8656 and end at no. 8823.2 Of these, Imām Aḥmad records 143 in the Musnad; in Ibn Ḥajar's Itḥāf al-Maharah the ḥadīth number 177 (nos. 11697 to 11873).
So intense was the scholars' concern with this chain that they composed several monographs on it:
Imām Muslim (d. 261 AH) compiled a juzʾ of what the scholars regarded as rejected (mustankar) from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb's ḥadīth.
Al-Ḥāfiẓ ʿAbd al-Ghanī ibn Saʿīd (d. 409 AH) wrote on the Tābiʿīn who narrated from him.3
Al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū Saʿīd al-ʿAlāʾī (d. 761 AH) authored al-Washī al-Muʿallam. Al-Suyūṭī described it as "a separate juzʾ devoted to the soundness of relying on this collection (nuskhah) and a reply to what has been raised against it."4 Al-ʿIrāqī read the work with its author in Bayt al-Maqdis.
Al-Bulqīnī (d. 805 AH) wrote Badhl al-Nāqid Baʿḍ Juhdihi fī al-Iḥtijāj bi ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb ʿan Abīhi ʿan Jaddihi.5
Furayḥ al-Bahlāl (contemporary) treated the narration in a separate study, summarising his findings in his Imtinān al-ʿAlī bi ʿAdam Zakāt al-Ḥilyy. He concludes, after listing nine grounds, that ʿAmr's narration from his father from his grandfather is weak. Al-Ṣabīḥī notes three methodological problems with al-Bahlāl's presentation: (a) he quotes only those who weakened the chain, omitting opposing voices; (b) he reports each imām's grounds for rejection without noting the same imām's grounds for acceptance; (c) he does not address the responses other imāms gave to those grounds.
Of the first four works, al-Ṣabīḥī was unable to obtain copies; what he discusses in this volume is his response to al-Bahlāl's nine arguments.
This chapter sets out the biographies of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb, his father Shuʿayb, and his grandfather Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh, with a focus on the precise points where the imāms differ. It then turns to the questions of audition through the chain, Shuʿayb's hearing from his father Muḥammad and from his grandfather ʿAbdullāh, and concludes with the dispute over the identity of "the grandfather" in unspecified attributions, and over whether the chain rests on audition (samāʿ) or on the finding of a written manuscript (wijādah).
He is ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb ibn Muḥammad, son of the Companion of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ. He is the imām, the muḥaddith, Abū Ibrāhīm, according to the more correct view, and is also said to have been Abū ʿAbdullāh; al-Qurashī al-Sahmī al-Ḥijāzī, the jurist of the people of Ṭāʾif and their muḥaddith. He used to travel often to Mecca to spread knowledge. He narrated from his father at length, and also from al-Rubayyiʿ bint Muʿawwidh and Zaynab bint Abī Salamah, both of whom were Companions of the Prophet ﷺ.6
Al-Dāraquṭnī reports that al-Nuqāsh held ʿAmr was not among the Tābiʿīn:
Al-Dāraquṭnī added:
Al-Mizzī disagreed:
Al-Nawawī likewise sided with al-Nuqāsh. Al-Mizzī's rebuttal applies to al-Nawawī's position equally.
His students were many, especially among the Tābiʿīn. Al-Nawawī listed twenty-two of them, including: ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ, ʿAmr ibn Dīnār, al-Zuhrī, Yaḥyā al-Anṣārī, Thābit al-Bunānī, Abū Isḥāq al-Shaybānī, Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī, Abū Ḥāzim, Dāwud ibn Abī Hind, Qatādah, al-Ḥakam, Wahb ibn Munabbih, al-Zubayr ibn ʿAdī, Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq ibn Bashīr, Makḥūl, Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl, Hishām ibn ʿUrwah, Yazīd ibn Abī Ḥabīb, Yaḥyā ibn Abī Kathīr, Ḥarīz ibn ʿUthmān, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Rāfiʿ, and Dāwud ibn Qays. All of them are Tābiʿīn, a fact that the scholars cite as evidence of ʿAmr's standing.
The scholars praised him highly, and there is near-consensus on his personal probity. They differed only on the connection of his narrations from his father from his grandfather: those who did not consider this chain connected criticised it; those who held it to be connected accepted it, provided the report was neither anomalous (shādhdh) nor rejected (munkar).
Ibn ʿAdī observed:
Al-Dhahabī divided ʿAmr's narrators into three classes:
Despite the dispute, the Ummah depends on his narrations, especially those concerning the laws of diyāt (blood-money). The imāms are unanimous in relying on what comes through him in this domain, as Ibn al-Qayyim reported in Tahdhīb al-Sunan.11 He lived to the year 118 AH, may Allāh cover him with His vast mercy.
ʿAmr had three forefathers in the chain, Shuʿayb, Muḥammad, and ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr, and the scholars differed on his audition from his father along two lines.
Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Jawzjānī al-Warrāq:
ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī:
Abū Bakr ibn Ziyād al-Naysābūrī:
Abū Zurʿah al-Rāzī:
Ibn Abī Khaythamah, in dialogue with Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn:
Aḥmad ibn Ṣāliḥ:
Ibn Abī Khaythamah:
Al-Ṣabīḥī's assessment:
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī said:
Ibn Ḥajar placed ʿAmr in the second tier of the mudallisīn, those whose tadlīs the imāms tolerated. After citing the statements of those who held that ʿAmr's narrations stemmed from a manuscript, he wrote:
Al-Ṣabīḥī pushes back. He observes that no scholar before Ibn Ḥajar appears to have classified ʿAmr as a mudallis. None of the imāms who declared him reliable or weakened him hint at tadlīs. Ibn Ḥajar himself in Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb describes him only as ṣadūq, without mentioning tadlīs. Al-Sakhāwī, Ibn Ḥajar's student, omits any reference to tadlīs when describing him in connection with riwāyat al-abnāʾ ʿan al-ābāʾ (the narrations of sons from fathers).12 When Ibn Maʿīn addressed the discontinuity in the chain, he used the term irsāl rather than tadlīs, a clear distinction.
Ibn Maʿīn said:
Ibn Ḥajar then commented:
Al-Ṣabīḥī's synthesis: It is widely accepted that ʿAmr was not initially accused of tadlīs; the charge arose from Ibn Ḥajar's assumption that ʿAmr relied on written documents from his father, a debatable premise. ʿAmr's integrity is unquestioned. To insist on direct hearing in every case, and on that basis to label him a mudallis, risks weakening his reliability, even though he was never formally accused of tadlīs. Tadlīs al-qabīḥ ("egregious tadlīs"), which involves omitting weak narrators to make a chain appear stronger, is not at issue here. If we suppose ʿAmr found his grandfather's documents in his father's possession, this would render the mention of Shuʿayb in the chain redundant. And if tadlīs is conceded with respect to ʿAmr's narrations from his father, it would be a matter of mode of transmission rather than anything egregious. The use of al-ʿanʿanah indicates a form of transmission that does not significantly undermine credibility, and is accepted by many ḥadīth scholars. This is why the early ḥadīth critics did not label ʿAmr a mudallis; al-ʿIrāqī and al-Sakhāwī treated it merely as leniency on his part.
He is Shuʿayb ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ al-Sahmī, attributed to his great-grandfather ʿAbdullāh. He narrated from his grandfather, Ibn ʿAbbās, Ibn ʿUmar, Muʿāwiyah, and ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit.
Khalīfah listed him in the first generation of the people of Ṭāʾif.13 Ibn Ḥibbān included him in Kitāb al-Thiqāt among the Tābiʿīn,14 and again among the Tābiʿ al-Tābiʿīn, where he wrote:
Imām al-Dhahabī said:
Al-Dhahabī also said:
Al-Dhahabī in al-Kāshif:
Ibn Ḥibbān himself implicitly declared Shuʿayb reliable. In al-Majrūḥīn he laid out an exception when treating ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb:
Ibn Ḥibbān's singling out of ʿAmr's narrations from his father, and his inclusion of ʿAmr otherwise among the trustworthy, is a tacit endorsement of Shuʿayb. The ground for the exception is not Shuʿayb's lack of reliability, but rather the claim that Shuʿayb did not hear from his grandfather ʿAbdullāh.
Al-Ḥākim authenticated him as well, saying after one of his chains:
Al-Nawawī said:
Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd said, after one of his chains:
Ibn Ḥajar wrote:
Yet Ibn Ḥajar also placed him in the second tier of the mudallisīn. Of Shuʿayb specifically he wrote:
Al-Ṣabīḥī's assessment: Ibn Ḥajar did not categorically affirm that Shuʿayb was a mudallis; he wrote only that "the form of tadlīs is found", a probabilistic observation, not a verdict. No earlier critic appears to have advanced even this. Al-Dhahabī declared Shuʿayb free of fault and described him as ṣadūq, and four imāms declared him reliable. Ibn Ḥajar's probabilistic remark cannot outweigh those explicit endorsements.
Several reports appear on their face to indicate that Shuʿayb heard from his father Muḥammad, and on this basis the scholars differed. Al-Ṣabīḥī's exhaustive analysis of three ḥadīth in which Muḥammad's name appears explicitly in the chain, recorded in Ibn Ḥibbān, Abū Dāwūd, and al-Ḥākim, concludes that all three are weak, contradicted, or contain confusion in the manuscripts:
Al-Ṣabīḥī's conclusion is that the audition of Shuʿayb from his father Muḥammad is not in fact established. The only scholars who explicitly affirmed it are al-Dāraquṭnī, al-Nawawī, and (implicitly) Ibn Ḥibbān; against this stand the explicit denials of al-Dhahabī16 and al-ʿIrāqī17, the latter quoting al-ʿAlāʾī's observation that "what is reported of explicit narration of Muḥammad from his father in the chain is shādhdh and rare," and that some have noted that Muḥammad died during his father's lifetime, with ʿAbdullāh taking charge of raising Shuʿayb.
On Shuʿayb's audition from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr the scholars likewise differed. The first view, affirming the audition, is held by Imām al-Bukhārī ("Shuʿayb ibn Muḥammad heard from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr");18 by Imām Aḥmad (asked by al-Jawzjānī: "And his father heard from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr?", Aḥmad: "Yes, I think he heard from him"); by Aḥmad ibn Saʿīd al-Dārimī; by Abū Bakr ibn Ziyād al-Naysābūrī ("ʿAmr's audition from his father is established, and Shuʿayb's audition from his grandfather is established"); and by al-Dāraquṭnī.19
Al-Ḥākim wrote a long defence in al-Mustadrak:
He then narrated the well-known story of the man who came to ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr asking about a pilgrim who had relations with his wife: ʿAbdullāh pointed to ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar; and Shuʿayb (in the first person) reports having gone with the questioner first to Ibn ʿUmar, then to Ibn ʿAbbās, and back to his grandfather. Al-Ḥākim concluded:
This authoritative report, recounted in the first person by Shuʿayb himself, is decisive. ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī, al-Dhahabī, and Ibn Ḥajar all affirm Shuʿayb's audition from ʿAbdullāh on this and similar grounds. The opposing position is held by Ibn Ḥibbān (in al-Thiqāt he wrote that "the audition of Shuʿayb from ʿAbdullāh is not authentic"), with ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī and Ibn ʿAdī sometimes cited in support, but al-Ṣabīḥī argues that they were addressing ʿAmr's reception of the manuscript, not Shuʿayb's audition from ʿAbdullāh. Al-Dāraquṭnī replied to Ibn Ḥibbān:
The very same first-person report.
As for Shuʿayb's audition from his great-great-grandfather ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, this is not established. Al-Dāraquṭnī stated explicitly:
He is Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ al-Sahmī, the father of Shuʿayb. Ibn Yūnus mentioned him in Tārīkh Miṣr:
Ibn Ḥibbān listed him among the trustworthy and added:
Imām al-Nawawī said:
Imām al-Dhahabī said:
Ibn Ḥajar described him as "maqbūl (acceptable), from the third generation."23
Two observations follow. First, al-Nawawī's tawthīq supplements al-Dhahabī's remark that "he is not mentioned with a tawthīq": al-Nawawī did declare him reliable. Second, regarding the audition of Shuʿayb from him, the discussion above indicates that the stronger view is that this audition is not established. Al-ʿIrāqī reported from al-ʿAlāʾī that Muḥammad died during the lifetime of his father ʿAbdullāh, who then took charge of raising the orphaned Shuʿayb.24
When the chain reads "ʿAmr from his father from his grandfather" without specifying who "the grandfather" is, two views are reported:
View 1: It may refer to either Muḥammad or ʿAbdullāh. Ibn Ḥibbān:
Ibn ʿAdī's view tracks Ibn Ḥibbān's. Al-Dāraquṭnī also distinguishes the three grandfathers (Muḥammad, ʿAbdullāh, ʿAmr) and rules that when ʿAbdullāh is named the report is sound.
View 2: "The grandfather" refers, by default, to ʿAbdullāh.
Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ:
Al-Dhahabī:
Ibn Ḥajar:
Al-Ṣabīḥī's synthesis: by the rule that a pronoun refers to the nearest antecedent unless context dictates otherwise, when ʿAmr's students say "from his father from his grandfather", the "his" in "his grandfather" refers back to Shuʿayb. Shuʿayb's grandfather is ʿAbdullāh. Had they meant ʿAmr's grandfather, they would have said so directly. Moreover, Shuʿayb's narration from his father Muḥammad is shādhdh and rare, and not in fact established by a sound chain, whereas his audition from his grandfather ʿAbdullāh is established.
Four positions emerge, and those who hold for wijādah (transmission by finding a written text) further disagree on whether the finder was ʿAmr or his father Shuʿayb.
Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn:
And:
Abū Zurʿah.
ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī:
Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī, warning al-Layth ibn Abī Sulaym:
Hārūn ibn Maʿrūf.
Al-Tirmidhī:
Al-Sājī recorded Ibn Maʿīn (in another report):
Imām Aḥmad:
Ibn Ḥajar elsewhere:
Aḥmad ibn Ṣāliḥ:
Isḥāq ibn Rāhūyah:
Al-Ḥāzimī:
Ibn Ḥibbān:
Al-Dāraquṭnī's position above implies that when the grandfather is unspecified the report could be either mursal (if Muḥammad is intended) or connected (if ʿAbdullāh is). Ibn ʿAdī did not commit himself.
The fourth position is weak: Shuʿayb's meeting with his grandfather ʿAbdullāh is established, and the unspecified grandfather is ʿAbdullāh, not Muḥammad. That leaves either pure audition, or part audition and part wijādah. The finder, if any, is ʿAmr, not Shuʿayb. Ayyūb, ʿAmr's student and one of the earliest to comment on this, attributed the wijādah to ʿAmr.
This wijādah, however, is not like ordinary wijādah. ʿAmr did hear part of the manuscript from his father, and so must have known of the existence of the rest from him; the report of its existence is therefore connected. ʿAmr's narrations of the rest are not based on mere finding of his father's or grandfather's handwriting; the chain "from his father from his grandfather" retains its meaning. To suppose otherwise, that ʿAmr found his grandfather's manuscript directly, would render the mention of Shuʿayb in the chain pointless.
The conclusion: ʿAmr heard part directly, and took the rest from the manuscript whose existence he had heard about in general. This best fits the muʿanʿanah wording of his isnāds, harmonises the imāms' statements, and clears ʿAmr of any imputation of tadlīs.
Al-Ṣabīḥī notes at the start of this chapter that scholars' statements on ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb's chain fall into three categories: those whose reports uniformly affirm reliability; those whose reports uniformly weaken; and those whose reports are mixed. Where the reports are mixed, an effort is made to reconcile them, by gathering everything reported from each imām, identifying apparent contradictions, and proposing a synthesis that does justice to the corpus. Reports are arranged by the year of death of the imām in question.
Reports are recorded from a group of imāms who consistently authenticated ʿAmr; no contrary report is found from them:
Aḥmad ibn ʿAbdullāh al-ʿIjlī and Imām al-Nasāʾī: both said "thiqah." Al-Nasāʾī once said "laysa bihi baʾs."
Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad ibn Saʿīd al-Dārimī:
Aḥmad ibn Ṣāliḥ:
Ibn Shāhīn included him in al-Thiqāt with no language other than tawthīq.33
Al-Ḥāzimī:
Yaʿqūb ibn Shaybah:
Al-Awzāʿī:
Ibn Rāhūyah and Ṣāliḥ Jazarah both declared him reliable.36
Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah:
Abū ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAlāʾ, as transmitted by Muʿtamir ibn Sulaymān:
Mughīrah, as ʿUthmān ibn Abī Shaybah reports:
Ibn Ḥajar clarifies these:
No explicit verdict from al-Zuhrī on ʿAmr's isnād is established; but the senior muḥaddithūn cited al-Zuhrī's narration from ʿAmr as an argument for accepting his ḥadīth. Aḥmad ibn ʿAbdullāh said:
Ibn Abī Ḥātim records that he asked Abū Zurʿah, who answered:
Ibn ʿAdī reports an isolated chain from Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz suggesting al-Zuhrī cursed those who narrated a ḥadīth from ʿAmr, but al-Ṣabīḥī shows the chain is suspect (Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥamdān, Ibn ʿAdī's shaykh, was not authenticated) and best treated as fabricated.
Ayyūb's position is delicate. On one hand he himself narrated from ʿAmr explicit chains of audition:
On the other hand, Ayyūb said to al-Layth:
Reconciliation: Ayyūb considered ʿAmr reliable when explicit audition was specified, but warned against the bulk of his muʿanʿanah reports because they came through a manuscript. The two positions are compatible, and accord with the conclusion above (part audition, part wijādah).
Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd is reported to have employed a careful conditional:
His position resembles Ibn Ḥibbān's exception (acceptance via reliable students).
From Ibn Maʿīn are recorded reports of more than one orientation:
Reconciliation: Ibn Maʿīn regarded ʿAmr personally as reliable, accepted his audition from his father, but considered the bulk of ʿAmr's narrations from his father from his grandfather to be from a manuscript, sound in attribution to ʿAbdullāh, but mursal in mode of transmission. "Laysa bi-dhāk" applies to the muʿanʿanah, not to the man.
ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī's twin reports likewise reflect this dichotomy. He accepted audition through reliable students (Ayyūb, Ibn Jurayj) and considered the rest a wijādah, but practically he argued from ʿAmr's ḥadīth, exactly because some of it stood on audition. He is among those al-Bukhārī names as having argued from ʿAmr's ḥadīth.44
Isḥāq's most quoted statement is the comparison:
The implication, on Isḥāq's usage, is that the chain is by audition.
Reports from Aḥmad fall into three groups: (a) acceptance via the question "Did ʿAmr hear from his father?", "He used to say: My father narrated to me"; (b) practice, Aḥmad himself argued from ʿAmr's ḥadīth, as al-Bukhārī, al-Athram, and Abū Dāwūd all report; (c) the report of al-Maymūnī in which Aḥmad seems to demur. Furayḥ al-Bahlāl cites only the al-Maymūnī report and concludes that Aḥmad was not in fact among those who took ʿAmr as ḥujjah.
Al-Ṣabīḥī's reply: "Ḥujjah" admits of degrees. Al-Maymūnī's report, even if accepted as is, is at most a fatwā qawliyyah (a verbal opinion) opposed by other fatwā qawliyyah of the same Imām (al-Athram, Abū Dāwūd), as well as by Aḥmad's practice of arguing from ʿAmr's ḥadīth, as recorded by al-Bukhārī, who is Amīr al-muʾminīn fī al-ḥadīth. To deny that Aḥmad ever argued from this chain on the strength of one verbal report, and to do so against al-Bukhārī's observation of his actual practice, does not respect the hierarchy of evidence.
Al-Bukhārī's position is among the most discussed. In al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr, and as al-Tirmidhī reports from him, al-Bukhārī names the imāms who argued from ʿAmr's ḥadīth, Aḥmad, ʿAlī, al-Ḥumaydī, Isḥāq, and adds: "Whom of the people are after them?" (i.e., who could oppose them?). And in another report:
Al-Mizzī's Tahdhīb al-Kamāl gives the report with the addition "and the bulk of our companions" and "none of the Muslims abandoned it." Al-Dhahabī's Siyar follows al-Mizzī's wording; his Mīzān follows al-Bukhārī's Tārīkh original. Al-Ṣabīḥī compares the four primary sources (al-Tirmidhī's Sunan three places, and al-Dāraquṭnī's isnād-attested transmission) and finds that the additions appear in al-Mizzī alone, and only in later sources that depended on al-Mizzī. The conclusion: the additions are al-Mizzī's, likely added to strengthen the position al-Mizzī favoured, not strict reportage from al-Bukhārī. The substantive position remains: al-Bukhārī's judgment was that ʿAmr's ḥadīth stood as ḥujjah.
Abū Zurʿah said:
His position is the same as those who hold for partial audition with the rest by wijādah.
Abū Dāwūd is among those al-Bukhārī names, implicitly, through his teacher Aḥmad. He himself records a number of ʿAmr's ḥadīth and asks Aḥmad about ʿAmr; Aḥmad's answer is the substance of Abū Dāwūd's reception. His practice tracks Aḥmad's.
Abū Ḥātim is reported to have weakened the chain in some reports; in others he affirms the audition, paralleling Abū Zurʿah and the others who held the partial-audition view.
Ibn Ḥibbān's long verdict in al-Majrūḥīn (already given in Chapter 1, position 4): rejection rested on the dilemma "either ʿAbdullāh (so Shuʿayb did not meet him: disconnected) or Muḥammad (so no Companionship: mursal)." Both prongs of his dilemma fail when one establishes that Shuʿayb did meet his grandfather ʿAbdullāh, and that the unspecified grandfather is ʿAbdullāh.
In al-Thiqāt Ibn Ḥibbān listed ʿAmr, Shuʿayb, and Muḥammad among the reliable. The reconciliation he proposed himself is the well-known exception:
Al-Dhahabī's rejoinder, recorded as "this is nothing":
Ibn Ḥajar adds:
Ibn ʿAdī did not commit himself unequivocally on the identity of the grandfather:
The verdict accordingly turns on the identification of the grandfather, which al-Ṣabīḥī has shown is ʿAbdullāh.
Al-Shīrāzī treated ʿAmr's ikhbār of his father from his grandfather as authoritative, in line with the position of acceptance through reliable students.
Al-Bayhaqī's practice was to argue from ʿAmr's ḥadīth in the rulings he supported, treating the chain as good evidence, particularly in the diyāt. He follows in the line of those who hold the chain established by audition in part.
Al-Dhahabī's reports across Siyar, Mīzān, al-Mughnī, and Maʿrifat al-Ruwāh al-Mutakallam Fīhim bimā lā Yawjib al-Radd present a coherent view: ʿAmr is reliable in himself; his ḥadīth from his father from his grandfather are sound but not all by audition; the chain may be partly audition, partly wijādah; the ḥadīth are accepted unless shādhdh or munkar; the imāms who criticised him are answering only the wijādah element.
Al-Zaylaʿī in Naṣb al-Rāyah likewise relies on ʿAmr's ḥadīth and discusses Ibn Ḥibbān's objection, concluding with Ibn Ḥajar's mediating verdict.47
Ibn Ḥibbān listed seven ḥadīth from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb in his biography in al-Majrūḥīn as examples of what he considered rejected reports. Al-Ṣabīḥī selects from these the well-known ḥadīth on the obligation of zakāt on women's jewellery, both because of the volume of debate around its chain, and because his earlier study, The Jurisprudence of Zakāt on Jewellery, treats its fiqh.
Al-Ṣabīḥī traces the ḥadīth through nine compilations:
Imām Aḥmad records it via Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather. Ḥusayn is reliable, in al-Dhahabī's third tier, argument from these is preferable. Aḥmad's chain is the strongest of those collected.
Abū Dāwūd's ḥadīth takes Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim's route, paralleling Aḥmad.
Al-Tirmidhī's recension goes through Ibn Lahīʿah and al-Muthanná ibn al-Ṣabbāḥ, both weak. Al-Tirmidhī himself wrote:
But this is best read as a non-affirmation of ṣaḥīḥ status, not a positive declaration of weakness, al-Tirmidhī expressly mentioned al-Muthanná's mutābaʿah of Ibn Lahīʿah, which he could not have done if he meant to declare the matn weak.
Al-Nasāʾī records the report via Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim's line; sound on the same grounds as Aḥmad.
ʿAbd al-Razzāq's Muṣannaf gives the report through Ibn Jurayj from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb. Ibn Jurayj's reception from ʿAmr is sound (see Ibn al-Madīnī's verdict above).
Ibn Abī Shaybah cites the ḥadīth in his Muṣannaf through several routes; the strongest is again through Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim or Ibn Jurayj.
Al-Dāraquṭnī's Sunan gathers multiple chains; he authenticates those that go through reliable students from ʿAmr.
Abū ʿUbayd's Kitāb al-Amwāl cites the ḥadīth with comment.
Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī's recension likewise records the ḥadīth.
Those who authenticate the ḥadīth confine themselves to Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim's line, on the strength of:
Those who weaken the ḥadīth fall into two streams:
The most defensible verdict on the ḥadīth of Zakāt on Jewellery is that it is ḥasan via Ḥusayn al-Muʿallim's route from ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather, with corroboration from Ibn Jurayj's route, both of which fall in al-Dhahabī's third tier of ʿAmr's narrators. The opposing position relies on Ibn Ḥibbān's isnād through Ibn Lahīʿah, which is independently weak; that route's weakness does not bear on the strength of the Ḥusayn / Ibn Jurayj routes.
After this wide survey of what has been said about the narration of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb from his father from his grandfather, it has become clear that the rejected (munkar) and weak ḥadīth reported through this chain are so by reason of weak transmitters from ʿAmr, or by reason of more authentic reports contradicting them. Where the ḥadīth is free of contradicting evidence and reaches us through reliable narrators from ʿAmr, it is ḥasan with a connected isnād. The grounds are these:
Thus has it been confirmed that this is a ḥasan narration when free of contradicting reports and conveyed through reliable transmitters; for the grounds of weakness raised against it have not stood up under scholarly investigation. Wa-Allāhu al-muwaffiq wa-al-hādī ilā al-ṣawāb.
Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 3, p. 80. ↩
Tuḥfat al-Ashrāf, vol. 6, p. 303. ↩
Fatḥ al-Mughīth, vol. 3, p. 180. ↩
Tadrīb al-Rāwī, vol. 2, pp. 257 – 258. ↩
Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 5, p. 183. ↩
Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 5, p. 165. ↩
Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl, vol. 3, p. 263. ↩
Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 8, p. 51. ↩
al-Kāmil fī al-Ḍuʿafāʾ, vol. 5, p. 1768. ↩
Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 5, p. 177. ↩
Tahdhīb al-Sunan, vol. 6, p. 374. ↩
Fatḥ al-Mughīth, vol. 3, p. 178. ↩
Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 4, p. 356. ↩
al-Thiqāt, vol. 4, p. 357. ↩
al-Thiqāt, vol. 6, p. 437. ↩
Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 5, p. 173. ↩
al-Tabṣirah wa al-Tadhkirah, vol. 3, p. 95. ↩
al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr, vol. 4, p. 218. ↩
Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, vol. 2, p. 1037. ↩
Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 5, p. 176. ↩
Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 9, p. 266 (citing Ibn Yūnus, Tārīkh Miṣr). ↩
Thiqāt Ibn Ḥibbān, vol. 5, p. 353. ↩
Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, p. 489. ↩
al-Tabṣirah wa al-Tadhkirah, vol. 3, p. 95. ↩
Kitāb al-Majrūḥīn, vol. 2, pp. 72 – 73. ↩
Muqaddimah Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, p. 347. ↩
Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 8, p. 51. ↩
al-Marāsīl li Ibn Abī Ḥātim, p. 90. ↩
Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 8, p. 52. ↩
Kitāb al-Majrūḥīn, vol. 2, p. 72. ↩
Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, vol. 2, p. 1037. ↩
Thiqāt Ibn Shāhīn, p. 152. ↩
Thiqāt Ibn Shāhīn, p. 151. ↩
al-Iʿtibār fī al-Nāsikh wa al-Mansūkh, p. 89. ↩
Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 8, pp. 50, 54. ↩
Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl, vol. 3, p. 263. ↩
Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, vol. 2, p. 1037. ↩
al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr, vol. 6, p. 342; al-Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Ṣaghīr, p. 170, no. 262. ↩
Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 8, p. 51. ↩
Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 5, p. 174. ↩
Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, vol. 2, p. 1037. ↩
Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 8, p. 54. ↩
al-Tabṣirah wa al-Tadhkirah, vol. 3, p. 93. ↩
al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr, vol. 6, p. 342. ↩
Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl, vol. 3, p. 266. ↩
Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 8, p. 52. ↩
Ḥāshiyat Naṣb al-Rāyah, vol. 1, pp. 58 – 59. ↩
Name Abū ‘Abdullāh Muḥammad Ibn Ḥasan Ibn Farqad al-Shaybānī. The majority of scholars are of the view that Imām Muḥammad, …
A bibliographical survey of the major classical works in al-jarḥ wa al-taʿdīl, from the earliest rijāl compilations to Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī.
A biographical sketch of Imām al-Bukhārī: his lineage, character, scholarly competence, teachers, students, madhhab, writings, and death.
The complete Arabic matn of Ibn al-Mulaqqin's al-Tadhkirah fī ʿulūm al-ḥadīth with English translation, covering 73 categories of ḥadīth terminology.
