Authenticity of the chain: "Amr bin Shu'ayb - An - Abeehi - An - Jaddihi"

This silsilah of chain is Saheeh or Hasan, and the Jumhoor of Muhadditheen have authenticated it. Haafidh Ibn Hajar writes:

“Some have declared Amr bin Shu’ayb to be weak absolutely (Mutlaqan) but the Jumhoor has called him Thiqah, and some have weakened his narrations from his father from his grandfather, and those who declared him weak mutlaqan have done so based on his route of ‘An Abeehi An Jaddihi’” [Tahdheeb: Vol 8 Pg 51]

Among the Aimmah, Imaam Abu Zur’ah, Imaam Ibn Adee, Imaam Ibn Hibbaan, Imaam Ibn Hazam, and Imaam Tahaawi etc are those who have criticized this route of Amr; and their argument is that he (Amr) narrates from the Saheefah Saadiqah of his Grandfather. Moreover, in the chain: “Amr bin Shu’ayb – An – Abeehi – An – Jaddihi” If Jaddihi is meant to be Muhammad bin Abdullah then the chain is Mursal since Muhammad bin Abdullah was a Taabi’ee. And if Jaddihi is meant to be the Grandfather of Shu’ayb, then the Sama’ (hearing) of Shu’ayb is not proven from Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Aas (radiallah anhu). Therefore, this narration is Munqati’. This is the opinion of Imaam Ibn Hibbaan and Imaam Ibn Adee.

But Imaam Daraqutni, while refuting them, writes:

قَول أبي حَاتِم: لم يَصح سَماع شُعَيْب وَالِد عَمْرو، من جده عَبْد اللَّهِ بْن عَمْرو خطأ.رَوَى عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرٍو الْعُمَرِيُّ، وَهُو مِنَ الأَئِمَّةِ الْعُدُولِ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، أَنَّهُ قَالَ: " كُنْتُ جَالِسًا عِنْدَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرو، فَجَاءَ رَجُلٌ فَاسْتَفْتَاهُ فِي مَسْأَلَةٍ ذَكَرَهَا، فَقَالَ لِي: يَا شُعَيْبُ، امْضِ مَعَهُ إِلَى ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ.

فَمَضَيْتُ مَعَهُ، ثُمَّ رَجَعْتُ إِلَيْهِ، فَأَخْبَرْتُهُ بِجَوَابِهِ، فَقَالَ لِي: يَا شُعَيْبُ، امْضِ مَعَهُ إِلَى ابْنِ عُمَرَ ".هَذَا مَعْنَى الْحِكَايَةِ، فَقَدْ صَحَّ بِهَذَا سَمَاعُ شُعَيْبٍ مِنْ جَدِّهِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، وَضَبَطَهُ عَنْهُ.

The saying of Abu Haatim (Ibn Hibbaan) that the Sama (hearing) of Shu’ayb is not proven from Abdullah bin Amr is incorrect. Ubaydullah bin Umar al-Umri, who is one of the reliable Imaams, narrates from Amr bin Shu’ayb from his father (Shu’ayb) (who said), ‘I was sitting with Abdullah bin Amr (bin al-Aas) that a man came and asked about a mas’ala (issue) from Abdullah bin Amr, so he said to me, Oh Shu’ayb! Take him to Ibn Abbaas (radiallah anhu), so I took him to him, and also told his answer to him upon returning, then he said, Oh Shu’ayb! Take him to Ibn Umar (radiallah anhu)’, this is the summary of the incidence which proves that the sama (hearing) of Shu’ayb is proven from his Grandfather – Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Aas (radiallah anhu). [Ref: Ta’leeqaat ad-Daraqutni Ala al-Majroheen: 1/168, Nuskhah Hind – Vol 2 Pg 73-74]

Allaamah Zayla’ee (Hanafi) writes:

وَقَدْ ثَبَتَ فِي الدَّارَقُطْنِيِّ وَغَيْرِهِ بِسَنَدٍ صَحِيحٍ سَمَاعُ عَمْرٍو مِنْ أَبِيهِ شُعَيْبٍ، وَسَمَاعُ شُعَيْبٍ مِنْ جَدِّهِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ.

Meaning, In Daraqutni and others, the sama (hearing) of Amr is proven from his father Shu’ayb, and the Sama (hearing) of Shu’ayb from his grandfather Abdullah, with a Saheeh chain. [Ref: Nasb ur-Rayaa: 1/59]

Allaamah Iraaqi writes:

قد صح سَماع شُعَيْب من عبد الله بن عَمْرو كما صرح به البخاري في التاريخ و احمد كما رواه الدارقطني و البيهقي في السنن باسناد صحيح (فتح المغيث للعراقي ص ٦٩ ج ٤)

Meaning, the sama’ (hearing) of Shu’ayb from Abdullah bin Amr is Saheeh (correct), as Imaam Bukhaari has affirmed in At-Taareekh, and as said by Imaam Ahmed, and as narrated by Imaam Daraqutni and Imaam Bayhaqi in as-Sunan with Saheeh (authentic) chain. [Ref: Fath ul-Mugheeth by Iraaqi: Vol 4 Pg 69]

The narration toward which Allaamah Zayla’ee and Allaamah Iraaqi have pointed can be seen in Sunan Daraqutni (Vol 3 Pg 51), Mustadrak Haakim (Vol 3 Pg 65), Al-Sunan al-Kubra (Vol 5 Pg 92).

Muhaddith Diyaanwi said:

“Al-Haakim narrated this Athar from ad-Daraqutni, and Bayhaqi narrated it from Al-Haakim in al-Ma’rifah, and said, Its chain is Saheeh, and it contains the evidence for the authentication of the sama (hearing) of Shu’ayb from his grandfather Abdullah bin Amr and from Ibn Abbaas. And the Shaikh said all its narrators are famous.” [At-Ta’leeq al-Mughni: Vol 3 Pg 51]

Imaam Haakim narrates from Imaam Ahmed that:

“The sama (hearing) of Amr bin Shu’ayb is correct from his father Shu’ayb, and the sama (hearing) of Shu’ayb is correct from his grandfather Abdullah bin Amr.” [Al-Mustadrak: 2/54, Chain Saheeh]

A wrong attribution towards Imaam Haakim:

Sarfaraz Khan Safdar (Al-Deobandi) writes:

“Imaam Haakim said that his (Shu’ayb’s) narrations are considered Da’eef due to being Mursal” [Ahsan ul-Kalaam: Vol 1 Pg 169]

Whereas, this is not the opinion of Imaam Haakim, rather he only narrated two different opinions regarding this issue. His words are as follows:

" وَإِنَّمَا قَالُوا فِي هَذِهِ لِلْإِرْسَالِ، فَإِنَّهُ عَمْرُو بْنُ شُعَيْبِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، وَشُعَيْبٌ لَمْ يَسْمَعْ مِنْ جَدِّهِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو. سَمِعْتُ الْأُسْتَاذَ أَبَا الْوَلِيدِ يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ الْحَسَنَ بْنَ سُفْيَانَ، يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ إِسْحَاقَ بْنَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الْحَنْظَلِيَّ، يَقُولُ: إِذَا كَانَ الرَّاوِي، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ ثِقَةً فَهُوَ كَأَيُّوبَ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا "

 [Ref: Al-Mustadrak: 1/311]

The point is to be noticed that Imaam Haakim, here, is only narrating an opinion by saying the word “Qaaloo (they said)”, but Sarfaraz Safdar is showing it as a personal opinion of Imaam Haakim. But if he is stubborn in declaring it an opinion of Imaam Haakim, then we would say that Imaam Haakim himself had problem with this chain, as it is also accorded by the following two mentioned sayings:

Imaam Haakim clearly said:

كُنْتُ أَطْلُبُ الْحُجَّةَ الظَّاهِرَةَ فِي سَمَاعِ شُعَيْبِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو فَلَمْ أَصِلْ إِلَيْهَا إِلَى هَذَا الْوَقْتِ "

Meaning, I always demanded for a clear proof for the sama’ of Shu’ayb from Abdullah bin Amr, but I did not get any daleel until now. [Al-Mustadrak: 2/74]

Then after narrating the narration of Ubaydullah bin Umar al-Umri, which Imaam Daraqutni mentioned, he said:

هَذَا حَدِيثُ ثِقَاتٍ رُوَاتُهُ حُفَّاظٌ، وَهُوَ كَالْآخِذِ بِالْيَدِ فِي صِحَّةِ سَمَاعِ شُعَيْبِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو

Meaning, the narrators of this narration are Thiqah and Haafidh, and it is as catching with hand, the evidence for the sama’ of Shu’ayb from his grandfather Abdullah bin Amr. [Al-Mustadrak: 2/74]

And this is why, he started declaring the chain of “Amr bin Shu’ayb – An – Abeehi – An - Jaddihi” as Saheeh Chain afterwards. In fact, Imaam Haakim has mentioned 10 levels of ahadeeth in al-Madkhal, and he said regarding the fifth level, that:

الْخَامِسُ أَحَادِيثُ جَمَاعَةٍ مِنَ الْأَئِمَّةِ عَنْ آبَائِهِمْ عن أجدادهم ولم يتواتر الرِّوَايَةُ عَنْ آبَائِهِمْ وَأَجْدَادِهِمْ إِلَّا عَنْهُمْ كَعَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ وَ بَهْزِ بْنِ حَكِيمٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ.... فهذه ايضا يحتج بها مخرجة في كتب الائمة دون الصحيحين.

Meaning: In the fifth level, there are ahadeeth of the groups of Aimmah which they have narrated from their Father and Grandfathers, such as: Amr bin Shu’ayb – from – his father – from – his Grandfather, and Bahaz bin Hakeem – from – his father – from – his Grandfather…. Thus these have been taken as evidence as well, Aimmah other than Saheehayn have narrated their ahadeeth in their books.

[Ref: Al-Madkhal: Pg 13, Muqaddimah Sharh Muslim by Nawawi: Pg 17, Tadreeb ur-Raawi: Pg 76-77]

After these affirmations, how true does the saying of Safdar remains, who said that what Haakim said in al-Mustadrak [1/311] was his own personal opinion?

The Illicit behavior of Allaamah Zayla’ee, and the affirmations of Muhadditheen on the authenticity of the sama of Shu’ayb from Abdullah

Here, it is worth mentioning that Allaamah Zayla’ee, in Nasb ur-Rayaa [Vol 2 Pg 332], has only narrated the above mentioned saying of Imaam Haakim up until “but I did not get any daleel until now”, and we don’t know due to what reason he did not mention the saying of Imaam Haakim, a few paragraphs after, where he confessed the proof of sama (hearing).

Allaamah Dhahabi said that Shu’ayb was only a child when his father Muhammad passed away, and his grandfather Abdullah bin Amr took care of him, therefore negating his sama’ from him is absolutely baseless. His words are as follows:

قلت: هذا لا شئ، لان شعيبا ثبت سماعه من عبد الله، وهو الذي رباه حتى قيل إن محمدا مات في حياة أبيه عبد الله، فكفل شعيبا جده عبد الله، فإذا قال: عن أبيه، ثم قال: عن جده - فإنما يريد بالضمير في جده أنه عائد إلى شعيب.... وصح أيضا أن شعيبا سمع من معاية، وقد مات معاوية قبل عبد الله بن عمرو بسنوات، فلا ينكر له السماع من جده سيما وهو الذي رباه وكفله.

Meaning: [Imaam Ibn Adee said that when Amr narrates from Abeehi from Jaddihi then the narration will be mursal, because his grandfather Muhammad did not meet the Prophet (peace be upon him)], I (Dhahabi) say that it is nothing because the sama’ of Shu’ayb is proven from Abdullah, and it is he who has raised Shu’ayb up, in fact it has also been said that Muhammad passed away during the lifetime of Abdullah, so his grandfather Abdullah (radiallah anhu) took care of him. Thus when he says: “An Abeeh An Jaddihi” then Jaddihi is meant to be the Grandfather of Shu’ayb (not the grandfather of Amr bin Shu’ayb)…… And it is also proven that Shu’ayb has heard from Mu’awiyyah (radiallah anhu), and Mu’aawiyah died many years before Abdullah (radiallah anhu), so then how can the sama’ of Shu’ayb be rejected from his grandfathr? Especially when he was the one who took care of him and nourished him.

Haafidh Salaah ud-Deen Kaikaldi writes:

والأصح أنه سمع من جده عبد الله بن عمرو ومن بن عمر وابن عباس رضي الله عنهم والضمير المتصل بجده في قولهم عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده عائد إلى شعيب لا إلى عمرو وقد بينت ذلك وبسطت الكلام عليه في غير هذا الكتاب ومحمد والد شعيب مات في حياة أبيه عبد الله بن عمرو وشعيب صغير فكفله جده

Meaning: The authentic saying is that Shu’yab has heard from his Grandfather Abdullah bin Amr, Ibn Umar, and Ibn Abbaas (radiallah anhum), and the Dhameer (Pronoun) in “Jaddihi” returns back to Shu’ayb, not to Amr. And I have mentioned its full details in another book of mine that, Shu’ayb was only a Child when his Father, Muhammad, passed away during the lifetime of his father Abdullah, due to which Abdullah bin Amr nourished him. [Ref: Jaami ut-Tahseel: 1/196]

The accordance of the sayings of Imaam Dhahabi and Haafidh Salaah ud-Deen (mentioned above) is also done through the following saying of Shu’ayb himself, which is narrated by Imaam Bayahqi in the following words:

كُنْتُ أَطُوفُ مَعَ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ

Meaning: I was doing Tawaaf with My Father Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Aas (radiallah anhu). [Sunan al-Kubra: 5/150]

And Maulaana Abdur Rasheed Nu’maani (al-Deobandi) writes:

“Muhammad, the father of Shu’ayb, passed away during the lifetime of his father (Abdullah), that’s why the grandson (Shu’ayb) was raised and nourished in the hands of his grandfather (Abdullah)” [Ibn Majah: Aur Ilm Hadeeth: Pg 40]

In the above mentioned narration, Shu’ayb calling his grandfather Abdullah bin Amr as his father is the proof that he was raised by his grandfather. This proof also removes the misunderstanding of Allaamah Naimwi, who said that Jaadihi is meant to be Muhammad, whose evidence he gave from Sunan Ibn Majah [Pg 210, Baab al-Nafal, Min Abwaab ul-Jihaad], in which Amr bin Shu’ayb said: 

أُحَدِّثُكَ عَنْ أَبِي عَنْ جَدِّي

Just like in the previously mentioned narration “Ma’ Abee (with my Father)” is not meant to be his actual father, rather it is meant to be his grandfather; similarly, in this saying also, “Jaddee (My Grandfather)” is meant to be his Great Grandfather, not his actual Grandfather. It is known and famous in the sayings of Arab people that they often call their Great Grandfathers as their Grandfathers, just as it is famous to call the grandson as son! [See: Minhaaj us-Sunnah: Vol 3 Pg 126, Tahdheeb: Vol 7 Pg 130, al-Nakat al-Dhuraaf: Vol 8 Pg 87, 88]

In short, in the chain Amr bin Shu’ayb An Abeehi An Jaddihi, Jaddihi is meant to be Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Aas, and Shu’ayb’s sama’ (hearing) from him is proven.

Imaam Ibn al-Madeeni, Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Daarimi, Imaam Daraqutni, Imaam Abu Bakr al-Nisaaburi and others have affirmed his hearing from him [Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen]. And Imaam Ahmed and Imaam Abu Dawood at-Tiyaalsi have narrated the ahadeeth of Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-Aas with the same chain, which is a proof that according to them also, “Jaddihi” is meant to be Abdullah bin Amr, not anyone else.

Imaam Bukhaari said:

رأيت احمد بن حنبل وعلى ابن المدينى وإسحاق بن راهويه وأبا عبيد وعامة اصحابنا يحتجون بحديث عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ

I saw Ahmed bin Hanbal, Ali ibn al-Madeeni, Ishaaq bin Rahwayh, Abu Ubaydah and our Aam companions, used to take evidence from the hadeeth of Amr bin Shu’ayb – An – Abeehi – An – Jaddihi. 

[Ref: Al-Taareekh al-Kabeer: 6/343, Tahdheeb: Vol 8 Pg 49, Al-Bayhaqi: Vol 7 Pg 318, Nasb ur-Rayaa: Vol 1 Pg 331, Meezaan: Vol 3 Pg 224, Illal al-Kabeer by Tirmidhi: Vol 1 Pg 325, 326]

And this is also the opinion of Imaam Haakim and Imaam Bayhaqi. In fact Imaam Ishaaq bin Rahwayh also said:

إِذَا كَانَ الرَّاوِي، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ ثِقَةً فَهُوَ كَأَيُّوبَ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا "

[Ref: Al-Mustadrak: 1/311]

If the narrator narrating from Amr is thiqah then it is like Ayyoob narrating from Naafi’ from Ibn Umar (meaning, it would be the highest form of authentic chain).

After narrating the same opinion (of Imaam Ishaaq), Imaam Nawawi said:

هذا التشبيه نهاية في الجلالة من مثل اسحاق

This tashbeeh (comparison) from a Muhaddith like Ishaaq is the utmost greatness and Jalaalah!

[Ref: Ta’leeq ash-Shaakir Ala at-Tirmidhi: Vol 2 Pg 142]

Allaamah Abu Ya’la Ibn al-Faraa writes:

اجتمع علي ابن المديني وَيَحْيَى بْن معين وأحمد وأبو خيثمة وشيوخ من شيوخ العلم فتذاكروا حديث عَمْرو بْن شعيب فثبتوه وذكروا أنه حجة.

Ali ibn al-Madeeni, Yahya ibn Ma’een, Ahmed, Abu Khaythamah, and many major Shuyookh gathered together, they mentioned the hadeeth of Amr bin Shu’ayb, thus they all proved his narrations and said that it hujjah. [Tabaqaat al-Hanabilah: 1/273]

In fact, we have also mentioned the saying of Imaam Bukhaari that normally Muhadditheen have taken evidence from it, and no one from the Muslimeen considered it Matrook, and then he said, who else is there, apart from these, whose saying we should consider reliable?

Now read the affirmations of some more People of Knowledge:

Haafidh Ibn as-Salaah said:

وَقَدِ احْتَجَّ أَكْثَرُ أَهْلِ الْحَدِيثِ بِحَدِيثِهِ، حَمْلًا لِمُطْلَقِ الْجَدِّ فِيهِ عَلَى الصَّحَابِيِّ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو

[Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah: 1/315]

Allaamah Nawawi said:

احتج به حكذا اكثر المحدثين هو الصحيح المختار الذي عليه المحققون من اهل الحديث و هم اهل هذا الفن و عنهم يؤخذ.

[تقريب مع التدريب: ص ٤٣٤، الفتوحات الربانية: ج ٣ ص ١٨٤]

And in Tahdheeb al-Asmaa wal Lughaat [2/29-30], he said:

أن الصحيح المختار صحة الاحتجاج به عن أبيه عن جده كما قاله الأكثرون

Meaning: The authentic and authorized opinion is that taking evidence from the chain Amr ibn Shu’ayb An Abeehi An Jaddihi is correct. This is the opinion of Muhaqqiqeen, Muhadditheen, and Jumhoor People of Knowledge 
.

Imaam Maalik narrated a hadeeth in Muwatta “Prophet prohibited us from selling and lending…”, regarding which Imaam Ibn Abdul Barr said in Kitaab at-Taqassi (Pg 254, 255) that:

هذا الحديث معروف و مشهور من حديث عمرو بن شعيب عن ابيه عن جده عن النبي، وهو حديث صحيح لا يختلف اهل العلم في قبوله و عمل به و حديث عمرو بن شعيب عن ابيه عن جده مقبول عند اكثر اهل العلم.

[تعليق الشاكر علي الترمذي ج ٢ ص ١٤٣، و تعليق المسند رقم: ١٤٧]

Meaning: This narration is well known and famous from the narration of Amr bin Shu’ayb from his Father from his Grandfather from the Prophet (peace be upon him), and this narration is Saheeh. The people of knowledge did not differ in accepting it and acting upon it, and the hadeeth of Amr bin Shu’ayb from his father from his Grandfather is acceptable according to the people of knowledge.

Similarly, Allaamah Ibn Abdul Barr also authenticated the narration of Amr bin Shu’ayb from his father from his Grandfather, in al-Tamheed [Vol 3 Pg 62, Vol 24 Pg 384]

He also said:

“When the thiqah narrators narrate from Amr bin Shu’ayb, then it is obligatory to act upon his ahadeeth” [with reference to Bidayat ul-Mujtahid: Vol 2 Pg 336]

Imaam Bukhaari has also narrated a narration of Amr bin Shu’ayb in his Saheeh as Mu’allaq with seeghah jazam. That narration is in the beginning of Kitaab al-Libaas that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Eat, Drink, Clothe yourself, and give in charity…”

Haafidh Ibn Hajar said under the same hadeeth that:

وَصَلَهُ أَبُو دَاوُدَ الطَّيَالِسِيُّ وَالْحَارِثُ بْنُ أَبِي أُسَامَةَ فِي مُسْنَدَيْهِمَا مِنْ طَرِيقِ هَمَّامِ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ قَتَادَةَ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ بِهِ.... وَهَذَا مُصَيَّرٌ مِنَ الْبُخَارِيِّ إِلَى تَقْوِيَةِ شَيْخِهِ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ وَلَمْ أَرَ فِي الصَّحِيحِ إِشَارَةً إِلَيْهَا إِلَّا فِي هَذَا الْمَوْضِعِ

And Haafidh Ibn Hajar himself wrote in Taqreeb [1/267]:

شعيب ابن محمد ابن عبد الله ابن عمرو ابن العاص صدوق ثبت سماعه من جده من الثالثة

Meaning: Shu’ayb bin Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-Aas is Sudooq Thabat, he heard from his grandfather, (he is) from the thrid level.

And this is why; he also narrated the authentication of the hadeeth of Amr bin Shu’ayb in Al-Talkhees ul-Habeer [Pg 30, 45, Pub. In Hind]

Imaam Tirmidhi said:

وَشُعَيْبٌ قَدْ سَمِعَ مِنْ جَدِّهِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، وَقَدْ تَكَلَّمَ يَحْيَى بْنُ سَعِيدٍ فِي حَدِيثِ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ وَقَالَ: هُوَ عِنْدَنَا وَاهٍ، وَمَنْ ضَعَّفَهُ، فَإِنَّمَا ضَعَّفَهُ مِنْ قِبَلِ أَنَّهُ يُحَدِّثُ مِنْ صَحِيفَةِ جَدِّهِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو «،» وَأَمَّا أَكْثَرُ أَهْلِ الحَدِيثِ فَيَحْتَجُّونَ بِحَدِيثِ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ، وَيُثْبِتُونَهُ مِنْهُمْ: أَحْمَدُ، وَإِسْحَاقُ وَغَيْرُهُمَا "

[Jaami Tirmidhi: 3/23]

Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said:

وَأَمَّا أَئِمَّةُ الْإِسْلَامِ وَجُمْهُورُ الْعُلَمَاءِ فَيَحْتَجُّونَ بِحَدِيثِ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ إذَا صَحَّ النَّقْلُ إلَيْهِ مِثْلَ مَالِكِ بْنِ أَنَسٍ وَسُفْيَانَ بْنِ عُيَيْنَة وَنَحْوِهِمَا وَمِثْلَ الشَّافِعِيِّ وَأَحْمَد بْنِ حَنْبَلٍ وَإِسْحَاقَ بْنِ رَاهَوَيْه وَغَيْرِهِمْ قَالُوا: الْجَدُّ هُوَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ

Meaning: Aimmah Islaam and Jumhoor Ulama take evidence from the hadeeth of Amr bin Shu’ayb from his Father from his Grandfather, when it is authentically narrated from them, such as Imaam Maalik bin Anas, Sufyaan Ibn Uyainah, and like them, and such as Ash-Shaafi’ee, Ahmed bin Hanbal, Ishaaq bin Rahwayh and others.And they say that that “Jaddu” is meant to be Abdullah [bin Amr bin Al-Aas]. [Ref: Majmoo Fatawaa: 18/8]

Haafidh Ibn al-Qayyim writes under a hadeeth in Zaad al-Ma’aad [2/122] that:

وَقَدْ صَحَّ سَمَاعُ شعيب مِنْ جَدِّهِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو، فَبَطَلَ قَوْلُ مَنْ قَالَ: إِنَّهُ مُنْقَطِعٌ، وَقَدِ احْتَجَّ بِهِ الْبُخَارِيُّ خَارِجَ صَحِيحِهِ، وَنَصَّ عَلَى صِحَّةِ

In fact, he has also refuted Imaam Ibn Hazam in this issue [2/131]. Moreover, he writes:

و الجمهور يحتجون به و قد احتج به الشافعي في غير موضع و احتج به الائمة كلهم في الديات

[تهذيب السنن ج ٦ ص ٣٧٤]

Allaamah Haazimi writes:

وعمرو بن شعيب ثقة بأتفاق أئمة الحديث واذا روي عن غير ابيه لم يختلف احد في الاحتجاج به و اما روايته عن ابيه عن جده فاكثرون علي انها متصلة ليس فيها ارسال ولا انقتاع

[الاعتبار: ص ٤٢]

Meaning: Amr bin Shu’ayb is thiqah with the consensus of Imaams of Hadeeth, and when he narrates from other than his father, no one disagrees in its acceptability, as for his narrations from his father from his grandfather then Most of the Muhadditheen are of the opinion that they are Muttasil, there is Irsaal or Inqita in them. 

Allaamah Mundhiri writes:

عمرو بن شعيب فيه كلام طويل فالجمهور علي توثيقه و علي الاحتجاج بروايته عن ابيه عن جده

[ترغيب: ٤/٥٧٦]

There is a lengthy discussion on Amr bin Shu’ayb, the Jumhoor have done his tawtheeq and they take evidence from his narrations narrated from his father from his grandfather.

Allaamah Zayla’ee (Hanafi) writes:

وَأَكْثَرُ النَّاسِ يَحْتَجُّ بِحَدِيثِ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ إذَا كَانَ الرَّاوِي عَنْهُ ثِقَةٌ

Meaning: Many people (of knowledge) have taken evidence from the hadeeth of Amr bin Shu’ayb when the narrator narrating from him is Thiqah. [Nasb ur-Rayaa: 1/58]

Allaamah Murtaza Zubaydi Hanafi writes:

الكلام في هذا الاسناد مشهور بين المحدثين وقد اعتمد عليه ارباب السنن والذي اسقر عليه الحال ان سماع شعيب عن جده صحيح ثابت

[عقود الجواهر المنيفة: ١/١٧٧]

While discussing a hadeeth weakened by Imaam Tirmidhi, Mulla Alee Qaari (Hanafi) writes:

وَلَعَلَّ وَجْهَهُ أَنَّهُ مِنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ، وَقَدْ تَقَدَّمَ الْخِلَافُ فِيهِ، وَأَنَّ الْمُعْتَمَدَ أَنَّ سَنَدَهُ حَسَنٌ

[Mirqaat: 9/57]

But the opinion of Allamah Ali Qaari, that Imaam Tirmidhi weakened this narration due to the chain of Amr bin Shu’ayb, is not correct, but the defect of this hadeeth is other than what he thought. [Tirmidhi with Tuhfat: 3/386]

And he writes in Mawdoo’aat al-Kabeer [Pg 19]:

روي ابن ماجه بسند صحيح عن عمرو بن شعيب عن ابيه عن جده

Meaning: Ibn Majah narrated this narration with the Saheeh Chain from Amr bin Shu’ayb from his father from his grandfather.

Allaamah Shawkaani writes:

وَقَدْ قَدَّمْنَا غَيْرَ مَرَّةٍ أَنَّ حَدِيثَهُ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ مِنْ قِسْمِ الْحَسَنِ وَقَدْ صَحَّحَ لَهُ التِّرْمِذِيُّ بِهَذَا الْإِسْنَادِ عِدَّةَ أَحَادِيثَ

[Nayl al-Awtaar: 6/53]

Shaikh Ahmed Shaakir writes:

والصحيح ان رواية عمرو بن شعيب عن ابيه عن جده موصولة

Meaning: The authentic opinion is that the narration of Amr bin Shu’ayb from his fater from his Grandfather is connected. 

He further said:

والتحقيق ان رواية عمرو بن شعيب عن ابيه عن جده صحيح الاسناد

[تعليق المسند رقم: ١٤٧]

Meaning: And the (correct) tahqeeq is that the narration of Ame bin Shu’ayb from his Father from his Grandfather is Saheeh ul-Isnaad.

Allaamah Anwar Shaah Kashmiree (Deobandi) said:

“The narration of Amr bin Shu’ayb is not any less than the level of Hasan, and the authorized opinion is that Jaddihi is meant to be Abdullah bin Amr.” [Al-Urf ash-Shazi: Pg 161]

Maulaana Yoosuf Binnoori (Deobandi) has discussed this issue very succinctly in Ma’arif us-Sunan, and said at the end:

و ذهب اكثر المحدثين الي صحة الاحتجاج به وهو الصحيح المختار الخ.

[معارف السنن: ٣/٣١٥]

Meaning: The Madhab of the majority of Muhadditheen is that the chain of Amr bin Shu’ayb from his father from his Grandfather is Hujjah, and it is a Saheeh and Authorized opinion. 

Maulaana Dhafar Ahmed Uthmaani (Deobandi) has also written with reference to Allaamah Mundhiri that the Jumhoor declare him Thiqah and take evidence from his narration. [I’laa us-Sunan: 4/134]

Maulaana Abdur Rasheed Nu’maani (Deobandi) writes:

“Many Muhadditheen consider these narrations of Amr bin Shu’ayb to be Hujjah, and consider them Saheeh” [Ibn Majah aur Ilm al-Hadeeth: Pg 141]

The Opinion of Jumhoor

From the above mentioned affirmations, it becomes clear that according to Imaam Tirmidhi, Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Ahmed, Imaam Ibn al-Madeeni, Imaam Dhahabi, Imaam Ibn Hajar, Allaamah Ibn as-Salaah, Allaamah Nawawi, Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, Haafidh Ibn al-Qayyim, Haafidh Ibn Abdul Barr, Allaamah Hazimi, Allaamah Mundhiri, Allaamah Zayla’ee, Maulaana Binnoori, Maulaana Uthmaani, Maulaana Nu’maani, Jumhoor Aimmah Naaqideen, and Many People of Knowledge have taken evidence from the chain of Amr bin Shu’ayb from his father from his Grandfather, and they used to consider it Saheeh.

Imaam Abu Haneefah and Amr bin Shu’ayb:

Not only all this, but Imaam Abu Haneefah also used to take evidence from the chain of Amr bin Shu’ayb from his Father from his Grandfather. 

When Imaam Abu Haneefah was asked that: “Can a Merchant put condition [on transaction]?”, so he replied “No!” when he was asked for its Daleel, so he replied:

أَخْبَرَنِي عَمْرو بْن شُعَيْب عَن أبيه عَن جده أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نهى عَن شرط وبيع

[Akhbaar ul-Qudhaat by Wakee: 3/46, Ma’rifat Uloom ul-Hadeeth: Pg 128, Uqood ul-Jawahir: 2/33, and others]

The Opinion of Aimmah Arba’ah:

Look! Even “Imaam ul-A’dham” takes evidence from this chain. The affirmations of Imaam Maalik, Imaam Shaafi’ee, and Imaam Ahmed have passed before that they authenticated the hadeeth of Amr bin Shu’ayb as well. So even the Fuqaha Arba’ah are agreed upon that this chain is Saheeh. Maulaana Safdar, not only refused to accept the ruling of Jumhoor Muhadditheen and Akthar Ahl al-Ilm, but he also refused to abandoned the ruling of Fuqaha Arba’ah, but still he claim that: “We follow Jumhoor in tawtheeq and tad’eef”

Moreover, it is the madhab of Ulama Ahnaaf that the woman among the husband and wife becomes Muslim then her Nikaah becomes void and null. Meaning, the difference of Daarain is the cause of separation. And if the husband becomes Muslim then it is necessary to read the Nikaah.

And in this masla, they took evidence from the hadeeth of Amr bin Shu’ayb narrated from his Father from his Grandfather, whose wording is as follows:

ان النبي رد ابنته الي ابي العاص بمهر جديد و نكاح جديد

llaamah Mardeeni (Ibn al-Tarkamaani) Hanafi has written in clear words, regarding this hadeeth that:

عمرو بن شعيب عندنا صحيح... وذهب أبو حنيفة واصحابه إلى العمل بحديث عمرو بن شعيب

Meaning: The hadeeth of Amr bin Shu’ayb is Saheeh according to us…. The action of Abu Haneefah and his companions is upon the hadeeth of Amr bin Shu’ayb. [Al-Johar al-Naqi: 7/189]

In as-Siyar al-Kabeer, Imaam Muhammad (Ash-Shaybani) said that Adna Jama’ is three, but some Shaafi’iyyah oppose it. In this issue also, the Hanafi Scholars take evidence from the hadeeth of Amr bin Shu’ayb An Abeehi An Jaddihi. Therefore, Allaamah Bazdawi writes:

وَلَنَا قَوْلُ النَّبِيِّ - عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ - «الْوَاحِدُ شَيْطَانٌ وَالِاثْنَانِ شَيْطَانَانِ وَالثَّلَاثَةُ رَكْبٌ»

And this narration is narrated through the route of Amr bin Shu’ayb from his Father from his grandfather.

[See: Usool ul-Bazdawi ma’ Takhreej: Pg 72, Silsilah as-Saheehah: 62]

Similarly, in the Hanafi Madhab, if a Woman of Book (Christian or Jew) is married to a Man, or a Slave woman is married to a freed man, or a freed man is married to a slave woman, then there cannot be any La’aan between them.

While discussing on the same topic, Allaamah Marghinaani said in al-Hidayah:

 والأصل في ذلك قوله عليه الصلاة والسلام أربعة لا لعان بينهم وبين أزواجهم اليهودية والنصرانية تحت المسلم والمملوكة تحت الحر والحرة تحت المملوك

[Al-Hidayah: 2/271]

Now what naration is this? The Shaarih (explainer) of Hidayah writes:

أَخْرَجَ ابْنُ مَاجَهْ فِي سُنَنِهِ عَنْ ابْنِ عَطَاءٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَطَاءِ الْخُرَاسَانِيِّ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ «أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - قَالَ أَرْبَعَةٌ مِنْ النِّسَاءِ

[Fath ul-Qadeer: 4/283]

Imaam Bayhaqi has criticized this narration and said that the chain from before Amr bin Shu’ayb is not Saheeh, but Allaamah Mardeeni has tried to answer the objections of Imaam Bayhaqi, and said at the end:

“It is a proof of what we said that this chain is Jayyid (Strong)” [Al-Johar al-Naqi: 7/397]

This is not the occasion to answer the refutation of Allaamah Mardeeni (Ibn al-Tarkamani), we are only trying to prove that in this issue also, the Scholars of Ahnaaf take evidence from the chain of Amr bin Shu’ayb from his Father from his Grandfather, and consider it Jayyid and Saheeh.

Qaadhi Aboo Yoosuf said that the Zakaah on Honey will only be given when it is equal to 10 waterskins. What is its Evidence? Well, The author of Hidaayah says:

و عن ابي يوسف أَنَّهُ لَا شَيْءَ فِي العسل حَتَّى يَبْلُغَ عَشْرَ قِرَبٍ لِحَدِيثِ بَنِي شَبَّابَةَ

Now let’s see, through what route this Hadeeth of Bani Shabbabah comes from? Allaamah Zayla’ee writes that this narration is narrated in Mu’jam al-Tabaraani through the route of Amr bin Shu’ayb from his Father from his Grandfather. However, Allaama Zayla’ee says that the correct word is Bani Sayyiaarah not Bani Shabbabah. [Nasb ur-Rayaa: 2/392]

Similarly, the Hanafi Scholars say:

“If husband divorces his wife in such a condition that his wife has a child, then in this condition wife, meaning the mother of the child, has more right to take custody of the child.”

Allaamah Marghinaani said:

" وإذا وقعت الفرقة ين الزوجين فالأم أحق بالولد " لما روى أن امرأة قالت يا رسول الله إن ابني هذا كان بطني

Now the narration through which Saahib-e-Hidaayah has took evidence from is narrated through the route of Amr bin Shu’ayb from his Father from his Grandfather Abdullah bin Amr.

Shaarih (Explainer) of Hidaayah writes:

وَعَمْرٌو هَذَا هُوَ عَمْرُو بْنُ شُعَيْبِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ، فَإِذَا أَرَادَ بِجَدِّهِ مُحَمَّدًا كَانَ مُرْسَلًا، وَإِذَا أَرَادَ بِهِ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ كَانَ مُتَّصِلًا، فَمَا لَمْ يَنُصَّ عَلَيْهِ يَصِيرُ مُحْتَمِلًا لِلْإِرْسَالِ وَالِاتِّصَالِ، وَهُنَا نَصَّ عَلَى جَدِّهِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ.

Meaning: This Amr, is Amr bin Shu’ayb bin Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Aas, thus when, by Jaddihi, he means Muhammad then the narration would be Mursal, and when by this, he means Abdullah then the narration would be Muttasil; and when he does not take any name and simply says Jaddihi, then there is a possibility of both Irsaal and Ittisaal, and here by Jaddihi, he has taken the name of Abdullah. [Fath ul-Qadeer: 4/367]

So the Shaarih of Hidaayah thinks that when Amr takes the name of Abdullah bin Amr then the narration would be mursal, otherwise there is a possibility of both Ittisaal and Irsaal. This is also the opinion of Imaam Daraqutni. But we have explained before that this opinion is against the opinion of Majority Muhadditheen. He only means Abdullah bin Amr by the word Jaddihi, even without the affirmation of name. But he is trying to declare this narration as Mursal and Ghair Muttasil by following Imaam Hibbaan and others. While we have explained that Ulama Ahnaaf, in fact, Imaam Abu Haneefah himself as well, takes evidence from this narration. It’s amazing that these people, on one side, try to prove the hujjiyyat of Mursal narration very extremely, but on the other side, according to their own saying, they are not ready to accept the Mursal narrations of Amr bin Shu’ayb?

Through our, above mentioned affirmations, we have proven that Jumhoor Muhadditheen have taken evidence from the route of Amr bin Shu’ayb from his father from his grandfather, and they considered it Saheeh. Imaam Abu Haneefah took evidence from it, and the Hanafi Scholars have also taken evidence from this chain on many occasions. This narration is not at all Mursal or Munqati’. However there has been an objection on it that:

“Shu’ayb did not affirm his hearing from his grandfather in all his narrations, and it is the rule of Muhadditheen that if a teacher does not give permission to his student to narrate his narrations from his book then he is not permitted to narrate his narrations, and such narrations of his are not acceptable.” [Ahsan ul-Kalaam: 1/169]

But this objection is also not correct. Maulaana Abdur Rasheed Nu’maani (Deobandi) writes, while answering this objection, that:

“Muhadditheen have differed on whether Shu’ayb read this Nuskha of Saadiqah from his grandfather or not. Some Sakht Geer (Inflexible/Strict/Extreme) Muhadditheen have objected on the ittisaal of this narration due to this very reason. Therefore, Haafidh Ibn Hajar narrates from Imaam Ibn Ma’een in Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb under the biography of Amr bin Shu’ayb that he was thiqah himself and the narration which he narrates from his father Shu’ayb and he narrates from his grandfather are not Hujjah, they are ghair muttasil, and are Da’eef due to being Mursal. Shu’ayb found the books of Abdullah bin Amr, therefore he used to narrate it from his grandfather as Mursal. Even though these narrations are from Abdullah bin Amr, but Shu’ayb did not hear them from him. After narrating this opinion, Haafidh Ibn Hajar said, ‘I say: even though Ibn Ma’een is testifying to it, that his narrations are Saheeh but Shu’ayb did not hear them, and the sama’ of several ahadeeth has reached to the level of authenticity, so the narration of remaining narrations would, at most, be from Wijaadat us-Saheehah, and this, too, is a way of taking (Akhadh) Ilm’” [Ibn Majah ar Ilm Hadeeth: Pg 140, 141]

This proves that the people who criticized this Silsilah are included among the “Sakht Geer” people; meaning Mutashaddideen according to Nu'maani, and even though some Muhadditheen have put the ruling of Irsaal and Inqitaa on these narrations,  despite this, they declare these narrations to be Saheeh. In fact, Muhadditheen have called it “Nuskhah Mutawaarathah”. Allaamah Zayla’ee writes:

وَقَالَ بَعْضُ الْحُفَّاظِ مِنْ الْمُتَأَخِّرِينَ: وَنُسْخَةُ كِتَابِ عَمْرِو بْنِ حَزْمٍ تَلَقَّاهَا الْأَئِمَّةُ الْأَرْبَعَةُ بِالْقَبُولِ، وَهِيَ مُتَوَارَثَةٌ، كَنُسْخَةِ عَمْرِو بْنِ شُعَيْبٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ

Meaning: Some Mutaakhireen (Later Muhadditheen) have said that all the four Imaams have accepted the Nuskha of Amr bin Hazm, and this Nuskhaa is Mutawaarith as well, like the Nuskha of Amr bin Shu’ayb from his father from his Grandfather. [Nasb ur-Rayaa: 2/342]

Therefore, the ruling of weakness on this nuskha is not at all correct. The amaze is on those people who consider Mursal narrations to be Hujjah, and now they do not even bring the narrations of the Nuskha of Amr bin Shu’ayb An Abeehi An Jaddihi to any record.

Maulaana Safdar: Other side of the picture:

After the explaination of the doubts and objections of Maulaana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar regarding the chain of Amr bin Shu’ayb An Abeehi An Jaddihi, now see that he himself has authenticated it. Hence, under the chapter heading “Ma Ja fi Zakat al-Huli”, the very first evidence he gives for the zakaat of jewelry in accordance to the madhab of Abu Haneefah, is this:

“It is narrated in Abu Dawood, Nasaa’ee, and Al-Sunan al-Kubra that ‘A woman came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and she was accompanied by her daughter who wore two heavy gold bangles in her hands. He said to her: Do you pay zakat on them.... to the end’. Imaam Abul Hassan bin al-Qattaan says its chain is Hasan with reference to Nasb ur-Rayaa [2/370], and with reference to Mundhiri he (Safdar) says, ‘Evidence is taken from this chain, in-sha-Allaah’ [Khazaain as-Sunan: 3/10]”

Now, open up Abu Dawood, Nasb ur-Rayaa and other books, you will find this narration with the chain of Amr bin Shu’ayb An Abeehi An Jaddihi. Regarding this narration, he has confessed that Ibn al-Qattaan said its chain is Hasan, and accepts the same narration as Hujjah with reference to Mundhiri.

Similarly, in Khazaain as-Sunan (1/111), he (Safdar) writes regarding the narration of washing feets, narrated with the same chain that: “Its chain is Saheeh”. 

Moreover See the book: “Maulaana Sarfaraz Safdar apni tasaneef ke ainey main” [Pg 140-141]. 

When a hadeeth which is not in accodance to his desire comes from the same chain, it becomes Mursal and Da’eef. Inna Lillahi wa inna Ilaihi Raji’oon!!

Author: Shaykh Irshaad ul-Haqq Athari (hafidhahullah)

An excerpt from a tremendous book of  Shaikh Irshaad ul-Haqq "Tozeeh ul-Kalaam" [Pg: 400-415] 

Translator: Raza Hassan