Reports of ʿAmr ibn ʿUbayd: Attribution, Conflicting Accounts and Evidence of Criticism

1. Initial criticism of ʿAmr ibn ʿUbayd

حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ الْحُلْوَانِيُّ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا نُعَيْمُ بْنُ حَمَّادٍ. قَالَ أَبُو إِسْحَاقَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سُفْيَانَ: وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا نُعَيْمُ بْنُ حَمَّادٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو دَاوُدَ الطَّيَالِسِيُّ، عَنْ شُعْبَةَ، عَنْ يُونُسَ بْنِ عُبَيْدٍ، قَالَ: كَانَ عَمْرُو بْنُ عُبَيْدٍ يَكْذِبُ فِي الْحَدِيثِ.
Translation: Al-Ḥasan al-Ḥulwānī transmits through Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād. Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad b. Sufyān then supplies another upper route through Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā, converging upon Nuʿaym. Through Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayālisī, Shuʿbah and Yūnus b. ʿUbayd comes the criticism that ʿAmr b. ʿUbayd used to lie when transmitting hadith.

«يَكْذِبُ فِي الْحَدِيثِ» is a criticism reported from Yūnus b. ʿUbayd, not a new judgment uttered independently by Imam Muslim. The subsequent reports supply concrete contexts for evaluating its force.

2. Two upper routes in one report

The insertion «qāla Abū Isḥāq ... wa-ḥaddathanā Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā» signals a second upper route, not part of the critical remark itself. Both routes converge at Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād; below him the route through Abū Dāwūd, Shuʿbah and Yūnus is shared.

A chain must retain who uttered each transmission formula and where an additional route enters. Combining the two upper paths into an undifferentiated single chain would erase important transmission history.

Al-Nawawī identifies Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad b. Sufyān as Muslim’s student and a transmitter of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim from him. Thus «وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى» introduces Abū Isḥāq’s own additional upper route; it must not be inserted as a link inside Muslim’s first chain.

Al-Nawawī notes that this insertion occurs in many collated manuscript copies but is absent from some. Here Abū Isḥāq transmits from Muḥammad b. Yaḥyā without passing through Muslim. Al-Nawawī describes the benefit in terms of matching Muslim’s chain level and obtaining one-link ʿulūw (a higher route). Both paths still converge at Nuʿaym b. Ḥammād; the insertion is not a second independent critical statement by Yūnus b. ʿUbayd.

3. A critical label and its supporting evidence

«Kadhaba» and «yakdhibu» constitute severe criticism. In any particular instance, the evidence must establish whether deliberate fabrication, a false attribution to a teacher, or a demonstrable conflict is at issue.

Yūnus’s broad criticism is reported first; ʿAwf and Ayyūb then give specific cases. These help contextualize the criticism. They do not imply that every wording cited from ʿAmr is intrinsically false.

4. A known hadith with a challenged attribution

حَدَّثَنِي عَمْرُو بْنُ عَلِيٍّ أَبُو حَفْصٍ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ مُعَاذَ بْنَ مُعَاذٍ يَقُولُ: قُلْتُ لِعَوْفِ بْنِ أَبِي جَمِيلَةَ: إِنَّ عَمْرَو بْنَ عُبَيْدٍ حَدَّثَنَا عَنِ الْحَسَنِ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ﷺ قَالَ: «مَنْ حَمَلَ عَلَيْنَا السِّلَاحَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَّا». قَالَ: كَذَبَ وَاللَّهِ عَمْرٌو، وَلَكِنَّهُ أَرَادَ أَنْ يَحُوزَهَا إِلَى قَوْلِهِ الْخَبِيثِ.
Translation: Muʿādh b. Muʿādh told ʿAwf b. Abī Jamīlah that ʿAmr b. ʿUbayd narrated from al-Ḥasan the Prophetic statement, “Whoever takes up arms against us is not of us.” ʿAwf swore that ʿAmr had lied and said he sought to draw it toward his objectionable doctrine.

The dispute concerns the attribution «from al-Ḥasan» and its deployment in argument. A known sound hadith may still be falsely ascribed to a particular teacher or placed in a problematic interpretive context.

5. Al-Nawawī: the hadith and this particular route

Al-Nawawī explains that the Prophetic wording “Whoever takes up arms against us is not of us” is transmitted through sound routes elsewhere. ʿAwf’s criticism concerns this attribution through al-Ḥasan: in his judgment al-Ḥasan did not transmit it in that fashion, or ʿAmr did not hear it from him.

Thus «ʿAmr lied» does not negate the hadith through every other route. Authentication of a report’s wording and validation of a particular chain are distinct questions.

6. Drawing a report toward a doctrinal claim

«Yaḥūzahā ilā qawlihi» means drawing the report toward one’s own doctrinal position. Al-Nawawī relates it to the Muʿtazilī debate over grave sin and the phrase «not of us».

The hadith alone does not entail definitive exclusion from faith or eternal punishment for every grave sinner. Establishing a text does not validate every interpretation of it, nor an unsupported attribution of it to a particular teacher.

In the Muʿtazilī position described by al-Nawawī, a perpetrator of a grave sin is no longer classified as a believer, yet is not simply labelled a kāfir; he is called a fāsiq and is held to deserve everlasting punishment. Rendering this position as an unqualified declaration of unbelief against every grave sinner misrepresents its own distinction.

By contrast, the affirmative explanation al-Nawawī reports from the scholars for «فَلَيْسَ مِنَّا» here is that such a person is not following the Prophet’s guidance, knowledge, practice and sound manner of conduct. In ordinary usage, distancing someone from one’s way of acting does not necessarily expel him from the religion. Context and the other relevant evidence govern the reading; this is not a blanket rule for every occurrence of the phrase.

7. A student changes his circle of study

وَحَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ الْقَوَارِيرِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ، قَالَ: كَانَ رَجُلٌ قَدْ لَزِمَ أَيُّوبَ وَسَمِعَ مِنْهُ، فَفَقَدَهُ أَيُّوبُ، فَقَالُوا: يَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ، إِنَّهُ قَدْ لَزِمَ عَمْرَو بْنَ عُبَيْدٍ.
Translation: ʿUbayd Allāh al-Qawārīrī reports from Ḥammād b. Zayd that a man had attended Ayyūb and heard from him, but later disappeared from his circle. People explained that he was now studying with ʿAmr b. ʿUbayd.

The report first establishes a change in study affiliation, not the independent weakness of a specific narration. Ayyūb’s concern is made explicit in the continuation.

8. Why Ayyūb was wary of unusual reports

قَالَ حَمَّادٌ: فَبَيْنَا أَنَا يَوْمًا مَعَ أَيُّوبَ وَقَدْ بَكَّرْنَا إِلَى السُّوقِ، فَاسْتَقْبَلَهُ الرَّجُلُ، فَسَلَّمَ عَلَيْهِ أَيُّوبُ وَسَأَلَهُ، ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُ أَيُّوبُ: بَلَغَنِي أَنَّكَ لَزِمْتَ ذَاكَ الرَّجُلَ. قَالَ حَمَّادٌ: سَمَّاهُ، يَعْنِي عَمْرًا. قَالَ: نَعَمْ يَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ، إِنَّهُ يَجِيئُنَا بِأَشْيَاءَ غَرَائِبَ. قَالَ: يَقُولُ لَهُ أَيُّوبُ: إِنَّمَا نَفِرُّ أَوْ نَفْرَقُ مِنْ تِلْكَ الْغَرَائِبِ.
Translation: Ḥammād said: One day, as I was with Ayyūb and we had gone early to the market, that man came toward him. Ayyūb greeted him and asked after him. Then Ayyūb said to him: “I have heard that you have kept close company with that man.” Ḥammād said: “He named him—meaning ʿAmr.” The man replied: “Yes, Abū Bakr; he brings us strange things.” Ayyūb said to him: “It is precisely those strange things that we flee from—or fear.” (The narrator preserved uncertainty between «نَفِرُّ» and «نَفْرَقُ».)

«Nafirru aw nafraqu» preserves uncertainty over the precise verb. Fidelity requires retaining that doubt, not selecting one wording as certain without evidence.

9. Strangeness as evidence, not automatic fabrication

Gharāʾib are reports outside the familiar range of transmissions. A rare addition from a reliable authority is not inherently fabricated, but unusual material from a questioned transmitter warrants comparison with established routes.

Ayyūb is expressing methodological caution, not giving a separate fully argued verdict on every unknown wording. Comparison with other transmission evidence determines the force of the concern.

10. Direct countertest from the alleged teacher

وَحَدَّثَنِي حَجَّاجُ بْنُ الشَّاعِرِ، حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ زَيْدٍ، يَعْنِي حَمَّادًا، قَالَ: قِيلَ لِأَيُّوبَ: إِنَّ عَمْرَو بْنَ عُبَيْدٍ رَوَى عَنِ الْحَسَنِ، قَالَ: لَا يُجْلَدُ السَّكْرَانُ مِنَ النَّبِيذِ. فَقَالَ: كَذَبَ، أَنَا سَمِعْتُ الْحَسَنَ يَقُولُ: يُجْلَدُ السَّكْرَانُ مِنَ النَّبِيذِ.
Translation: Through Ḥajjāj b. al-Shāʿir, Sulaymān b. Ḥarb and Ḥammād b. Zayd it is reported that Ayyūb was told ʿAmr ascribed to al-Ḥasan the view that one intoxicated by nabīdh should not be flogged. Ayyūb said he had lied about that attribution, saying that he himself had heard al-Ḥasan state the opposite.

This is counterevidence based on direct hearing: Ayyūb contrasts what he heard from al-Ḥasan with what was attributed to him. It directly challenges this attribution but is not a complete inventory of every possible historical route.

11. Keep legal analysis distinct from source criticism

The legal classifications of nabīdh and the details of punishment for intoxication are outside this report’s immediate purpose. The issue is that opposing statements were ascribed to one teacher, and a student claiming direct hearing contradicted one attribution.

A careful critic would consider the context, exact words and transmitter reliability. A conflict does not by itself settle every question of intention or the entire legal controversy.

12. Ayyūb’s question on trustworthiness

وَحَدَّثَنِي حَجَّاجٌ، حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ سَلَّامَ بْنَ أَبِي مُطِيعٍ يَقُولُ: بَلَغَ أَيُّوبَ أَنِّي آتِي عَمْرًا، فَأَقْبَلَ عَلَيَّ يَوْمًا فَقَالَ: أَرَأَيْتَ رَجُلًا لَا تَأْمَنُهُ عَلَى دِينِهِ، كَيْفَ تَأْمَنُهُ عَلَى الْحَدِيثِ؟
Translation: And Ḥajjāj narrated to me; Sulaymān b. Ḥarb narrated to us, saying: “I heard Sallām b. Abī Muṭīʿ say: ‘Ayyūb learned that I used to visit ʿAmr. One day he turned to me and said: Tell me, if you do not trust a man concerning his religion, how can you trust him concerning hadith?’”

The question links trust in religious integrity to responsibility in transmitting hadith. It does not establish the indiscriminate rejection of everyone holding a different juristic or doctrinal view; the evidence and conduct of the particular transmitter remain decisive.

13. A temporal qualification: before he changed

وَحَدَّثَنِي سَلَمَةُ بْنُ شَبِيبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الْحُمَيْدِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبَا مُوسَى يَقُولُ: حَدَّثَنَا عَمْرُو بْنُ عُبَيْدٍ قَبْلَ أَنْ يُحْدِثَ.
Translation: Salamah b. Shabīb transmits through al-Ḥumaydī and Sufyān that Abū Mūsā said ʿAmr b. ʿUbayd narrated to them before he later introduced a new position.

Al-Nawawī takes «before he introduced» to refer to the period before the later Qadarī doctrinal change. It dates the reported transmission; it neither authenticates everything narrated during the earlier period nor licenses unqualified projection of a later criticism onto every earlier report.

14. Chronology informs but does not replace evaluation

When a narrator’s circumstances change, the critic asks when the report was heard, what evidence exists of precision and honesty at that time, and whether this particular transmission conflicts with another.

Report 71 supplies a temporal claim about Abū Mūsā’s hearing. It must be considered alongside the specific counterevidence in report 69 and the broader criticism in report 66, not used as an automatic substitute for either.

15. Distinguishing the kinds of critical evidence

General criticism: Yūnus’s statement, «yakdhibu fī al-ḥadīth».
Specific attribution challenge: ʿAwf’s objection to the claimed route through al-Ḥasan for a known Prophetic text.
Conflict with direct testimony: Ayyūb’s direct hearing from al-Ḥasan of a contrary statement.
Triggers for further scrutiny: Unusual reports and the chronology of hearing.

These sources concern one transmitter but have different evidentiary scope. Sound analysis tracks the speaker, basis and limits of each criticism.

Al-Nawawī distinguishes two possible domains of the criticism directed at ʿAmr: where Prophetic hadith is being attributed, the concern is false attribution to the Messenger ﷺ; where opinions and doctrines are at issue, the warning may concern innovation or departure from the scholarly majority. The distinction does not turn every juristic disagreement into “lying”; each allegation must be evaluated within its particular evidentiary context.