; likewise al-Tirmidhī, although he only hints at it in the title of his chapter, where he writes:
“Chapter: What has been related concerning the dislike of buying and selling, announcing lost property, and reciting poetry in the mosque.”

The second extra clause is also missing from Ibn Mājah and al-Bayhaqī, and the alternate wording cited above belongs to al-Tirmidhī alone, who then remarked, “A good ḥadīth.”

ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb is the son of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ. Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl—meaning al-Bukhārī—said, “I saw Aḥmad and Isḥāq (and he mentioned others as well) relying on the ḥadīth of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb as proof.” Muḥammad added, “Shuʿayb ibn Muḥammad did in fact hear from his grandfather ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr.”

Abū ʿĪsā (al-Tirmidhī) said, “Those who criticized the ḥadīth of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb did so only because he relates from his grandfather’s written compilation; they assumed he had not actually heard these reports from his grandfather.” ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd Allāh quoted Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd as saying, “In our view, the ḥadīth of ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb is weak.”

The truth, however, is that his narrations are not of the highest tier of ṣaḥīḥ but rather belong to the class of ḥasan (fair), as al-Dhahabī stated in al-Mīzān after presenting the opinions of the leading critics. The allegation that he never heard from his grandfather is overturned by several chains in which he explicitly affirms that he did, as the meticulous scholar Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir has demonstrated in his commentary on al-Tirmidhī—consult it if you wish.