Aḥmad also transmitted it (4/155): Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān narrated to us; Ibn Luhayʿah narrated to us; Mushraḥ ibn Hāʿān told me, saying, “I heard ʿUqbah ibn ʿĀmir say, ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say …’” – and he mentioned the same wording.

Al-Tirmidhī likewise recorded it (2/316): Qutaybah narrated to us; Ibn Luhayʿah narrated to us with this chain, and he said, “It is a singular (gharīb) ḥadīth. We do not know it except through the narration of Ibn Luhayʿah from Mushraḥ ibn Hāʿān, and its isnād is not strong.”

I say: Mushraḥ ibn Hāʿān was deemed trustworthy by Ibn Maʿīn and others, while some declared him weak; in my view, his ḥadīth is good. Although Ibn Luhayʿah is weak because of his poor memory, a report of his is validated when one of the “ʿAbd-Allāhs” (al-ʿAbādilah) transmits it from him, as his biographers have stated. In this case the report comes through two of them: Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān—whose name is ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd al-Maqrī—and ʿAbd Allāh ibn Wahb.

The ḥadīth contains a great virtue for ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ (may Allah be pleased with him), for the Prophet ﷺ testified that he was a believer. Such testimony necessarily implies that he is promised Paradise, because the Prophet ﷺ said in the well-known authentic ḥadīth, “No soul will enter Paradise except a believing one” (agreed upon). Allah the Exalted likewise says, “Allah has promised those who believe and perform righteous deeds gardens beneath which rivers flow.”

On this basis it is impermissible to revile ʿAmr (may Allah be pleased with him)—as some contemporary writers and other critics do—because of the dispute, indeed the fighting, that took place between him and ʿAlī (may Allah be pleased with him). Such events do not negate faith, for faith does not entail infallibility, as is obvious, especially if one maintains that what occurred was a form of independent legal reasoning and not the following of caprice.