Ibn Maʿīn’s Praise of ʿAbd al-Razzāq ibn Hammām al-Ṣanʿānī
A Discussion in the Science of Rijāl and Ḥadīth Transmission
A scholar’s theological sympathies do not disqualify his transmission. Ibn Maʿīn — the most exacting critic of narrators in the tradition — said of ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṣanʿānī that even apostasy would not have caused him to abandon the man’s ḥadīth. The author presents this verdict as a landmark in the debate over the reliability of Shīʿī-leaning transmitters.
The great ḥāfiẓ of Yemen, teacher of al-Shāfiʿī and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal
Before him, Ibn Maʿīn spoke concerning the great ḥāfiẓ, ʿAbd al-Razzāq ibn Hammām al-Yamānī, al-Ṣanʿānī, al-Ḥimyarī3 — who died in the year two hundred and eleven of the Hijra. From him transmitted4 the Imam of Imams al-Hādī ilā al-Ḥaqq, in al-Muntakhab, and Imam al-Muʾayyad Billāh (peace be upon him), and a group of the general body of scholars. He is counted among the trustworthy ḥadīth scholars of the Shīʿa. Of him it was said:5 that no one travelled to seek ḥadīth from any scholar after the Prophet ﷺ as people travelled to him. He was the teacher of al-Shāfiʿī, and from him Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh, and Ibn Maʿīn all took their learning.
Firmness on Fadak, and refusing to hear Muʿāwiya’s name
Al-Dhahabī related from him words concerning the affair of Fadak, displaying the utmost firmness.1
And when a man mentioned Muʿāwiya in his presence, he said:
“Do not befoul our gathering with the mention of Ibn Abī Sufyān.”
He continually transmitted the ḥadīth of Ghadīr, the ḥadīth of designation, and others — until the Banū al-ʿAbbās forbade him from doing so. They objected to him and spoke against him on account of ḥadīths he transmitted concerning the virtues of ʿAlī (peace be upon him) and the defects of his enemies,3 such as:
“If you see Muʿāwiya upon my pulpit, kill him.”
Even apostasy would not have caused us to abandon his ḥadīth
Whereupon Ibn Maʿīn said to whoever attacked him on the grounds of Shīʿī sympathies:4
“Even if ʿAbd al-Razzāq had apostatised from Islam, we would not have abandoned his ḥadīth.”
The following footnotes are editorial additions accompanying the text and are not the author’s own words.
“Trustworthy, a great memoriser, a celebrated author; he became blind in his later years and deteriorated, and he had Shīʿī leanings.”See also: Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (8/362), no. 1534, where al-Dhahabī describes him as
“the great ḥāfiẓ, the scholar of Yemen… the trustworthy Shīʿī”;Thiqāt of Ibn Ḥibbān (8/412); and other sources.
The following footnotes are editorial additions accompanying the text and are not the author’s own words.
“The trustworthy scholars and Imams of the Muslims travelled to him and wrote from him, and found no fault in his ḥadīth — except that they attributed Shīʿī leanings to him. He transmitted ḥadīths on virtues that none of the trustworthy scholars corroborate, and this is the gravest charge levelled against him — on account of these ḥadīths and what he transmitted concerning the defects of others, which I have not mentioned in this book of mine. As for his truthfulness, I hope there is no fault in it — though there have issued from him ḥadīths on the virtues of the household and the defects of others that are objectionable.”
Lawāmiʿ al-Anwār fī Jawāmiʿ al-ʿUlūm wa-l-Āthār (Radiant Lights in the Compendium of Sciences and Traditions), by Majd al-Dīn ibn Muḥammad al-Muʾayyidī (d. 1428 AH). Chapter: Ibn Maʿīn’s Praise of ʿAbd al-Razzāq ibn Hammām al-Ṣanʿānī.