In truth, al-Dhahabī did not, for the most part, view such figures through the same lens with which he assessed ḥadīth transmitters and their peers. Rather, he examined each class of people through a different lens. Few researchers have noticed this point; consequently, they fell prey to over-generalization and concluded—mistakenly—that Muslim historians influenced by the Prophetic ḥadīth and its sciences judged everyone according to a single, ḥadīth-based standard.

In Siyar and elsewhere, al-Dhahabī managed to apply a distinct perspective to each group, one that generally produced a composite image of his overall verdict on the person in question.

This plurality of viewpoints makes al-Dhahabī’s assessments of those he chronicles seem, at first glance, contradictory or confused. For example, in his entry on Ṣadaqa ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Ḥaddād, who died in 573 AH, he says, “The eminent scholar … the specialist in the laws of inheritance, the theologian, yet accused in his religion” (1). Here he separates the man’s learning from his faith, giving each side a separate appraisal.

A similar case appears in his notice on al-Shihāb al-Suhrawardī, executed in 587 AH: “The distinguished scholar, the philosopher, a man of blazing intelligence, yet of little religion.” Al-Dhahabī then remarks on the fatwā issued by the scholars of Aleppo to kill him, saying, “They acted well and judged correctly,” adding that Suhrawardī “was a fool, reckless and morally corrupt” (2). Many such examples could be cited.

Because of this multiplicity of lenses, al-Dhahabī, when evaluating each class, took specific qualities into account irrespective of his agreement or disagreement with them. Thus, when discussing caliphs, kings, viziers, and holders of authority, he considered factors such as decisiveness and craftiness,
strength and weakness, statesmanship, injustice and justice, love of knowledge and of scholars, and the like,