Al-Nasāʾī said, “There is nothing objectionable about him.” ⦗1⦘
Ahmad ibn Hanbal remarked, “Write down ḥadith from him.” ⦗2⦘
Surayj ibn Yunus asked, “What ⦗3⦘ became of Ibn Abī Badr? They used to rate him weak.” ⦗4⦘
Ṣāliḥ Jazrah observed, “People spoke critically of Abū Hammām.” ⦗5⦘
Abū Ḥātim declared, “He is not to be cited as evidence.” ⦗6⦘
I (the author) say: In spite of that, Muslim relied upon him, and with all his vast learning it is rare to find a single report of his that is unacceptable. Such is the description of a trustworthy narrator.
He died in Rabīʿ al-Awwal of the year 243 AH, when he was in his nineties.
I have obtained several of his high-isnād transmissions.
5 – Abū Ḥudhāfah al-Sahmī, Ahmad ibn Ismāʿīl * (Q)
The imam, ḥadith scholar, jurist, and long-lived authority, Abū Ḥudhāfah Ahmad ibn Ismāʿīl ibn
(1) Tahdhib al-Kamal, no. 1467.
(2) Tarikh Baghdad, 13:444; and Tahdhib al-Kamal, no. 1467.
(3) In Tarikh Baghdad the wording reads: “for what he did …”.
(4) Tarikh Baghdad, 13:444, and Tahdhib al-Kamal, no. 1467; both continue: “concerning the wound of Abu Waki‘.”
(5) Tarikh Baghdad, 13:445.
(6) al-Jarh wa-l-Ta‘dil, 9:7. Abu Hatim’s complete judgment is: “Reliable (*saduq*), his hadith may be recorded but not used as proof; he is dearer to me than Abu Hisham al-Rifa‘i.” Al-Mizzi cites this in Tahdhib al-Kamal, no. 1467. Hence, Abu Hatim deemed the narrator weak when on his own; his reports become acceptable only when corroborated.
(*) Tarikh Baghdad, 4:22, 24; Tahdhib al-Kamal, 17; Tadhhib al-Tahdhib, 1/7/1; Mizaan al-I‘tidal, 1:83; al-‘Ibar, 2:18; Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, 1:15-16; Khulasat Tadhhib al-Kamal, 4; Shadharat al-Dhahab, 2:139.