The late Pakistani scholar Muhammad Hamidullah published a document under the name "Sahifah of Hammam ibn Munabbih" in the 1960s, and continued to revise his treatment of it for over a decade. The document in turn purported to be the report which this Hammam took of Abu Hurayra's accounts of the Prophet Muhammad.
Apologists for the hadith variant of Islam commonly cite Hamidullah's text as if it were a document of the last decade of the first Islamic century, for example here and especially here. Opponents prefer to ignore Hamidullah's work.
I do not find it productive to ignore such arguments; these arguments do exist and apologists do use them.
Hamidullah's text is a critical edition of two manuscripts which contain a common collection of Arab traditions ("hadith"), all with the chain of transmitters (Arabic "isnad"): 'Abd al-Razzaq from Ma'mar from Hammam from Abu Hurayra. Hamidullah prefaced this with an argument that the documents witness to a primary source of Abu Hurayra's eyewitness accounts.
In fact these manuscripts represent no such thing. These manuscripts record an extract from the Musannaf of 'Abd al-Razzâq of the Yemen, as 'Abd al-Razzaq related it to his editor al-Sulami (Hamidullah p. 113). This Musannaf is readily available from its Lebanese publisher, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, and in that form may be found in any decent college library.
(As an aside, Ibn Hajar knew of a series of traditions which Ma'mar had transcribed from Hammam; "all these have but one single chain" (Hamidullah pp. 63-4, from Tahdhib XI 67 #106, I 574). Ibn Hajar here gives the impression that in his time a Ma'mar < Hammam < Abu Hurayra bundle was being disseminated as a separate and canonical collection. The manuscripts prove that such sheets were in circulation in Ibn Hajar's time, if only as an extract from Sulami's recension of the Musannaf. Since Ibn Hajar does not cite the full isnad of such a document, it is easiest to assume that the version to which Ibn Hajar referred was this Musannaf extract.)
This means that the extract's primary importance is as a check to the critical text of that section of the Musannaf. Beyond that, it isn't a particularly useful witness to what 'Abd al-Razzaq taught of Hammad's traditions; for that, one may as well resort to Ibn Hanbal's Musnad and perhaps also to the works of al-Hakim and al-Tabarani. Of course this renders moot the "Sahifah"'s witness to Ma'mar; let alone to Hammam, Abu Hurayra, and the Prophet.
Secondarily, the extract bears witness to a situation within early mediaeval Islam, in which students of 'Abd al-Razzaq decided that these traditions belonged to a document separate from that of Sulami's Musannaf. For that much, Hamidullah's arguments for the "Sahifah"'s existence in the 20th century would have sufficed for the "reverse-engineers" of that extract back in the 9th: (a) Sulami's text set aside those traditions which 'Abd al-Razzaq recorded of Ma'mar to a separate chapter and did not set aside others, like Ibn Jurayj's; and (b) this appendix, and also Ibn Hanbal's quotations from 'Abd al-Razzaq, both in turn separated Hammam's traditions from the others.
Hamidullah thinks that the "Sahifah"'s reverse engineers were right to do so. First, he claims that Bukhari's traditions from 'Abd al-Razzaq have been vindicated by publication of Sulami's transcription of 'Abd al-Razzaq's Musannaf (pp. 80-1). Second, Hamidullah argues that 'Abd al-Razzaq's treatment of Ma'mar and Ma'mar's of Hammam show that both recognised that Hammam's bundle was special and therefore trustworthy. Even if the "Sahifah" isn't an independent witness to that of Ma'mar, Hamidullah might say, it does bolster Ma'mar's witness.
These arguments are of dubious value. While I do not dispute the possibility that hadith collectors were capable of ethical behaviour (Harald Motzki argues this forcefully in the case of 'Abd al-Razzaq specifically), that still leaves open the ethics of Ma'mar; the hadith literature is in fact littered with isnads wherein an impeccable and intelligent transmitter had somehow got duped by a pious fraud. Also, Ma'mar's treatment of Hammam need not mean that he believed him. He (or even 'Abd al-Razzaq after him) could have found Ma'mar's traditions so anomalous yet comprehensive that he decided to pass them along without comment.
The missing link in the chain of argument for the "Sahifah", then, is whether Ma'mar transmitted from Hammam honestly.
I do not consider Ma'mar's treatment of Hammam to be that of a forger. Ma'mar treated Hammam precisely how 'Abd al-Razzaq would come to treat Ma'mar. If Ma'mar had decided to concoct a bundle of traditions for his own purposes, he might have chosen to disperse such forgeries and to do so under multiple isnads, instead of setting them out so conspicuously. Assuming this of Ma'mar raises also the question of why he forged these traditions and not, say, litanies of the benefits of Ali and curses upon the Banu Umayya, or arguments on behalf of this or that Islamic heresy current in Ma'mar's native Basra.
These arguments, as opposed to Hamidullah's boosterism, do reinforce the hadith-Muslims' assertion that the "Sahifah" is an authentic record from circa 100 AH, or at any rate authentic enough. However these arguments should apply to any bundle of hadith from a randomly-selected isnad out of any eighth or ninth century collection. The "Sahifah", then, does not offer much that is new.
I conclude that Hamidullah is probably correct insofar that Ma'mar likely did transcribe what he had heard from a dying Hammam b. Munabbih circa 100 AH. However his argument is overly bombastic and weak where it counted; apologists for the "Sahifah" (of which I am one) must resort to arguments elsewhere.
One common tactic of religious apologetic is to claim that one's source texts are more important than they are. Islamic apologetic is apparently no exception. Readers introduced to this "Sahifah" from some apologetic site should be forgiven for feeling cheated. It were better for apologists to clarify what the "Sahifah" can and cannot prove, and refer readers interested in a proper defense of hadith to the works of Motzki.
Any thoughts? e-mail me :^)
zimriel@sbcglobal.net13 Oct 2005, wrote up notes; 14-15 Oct, started this.