Compiled by: Abū Ḥamzah Salafī◈ Introduction
In recent times, a significant scholarly discussion has surfaced across social media platforms concerning whether the renowned and trustworthy ḥadīth scholar, Imām Yaḥyá ibn Zakarīyā ibn Abī Zā’idah (d. 183 AH)—a narrator common to both Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim—was genuinely a muqallid (adherent) of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah رحمه الله or affiliated with his school of jurisprudence.
This article seeks to present a detailed and thoroughly researched analysis of this issue. We will first present the arguments forwarded by the opposing party, followed by an in-depth scholarly critique of each.
❖ Arguments Presented by the Opposing Side and Their Scholarly Analysis
✿ ① First Evidence
Claim: Opponents assert that Imām Yaḥyá ibn Zakarīyā ibn Abī Zā’idah was a distinguished student of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and was involved in the compilation of Ḥanafī jurisprudence. As proof, they quote a statement from Imām Ṭaḥāwī رحمه الله:
قَالَ الطَّحَاوِيّ: كَتَبَ إِلَيَّ ابْنُ أَبِي ثَوْرٍ يُحَدِّثُنِي عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ عِمْرَانَ حَدَّثَنِي أَسَدُ بْنُ الْفُرَاتِ قَالَ: كَانَ أَصْحَابُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ الَّذِينَ دَوَّنُوا الْكُتُبَ أَرْبَعِينَ رَجُلًا، فَكَانَ فِي الْعَشْرَةِ الْمُتَقَدِّمِينَ يَحْيَى بْنُ زَكَرِيَّا بْنُ أَبِي زَائِدَةَ، وَهُوَ الَّذِي كَانَ يَكْتُبُهَا لَهُمْ ثَلَاثِينَ سَنَةً۔
“Imām Ṭaḥāwī said: Ibn Abī Thawr wrote to me stating that Sulaymān ibn ʿImrān narrated to him, and Asad ibn al-Furāt narrated to him: The companions of Abū Ḥanīfah who compiled the jurisprudential works were forty men. Among the ten early ones was Yaḥyá ibn Zakarīyā ibn Abī Zā’idah, who wrote them for thirty years.”
al-Jawāhir al-Muḍiyyah fī Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafiyyah
Scholarly Analysis:
This narration is based on the chain of Sulaymān ibn ʿImrān al-Qayrawānī, who is an unreliable and untrustworthy narrator according to the experts of al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl:
✔ Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī said:
سليمان بن عمران روى عن حفص بن غياث روى عنه زهير بن عباد الرواسي قال أبو محمد: دل حديثه على أن الرجل ليس بصدوق۔
al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, No. 587
“Sulaymān ibn ʿImrān narrated from Ḥafṣ ibn Ghiyāth, and Zuhayr ibn ʿAbbād narrated from him. Abū Muḥammad said: His narration indicates that he is not truthful.”
✔ Imām al-Dāraqutnī stated:
سليمان بن عمران القيرواني قال الدَّارَقُطْنِيّ: مجهول۔
Mawsūʿat Aqwāl Abī al-Ḥasan al-Dāraqutnī, No. 1540
“Sulaymān ibn ʿImrān al-Qayrawānī is majhūl (unknown) according to Dāraqutnī.”
Conclusion:This narration, cited by Imām Ṭaḥāwī, is extremely weak and unacceptable due to being based on a kadhdhāb (liar) and majhūl (unknown) narrator. Therefore, it is incorrect to use this narration to prove that Imām Yaḥyá ibn Zakarīyā was a student of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah.
✿ ② Second Evidence
Claim: Opponents refer to a statement of Imām Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr al-Qurṭubī رحمه الله in support of their claim that Imām Yaḥyá ibn Zakarīyā was a student and supporter of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah.
وَمِمَّنْ انْتَهَى إِلَيْنَا ثَنَاؤُهُ عَلَى أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ وَمَدْحُهُ لَهُ: يَحْيَى بْنُ زَكَرِيَّا بْنِ أَبِي زَائِدَةَ۔۔۔ ذَكَرَ ذَلِكَ كُلَّهُ أَبُو يَعْقُوبَ يُوسُفُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ يُوسُفَ الْمَكِّيُّ فِي كِتَابِهِ۔۔۔ حَدَّثَنَا بِهِ حَكَمُ بْنُ مُنْذِرٍ۔
“Among those whose praise and commendation for Abū Ḥanīfah has reached us is Yaḥyá ibn Zakarīyā ibn Abī Zā’idah... All of this was mentioned by Abū Yaʿqūb Yūsuf ibn Aḥmad al-Makkī in his book, which Ḥakam ibn Mundhir narrated to us.”
al-Intiqāʾ fī Faḍāʾil al-Thalāthah al-Aʾimmah Scholarly Analysis:
The major flaw in this narration is its transmission through Ḥakam ibn Mundhir, who was a known leader of the deviant Muʿtazilah sect:
✔ Imām Ibn Ḥazm رحمه الله stated:
حكم بن منذر۔۔۔ هو رأس المعتزلة بالأندلس وكبيرهم وأستاذهم ومتكلمهم وناسكهم۔
Rasā’il Ibn Ḥazm al-Andalusī
“Ḥakam ibn Mundhir was the head of the Muʿtazilah in al-Andalus, their leader, scholar, theologian, and worshipper.”
Conclusion:Since the narration is transmitted through a misguided Muʿtazilī leader, it is not acceptable as evidence. Therefore, this claim too is rejected and unreliable.
✿ ③ Third Evidence
Claim: Reference is made to Abū ʿAbdullāh al-Ṣaymarī’s book Akhbār Abī Ḥanīfah wa Aṣḥābih wherein it is claimed that Yaḥyá ibn Zakarīyā was a companion of Abū Ḥanīfah.
كَانَ يَحْيَى بْنُ زَكَرِيَّا ابْنُ أَبِي زَائِدَةَ أَحْفَظَ أَهْلِ زَمَانِهِ لِلْحَدِيثِ وَأَفْقَهَهُمْ مَعَ مُجَالَسَةٍ كَثِيرَةٍ لِأَبِي حَنِيفَةَ۔۔۔
“Yaḥyá ibn Zakarīyā ibn Abī Zā’idah was the most knowledgeable of his time in ḥadīth and fiqh and used to accompany Abū Ḥanīfah and Ibn Abī Laylā frequently.”
Scholarly Analysis:
This narration suffers from multiple weaknesses in its chain of transmission, involving unknown narrators:
- ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Kās al-Nakhaʿī: Majhūl al-ʿAyn
- His father: Unknown identity, also Majhūl al-ʿAyn
- al-Ṭāliqānī: Also Majhūl al-ʿAyn
✔ Imām Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī stated:
فَإِنْ سُمِّيَ وَانْفَرَدَ وَاحِدٌ عَنْهُ فَمَجْهُولُ الْعَيْنِ۔
Nukhbat al-Fikar
“If a narrator is named but only one reports from him, then he is considered Majhūl al-ʿAyn.”
Conclusion:Due to the presence of multiple unknown narrators, this narration is weak and unreliable, and thus cannot be used to establish any affiliation between Imām Yaḥyá ibn Zakarīyā and Abū Ḥanīfah.
✿ ④ Fourth Evidence
Claim: Opponents reference the book Faḍāʾil Abī Ḥanīfah wa Akhbāruhu wa Manāqibuhu by Ibn Abī al-ʿAwām, where it is narrated that Imām Yaḥyá ibn Zakarīyā praised Abū Ḥanīfah:
ثنا يحيى بن زكريا بن أبي زائدة قال: إنما عرف فضل أبي حنيفة من رآه وسمع كلامه۔
“Yaḥyá ibn Zakarīyā ibn Abī Zā’idah said: Only the one who saw Abū Ḥanīfah and heard his speech could truly recognize his virtue.”
Scholarly Analysis:
The chain of narration here contains several unknown narrators:
- Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh al-Saʿdī (Ibn Abī al-ʿAwām): Majhūl al-Ḥāl
- Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn Muḥammad: Majhūl al-ʿAyn
- ʿAbdullāh ibn Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad: Majhūl al-ʿAyn
✔ According to Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī:
وَلَمْ يُوَثَّقْ: فَمَجْهُولُ الْحَالِ۔
“If not authenticated by others, such a narrator is considered Majhūl al-Ḥāl.”
Conclusion:Due to the presence of unknown narrators, this narration is rejected according to the principles of ḥadīth science. It cannot be used as a valid proof of Yaḥyá ibn Zakarīyā’s affiliation with Abū Ḥanīfah.
✿ ⑤ Fifth Evidence
Claim: Opponents cite ʿAllāmah ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Ḥanbalī in his book Shadharāt al-Dhahab:
وقال غيره: ولي قضاء المدائن وكان من أصحاب أبي حنيفة، وكان ثبتا متقنا۔
“Someone said: He (Yaḥyá ibn Zakarīyā) was appointed as the judge of al-Madāʾin and was among the companions of Abū Ḥanīfah. He was reliable and precise.”
Scholarly Analysis:
The phrase قال غيره (“someone said”) indicates that the source is unknown. Additionally, this statement lacks any chain of transmission.
Important Scholarly Principle:
Historical narrations without chain and attributed to an anonymous source have no scholarly value in ḥadīth sciences.
Conclusion:Due to the lack of a chain and an unknown narrator, this evidence is unacceptable. Thus, attributing Yaḥyá ibn Zakarīyā to the companionship of Abū Ḥanīfah on this basis is invalid.
✦ Summary of Analysis
All the evidences cited by the opposition are based on weak, fabricated, or unreliable sources. Not a single sound or authentic narration confirms that Imām Yaḥyá ibn Zakarīyā ibn Abī Zā’idah was a student or follower of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah.
Summary of Refuted Evidences:
1st Evidence: Based on Sulaymān ibn ʿImrān – a liar and unknown narrator. 2nd Evidence: Involves Ḥakam ibn Mundhir – a deviant Muʿtazilī leader. 3rd Evidence: Involves multiple Majhūl narrators (unknown identity/status). 4th Evidence: Includes Majhūl al-Ḥāl and al-ʿAyn narrators – unreliable. 5th Evidence: Unattributed and unsourced statement – without isnād (chain).
Final Conclusion
There is no valid or authentic proof that Imām Yaḥyá ibn Zakarīyā ibn Abī Zā’idah was affiliated with or a muqallid of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah. According to the consensus of muḥaddithīn and principles of ḥadīth sciences, attributing such a relationship without authentic evidence is academically flawed and unacceptable.
