Hadhrat Imam Abu Hanifa vs. "Salafis"
The vindication of the Imam from the claim of "Salafis" whereby
Imam Abu Hanifa was da'if (weak in Hadith)
Shaykh Hasan al-Saqqaf wrote in his book about Albani's attacks on the
great scholars entitled Qamus shata'im al-Albani [Dictionary
of Albani's Insults of the Scholars]:
"He [Albani] says of Imam Abu Hanifa: "The imams have declared him weak
for his poor memorization" (in his commentary of Ibn Abi `Asim's Kitab
as-Sunna 1:76) although no such position is reported, see for example
Ibn Hajar `Asqalani's biography of Imam Abu Hanifa in "Tahdhib al-tahdhib".
A blind follower of Albani replied:
The statement that no such position is reported is a lie, it
was the position of Muslim (al-Kunaa wal Asmaa), Nasaa'ee (ad-Du'afaa)
ibn Adee (al-Kaamil 2/403), ibn Sa'd (Tabaqaat 6/256), al-Uqailee
(ad-Du'afaa p.432), ibn Abee Haatim (al-Jarh wat Tadil),
Daaruqutnee (as-Sunan p132), al-Haakim (Ma'rifa Ulum al-Hadeeth),
Abdul Haqq al-Ishbelee (al-Ahkaam al-Kubraa q.17/2), adh-Dhahabee
(ad-Du'afaa q. 215/1-2), Bukharee (at-Taareekh al-Kabeer),
ibn Hibbaan (al-Majrooheen)
Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani replies: Our reliance is on Allah. Shaykh
Albani has shown enmity towards scholars, of a kind that passes all bounds
and is unbefitting of a person with knowledge in Islam. As we mentioned
in the first volume, Saqqaf has documented in his book an instance where
Albani compares Hanafi fiqh to the Gospel in respect to distance from Qur'an
and Sunna, and this would be unacceptable coming from a Christian, how
then could it be accepted from a Muslim? Albani and his following have
pushed even the gentlest of scholars, the late `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda,
to take pen to paper to oppose such aberrations in his book Radd `ala
abatil wa iftira'at Nasir al-Albani wa sahibihi sabiqan Zuhayr al-Shawish
wa mu'azirihima (Refutation of the falsehood and fabrications of Nasir
al-Din Albani and his former friend Zuhayr al-Shawish and their supporters).
This book received two editions recently.
The claim by Albani's supporter whereby "The statement that no such
position is reported is a lie" is itself a lie. None of the references
he adduces contains a single authentic proof for Albani's claim that "the
imams have declared him weak for his poor memorization." For such a claim
to be remotely true it would have to be modified to read: "He was graded
weak by some scholars but this grading was rejected by the Imams." The
proof for this is that the positions reported against Imam Abu Hanifa in
the references given are all weak and rejected, and often inauthentic in
the first place, in the end amounting to nothing: therefore, even though
there is criticism reported, it comes to nothing and does not constitute
any "declaration of weakness by the Imams" as asserted by Albani!
The example given as proof by Saqqaf, namely Ibn Hajar `Asqalani's notice
on Abu Hanifa in Tahdhib al-tahdhib, confirms that the Imams of
hadith never declared Abu Hanifa weak, for Ibn Hajar would have had to
report such a weakening if it held true. Rather, he states the reverse,
as seen from the translation of Ibn Hajar's notice excerpted below. This
shows that Saqqaf's statement is correct, since Ibn Hajar undoubtedly represents
the opinions of the Imams of hadith criticism and methodology concerning
the weakness or poor memorization of any given narrator or scholar. Moreover,
Ibn Hajar in Taqrib al-tahdhib (1993 ed. 2:248 #7179) calls Abu
Hanifah al-Imam, and al-faqih al-mashhur (the well-known jurisprudent),
and Dhahabi includes him among the hadith masters in his Tadhkirat al-huffaz
[Memorial of the Hadith Masters]. These titles are not given to anyone
who is declared weak in hadith. And Dhahabi before Ibn Hajar, and al-Mizzi
before Dhahabi, all concurred that no position purporting Imam Abu Hanifa's
weakness should be retained, as Dhahabi said in Tadhhib al-tahdhib
(4:101): "Our shaykh Abu al-Hajjaj [al-Mizzi] did well when he did not
cite anything [in Tahdhib al-kamal] whereby he [Imam Abu Hanifa]
should be deemed weak as a narrator."
The remainder of the "Salafi"'s references are therefore irrelevant
and over-ruled, especially in view of Ibn `Abd al-Barr's statement that
"Those who narrated from Abu Hanifa, who declared him trustworthy (waththaquhu),
and who praised him, outnumber those who criticized him" as related by
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami in his book al-Khayrat al-hisan fi manaqib Abi
Hanifa al-Nu`man (p. 74). Nevertheless we shall examine the sources
that he brings up to show the extent to which these sources all suffer
from various problems, as it is the wont of "Salafis" seen time and again
to adduce false or weak evidence to promote their opinion.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar's Notice of Imam Abu Hanifa in Tahdhib Al-Tahdhib
From Tahdhib al-tahdhib, 1st ed. (Hyderabad: Da'irat al-ma`arif
al-nizamiyya, 1327) Vol. 10 p. 449-452 #817 (10:45f. of the later edition)
Al-Nu`man ibn Thabit al-Taymi, Abu Hanifa, al-Kufi, mawla Bani Taym
Allah ibn Tha`laba. It is said that he was Persian. He saw Anas. He narrated
hadith from `Ata' ibn Abi Rabah, `Asim ibn Abi al-Nujud, `Alqama ibn Marthad,
Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, al-Hakam ibn `Utayba, Salama ibn Kuhayl, Abu Ja`far
Muhammad ibn `Ali, `Ali ibn al-Aqmar, Ziyad ibn `Alaqa, Sa`id ibn Masruq
al-Thawri, `Adi ibn Thabit al-Ansari, `Atiyya ibn Sa`id al-`Awfi, Abu Sufyan
al-Sa`di, `Abd al-Karim Abu Umayya, Yahya ibn Sa`id al-Ansari, and Hisham
Ibn `Urwa among others.
From him narrated: his son Hammad, Ibrahim ibn Tahman, Hamza ibn Habib
al-Zayyat, Zafr ibn al-Hadhil, Abu Yusuf al-Qadi, Abu Yahya al-Hamani,
`Isa ibn Yunus, Waki` (ibn al-Jarrah al-Kufi),* Yazid ibn Zuray`, Asad
ibn `Amr, al-Bajali, Hakkam ibn Ya`la ibn Salm al-Razi, Kharija ibn Mus`ab,
`Abd al-Majid ibn Abi Rawad, `Ali ibn Mus-hir, Muhammad ibn Bishr al-`Abdi,
`Abd al-Razzaq [one of Bukhari's shaykhs], Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani,
Mus`ib ibn al-Miqdam, Yahya ibn Yaman, Abu `Usma Nuh ibn Abi Maryam, Abu
`Abd al-Rahman al-Muqri, Abu Nu`aym, Abu `Asim, and others [such as `Abd
Allah Ibn al-Mubarak and Dawud al-Ta'i: see al-Mizzi's Tahdhib al-kamal
12 and al-Dhahabi in Manaqib Abi Hanifa (p. 20). al-Mizzi's list
is about one hundred strong.]...
[* Dhahabi relates in his Tadhkirat al-huffaz (1:306) in the
biography of Waki` that Yahya ibn Ma`in said: "I have not seen better than
Waki`, he spends the night praying, fasts without interruption, and gives
fatwa according to what Abu Hanifa said, and Yahya al-Qattan also used
to give fatwa according to what Abu Hanifa said." al-Hafiz al-Qurashi in
his al-Jawahir al-mudiyya fi manaqib al-hanafiyya (2:208-209) said:
"Waki` took the Science from Abu Hanifa and received a great deal from
him."]
Remarks on Imam Abu Hanifa's national origins and his father's profession.
Muhammad ibn Sa`d al-`Awfi said: I heard Ibn Ma`in say: "Abu Hanifa was
trustworthy (thiqa), and he did not narrate any hadith except what he had
memorized, nor did he narrate what he had not memorized."
Salih ibn Muhammad al-Asadi said on the authority of Ibn Ma`in: "Abu
Hanifa was trustworthy (thiqa) in hadith."
[a) Ibn `Abd al-Barr relates in al-Intiqa' (p. 127): `Abd Allah ibn
Ahmad al-Dawraqi said: Ibn Ma`in was asked about Abu Hanifa as I was listening,
so he said: "He is trustworthy (thiqatun), I never heard that anyone had
weakened him: No less than Shu`ba wrote to him (for narrations), and ordered
him to narrate hadith." Ibn Hajar said in Kharija ibn al-Salt's notice
in Tahdhib al-tahdhib (3:75-76): "Ibn Abi Khaythama said: If al-Shu`bi
narrates from someone and names him, that man is trustworthy (thiqa) and
his narration is used as proof (yuhtajju bi hadithihi)."
b) al-Haytami in al-Khayrat al-hisan (p. 74) and al-Qurashi in
al-Jawahir
al-mudiyya (1:29) relate that Imam `Ali ibn al-Madini said: "From Abu
Hanifa narrated: al-Thawri, Ibn al-Mubarak, Hammad ibn Zayd, Hisham, Waki`
(ibn al-Jarrah al-Kufi), `Abbad ibn al-`Awwam, and Ja`far ibn `Awn. He
[Abu Hanifa] is trustworthy (thiqatun) and reliable (la ba'sa bihi = there
is no harm in him). Shu`ba thought well of him." Ibn Ma`in said: "Our colleagues
are exaggerating concerning Abu Hanifa and his colleagues." He was asked:
"Does he lie?" Ibn Ma`in replied: "No! he is nobler than that."
c) Dhahabi in Tadhkirat al-huffaz (1:168) cites Ibn Ma`in's statement
about Abu Hanifa: la ba'sa bihi (= there is no harm in him, i.e. he is
reliable). Ibn Salah in his Muqaddima (p. 134) and Dhahabi in Lisan al-mizan
(1:13) have shown that this expression by Ibn Ma`in is the same as declaring
someone as thiqa or trustworthy: "Ibn Abi Khaythama said: I said to Ibn
Ma`in: You say: "There is no harm in so-and-so" and "so-and-so is weak
(da`if)?" He replied: "If I say of someone that there is no harm in him:
he is trustworthy (fa thiqatun), and if I say da`if: he is not trustworthy,
do not write his hadith."" Abu Ghudda in his commentary to Lucknawi's Raf`
(p. 222 n. 3) has indicated that the equivalency of saying "There is no
harm in him" with the grade of trustworthy (thiqa) is also the case for
other early authorities of the third century such as Ibn al-Madini, Imam
Ahmad, Duhaym, Abu Zur`a, Abu Hatim al-Razi, Ya`qub ibn Sufyan al-Fasawi,
and others. Note that like Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi`i is declared trustworthy
by the early authorities with the expression la ba'sa bihi in Dhahabi's
Tadhkirat
al-huffaz (1:362).]
Abu Wahb Muhammad ibn Muzahim said: I heard Ibn al-Mubarak say: "The
most knowledgeable of people in fiqh (afqah al-nas) is Abu Hanifa. I have
never seen anyone like him in fiqh." Ibn al-Mubarak also said: "If Allah
had not rescued me with Abu Hanifa and Sufyan [al-Thawri] I would have
been like the rest of the common people." [Dhahabi in Manaqib Abu Hanifa
(p. 30) relates it as: "I would have been an innovator."]
Ibn Abi Khaythama said from Sulayman ibn Abu Shaykh: "Abu Hanifa was
extremely scrupulous (wari`) and generous (sakhi)."
Ibn `Isa ibn al-Tabba` said: I heard Rawh ibn `Ubada say: "I was with
Ibn Jurayj in the year 150 when the news of Imam Abu Hanifa's (wisal)death
reached him. He winced and pain seized him; he said: "Verily, knowledge
has departed (ay `ilmun dhahab)." Ibn Jurayj died that same year."
Abu Nu`aym said: "Abu Hanifa dived for the meanings of matters so that
he reached the uttermost of them."
Ahmad ibn `Ali ibn Sa`id al-Qadi said: I heard Yahya ibn Ma`in say:
I heard Yahya ibn Sa`id al-Qattan [Ahmad ibn Hanbal's greatest shaykh]
say: "This is no lie on our part, by Allah! We have not heard better than
Abu Hanifa's opinion, and we have followed most of his sayings." [This
is also related by Dhahabi in Manaqib Abi Hanifa (p. 32).]
[About Yahya al-Qattan, Imam Nawawi relates on the authority of Ishaq
al-Shahidi:
I would see Yahya al-Qattan -- may Allah the Exalted have mercy on him
-- pray the midafternoon prayer, then sit with his back against the base
of the minaret of his mosque. Then `Ali ibn al-Madini, al-Shadhakuni, `Amr
ibn `Ali, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yahya ibn Ma`in, and others would stand before
him and ask him questions about hadith standing on their feet until it
was time for the sunset prayer. He would not say to a single one of them:
"Sit" nor would they sit, out of awe and reverence.
Related in Nawawi's al-Tarkhis fi al-ikram bi al-qiyam li dhawi al-fadl
wa al-maziyya min ahl al-islam `ala jihat al-birr wa al-tawqir wa al-ihtiram
la `ala jihat al-riya' wa al-i`zam (The Permissibility of Honoring,
By Standing Up, Those Who Possess Excellence and Distinction Among the
People of Islam: In the Spirit of Piousness, Reverence, and Respect, Not
in the Spirit of Display and Aggrandizement) ed. Kilani Muhammad Khalifa
(Beirut: Dar al-Basha'ir al-islamiyya, 1409/1988) p. 58.]
al-Rabi` and Harmala said: We heard al-Shafi`i say: "People are children
before Abu Hanifa in fiqh."
It is narrated on the authority of Abu Yusuf that he said: "As I was
walking with Abu Hanifa we heard a man saying to another: This is Abu Hanifa,
he does not sleep at night. Abu Hanifa said: He does not say something
about me which I do not actually do. He would -- after this -- spend the
greatest part of the night awake."
Isma`il ibn Hammad ibn Abi Hanifa said that his father (Hammad) said:
When my father died we asked al-Hasan ibn `Amara to undertake his ritual
washing. After he did he said: "May Allah have mercy on you and forgive
you (O Abu Hanifa)! You did not eat except at night for thirty years, and
your right side did not lay down at night for forty years. You have exhausted
whoever comes after you (who tries to catch up with you). You have outshone
all the readers of the Islamic sciences."
`Ali ibn Ma`bad said on the authority of `Ubayd Allah ibn `Amr al-Raqi:
Ibn Hubayra told Abu Hanifa to undertake the judgeship of Kufa and he refused,
so he had him lashed 110 times, but still he refused. When he saw this
he let him go.
Ibn Abi Dawud said on the authority of Nasr ibn `Ali: I heard Ibn Dawud
-- al-Khuraybi -- say: "Among the people concerning Abu Hanifa there are
plenty of enviers and ignorant ones."...
Ahmad ibn `Abda the Qadi of Ray said that his father said: We were with
ibn `A'isha when he mentioned a saying of Abu Hanifa then he said: "Verily,
if you had seen him you would have wanted him. Verily, his similitude and
yours is as in the saying:
Censure them little or much: I will never heed your blame. Try only
to fill, if you can, the space that they filled.
al-Saghani said on the authority of Ibn Ma`in: "I heard `Ubayd ibn Abi
Qurra say: I heard Yahya ibn al-Daris say: I saw Sufyan [al-Thawri] being
asked by a man: "What do you have against Abu Hanifa?" He said: "What is
wrong with Abu Hanifa? I heard him say: I take from Allah's Book and if
I don't find what I am looking for, I take from the Sunna of Allah's Messenger,
and if I don't find, then from any of the sayings that I like from the
Companions, nor do I prefer someone else's saying over theirs, until the
matter ends with Ibrahim (al-Nakh`i), al-Shu`bi, Ibn Sirin, and `Ata':
these are a folk who exerted their reasoning (ijtihad) and I exert mine
as they did theirs." [i.e. Sufyan criticized Abu Hanifa, a junior Tabi`i,
for placing his own opinion at the same level as that of the senior Tabi`in.]
...
[Mentions of Abu Hanifa's date of death and of the fact that Tirmidhi
and Nisa'i narrated hadith from him.] End of Ibn Hajar's words.
I. The "Salafi's" claim that the grading of Abu Hanifa as weak for
his poor memorization" was the position of ... Daaruqutnee (as-Sunan
p132)."
Answer: Daraqutni did declare Abu Hanifa weak in his Sunan (1:132),
without including him in his Kitab al-du`afa'. However, his opinion
of Abu Hanifa carries no weight since he is known to have fallen into extremism
in his opinion on Abu Hanifa, and because of this, this particular judgment
of his is rejected as required by the rules of narrator-criticism. The
hadith master al-Badr al-`Ayni, author of `Umdat al-qari, a massive
commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, said in his commentary of al-Marghinani
entitled al-Binaya sharh al-hidaya (1:709):
From where does he [Daraqutni] take the right to declare Abu
Hanifa weak when he himself deserves to be declared weak! For he has narrated
in his Musnad [i.e. his Sunan] narrations that are infirm, defective, denounced,
strange, and forged.
This is a serious charge made against Daraqutni as a narrator, and many
authorities have stated the same concerning him. Another hadith master,
al-Zayla`i, said in Nasb al-raya (1:356, 1:360): "al-Daraqutni's
Sunan
is the compendium of defective narrations and the wellspring of strange
narrations... It is filled with narrations that are weak, anomalous, defective,
and how many of them are not found in other books!" While Muhammad ibn
Ja`far al-Kattani said in al-Risala al-mustatrafa (p. 31): "Daraqutni
in his Sunan... has multiplied the narrations of reports that are weak
and denounced, and indeed forged."
Ibn `Abd al-Hadi al-Hanbali wrote a large volume still unpublished on
merits of Abu Hanifa entitled Tanwir al-sahifa bi manaqib al-imam Abi
Hanifa in which he said: "Among those who show fanaticism against Abu
Hanifa is al-Daraqutni." It is quoted in Ibn `Abidin's Hashiyat radd
al-muhtar (1:37). `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah in his commentary of Abu
al-Hasanat al-Lucknawi's al-Raf` wa al-ta`dil (p. 70 n.1) also said:
"al-Daraqutni's fanaticism against Abu Hanifa is well-known" and he gives
several sources listing the scholars who held the same opinion.
One of the reasons for Daraqutni's attitude is his extreme bias in favor
of the school of Imam Shafi`i. This is shown in Muhammad `Abd al-Rashid
al-Nu`mani's commentary on the book Dhabb dhubabat al-dirasat `an al-madhahib
al-arba`a al-mutanasibat (2:284-297) by the Indian scholar `Abd al-Latif
al-Sindi. al-Lucknawi also referred to this question in his book al-Ajwiba
al-fadila `ala li al-as'ila al-`ashra al-kamila (p. 78):
It is related that when Daraqutni went to Egypt some of its people asked
him to compile something on the pronounciation of the Basmala, whereupon
he compiled a volume. A Maliki came to him and summoned him to declare
on oath which were the sound narrations of this book. Daraqutni said: "Everything
that was narrated from the Prophet concerning the loud pronounciation of
the Basmala is unsound, and as for what is related from the Companions,
some of it is sound and some of it weak."
II. The "Salafi's" claim that the grading of Abu Hanifa as weak for
his poor memorization "was the position of... ibn Adee (al-Kaamil
2/403)."
Answer: Ibn `Adi shows enmity to Abu Hanifa as he reports nothing but
criticism, and he relies on weak or inauthentic reports from his [Ibn `Adis']
shaykh, some of them being the strangest ever related about Abu Hanifa
(Dar al-Fikr 1985 ed. 7:2472-2479). His narrations are all problematic
and none of them is reliable or sound. Imam Kawthari said in the introduction
to Nasb al-raya (p. 57) and in his Fiqh ahl al-`Iraq (p. 83): "Among the
defects of Ibn `Adi's Kamil is his relentless criticism of Abu Hanifa --
three hundred narrations! -- with reports that are all from the narration
of Abba' ibn Ja`far al-Najirami, one of Ibn `Adi's shaykhs, and the latter
tries to stick what al-Najirami has directly to Abu Hanifa, and this is
injustice and enmity, as is the rest of his criticism. The way to expose
such cases is through the chain of transmission."
The late Shaykh `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda, Kawthari's student, said
in his annotation of Lucknawi's Raf` wa al-takmil (p. 341) that Kawthari
examined Ibn `Adi's excesses against Abu Hanifa in three works of his:
Ta'nib
al-khatib `ala ma saqahu fi tarjimat abi hanifa min al-akadhib (p.
169), al-Imta` bi sirat al-imamayn al-Hasan ibn Ziyad wa sahibihi Muhammad
ibn Shuja` (p. 59, 66, 69), and the unpublished monograph Ibda'
wujuh al-ta`addi fi kamil ibn `Adi.
Following are some examples of the strangeness of Ibn `Adi's reports:
- Ibn `Adi relation of Sufyan al-Thawri's alleged statement that "he
[Abu Hanifa] is neither trustworthy nor trusted" (al-Kamil 7:2472).
However, it is established that Sufyan narrated hadith from Abu Hanifa,
and so he would be contradicting himself if he said that Abu Hanifa cannot
be trusted, since he himself trusted him! `Ali ibn al-Madini said: "From
Abu Hanifa narrated: al-Thawri, Ibn al-Mubarak, Hammad ibn Zayd, Hisham,
Waki`, `Abbad ibn al-`Awwam, and Ja`far ibn `Awn." Narrated by al-Haytami
in al-Khayrat al-hisan (p. 74) and al-Qurashi in al-Jawahir al-mudiyya
(1:29). Furthermore Sufyan praised Abu Hanifa in explicit terms when he
said: "We were with Abu Hanifa like small birds in front of the falcon,"
and when Abu Hanifa visited Sufyan after the death of the latter's brother
he stood up, went to greet him, embraced him, and bade him sit in his place,
saying to those who questioned this act: "This man holds a high rank in
knowledge, and if I did not stand up for his science I would stand up for
his age, and if not for his age then for his godwariness (wara`), and if
not for his godwariness then for his jurisprudence (jiqh)." Both reports
are narrated by Suyuti in Tabyid al-sahifa (p. 32) and al-Tahanawi
in his book Inja' al-watan (1:19-22).
Sufyan's supposed criticism is qualified by what Ibn `Adi himself narrates
further below in his section on Abu Hanifa, namely, the statement of `Abd
al-Samad ibn Hassan: "There was something between Sufyan al-Thawri and
Abu Hanifa, and Abu Hanifa was the one who restrained his own tongue more."
If there was any disagreement between Sufyan and Abu Hanifa, the nature
of their disagreement was not so fundamental as to impel Sufyan to hold
such an exaggerated view as that related by Ibn `Adi, but only pertained
to an issue of manners or competition. This can be gathered from Ibn Hajar's
relation in Tahdhib al-tahdhib (10:451) of Sufyan's disapproval
of Abu Hanifa's words about the senior Tabi`is: "These are a folk who exerted
their reasoning (ijtihad) and I exert mine as they did theirs," whereby
he placed himself, a junior Tabi`i, at the same level of ijtihad as the
senior Tabi`is such as al-Nakh`i, al-Shu`bi, Ibn Sirin, and `Ata'.
The competition between Sufyan and Abu Hanifa was fostered by Sufyan's
entourage, as shown by the wording of Ibn `Adi's reports in the following
cases:
÷ the dream of an unnamed man who saw the Prophet
telling him to take Sufyan's opinion rather than Abu Hanifa's (al-Kamil
7:2473). Furthermore, this report contains Ahmad ibn Hafs who is munkar
al-hadith -- a narrator whose narrations are rejected -- according to Ibn
al-Jawzi in al-Mawdu`at (2:168, 3:94; see also Tabsir al-mutanabbih
2:733, and al-Mushtabah p. 98, 359); it also contains an unnamed
narrator -- the man who had the dream -- and one whose reliability is not
known (majhul), Abu Ghadir al-Filastini.
÷ the contrived style of the narration of Sufyan
al-Thawri's story that "he [Abu Hanifa] is neither trustworthy nor trusted":
Mu'ammal said: I was with Sufyan al-Thawri in his room when a man came
and asked him about something and he answered him, then the man said: But
Abu Hanifa said such and such, whereupon Sufyan took his sandals and flung
them exclaiming: he is neither trustworthy nor trusted!! Furthermore, the
narrator of this report from Sufyan, Mu'ammal ibn Isma`il, was declared
by Ibn Hibban, al-Sajir, and Ibn Qani` as making mistakes in his narrations,
and al-Saji said: "He is not a liar but he makes many mistakes, and he
sometimes imagines things" (saduq kathir al-khata' wa lahu awham).
All the above evidence are some of the reasons why any criticism of Abu
Hanifa attributed to Sufyan al-Thawri is rejected out of hand and Ibn `Adi's
reliance on such criticism is not taken into account. al-Taj al-Subki said
in Qawa`id fi `ulum al-hadith (p. 195) as well as his Qa`ida fi al-jarh
wa al-ta`dil (p. 53-55): "No attention whatsoever is given to al-Thawri's
criticism of Abu Hanifa or that of other than al-Thawri against him." The
same statement is found in Haytami's al-Khayrat al-hisan (p. 74) and is
echoed by `Abd al-Hayy al-Lucknawi's warning in his al-Raf` wa al-takmil
(p. 425): "Beware, beware of paying any attention to what supposedly took
place (of enmity) between Abu Hanifa and Sufyan al-Thawri!"
- The story of Imam Malik's words related by Ibn `Adi (al-Kamil 7:2473):
"The consuming ailment is destruction in Religion, and Abu Hanifa is part
of the consuming ailment" and "Is Abu Hanifa in your country? Then one
ought not to live in your country." These are extreme statements attributed
to Imam Malik by those of his companions who were of the so-called Ahl
al-hadith, as for the fuqaha' among them they reported no such statements
from him. This is elaborated by the Maliki authority Ibn `Abd al-Barr in
his notice on Abu Hanifa in al-Intiqa' in which he invalidates the
evidence of Malikis against him.
It is remarkable that Ibn `Adi narrates the story of Malik's statement
"The consuming ailment" from Ibn Abi Dawud, while it is established that
Ibn Adi Dawud's own father, Abu Dawud, said: rahimallah malikan kana imaman.
rahimallah al-shafi`i kana imama. rahimallah aba hanifa kana imaman and
the last part means: "May Allah have mercy on Abu Hanifa, he was an Imam."
It is narrated by Dhahabi in his Tarikh al-Islam (6:136) and, as
noted by Muhammad Qasim `Abduh al-Harithi in his book Makanat al-Imam
Abi Hanifa bayn al-muhaddithin (p. 201), the strength of Abu Dawud's
remark resides in the nature of his own specialty which is hadith, in function
of which he recognized Abu Hanifa's leadership among Muslims.
Ironically, Ibn Abi Dawud himself said on the authority of Nasr ibn
`Ali: I heard Ibn Dawud -- al-Khuraybi -- say: "Among the people concerning
Abu Hanifa there are plenty of enviers and ignorant ones." Ibn Hajar relates
it in his Tahdhib as we mentioned above, while Dhahabi relates it through
Bishr al-Hafi in Tarikh al-Islam (6:142) and Manaqib Abi Hanifa
(p. 32) with the wording: ma yaqa`u fi abi hanifa illa hasid aw jahil "None
whatsoever inveighs against Abu Hanifa except an envier or an ignoramus."
- Ibn `Adi alleged report of Yahyan ibn Ma`in's weakening of Abu Hanifa
from Ibn Abi Maryam's saying: I asked Yahya ibn Ma`in about Abu Hanifa
and he said: "One must not write his narrations." (2473) This is assuredly
a false ascription to Ibn Ma`in since it is firmly established that Ibn
Ma`in considered Abu Hanifa as of reliable and trustworthy narrations:
a) Ibn Hajar in Tahdhib al-tahdhib (10:450) relates from both
Muhammad ibn Sa`d al-`Awfi and Salih ibn Muhammad al-Asadi that Ibn Ma`in
said: "Abu Hanifa is trustworthy (thiqa) in hadith"; and he relates from
Ibn Ma`in's own shaykh, Ibn al-Qattan, that he relied greatly on Abu Hanifa:
Ahmad ibn `Ali ibn Sa`id al-Qadi said: I heard Yahya ibn Ma`in say: I heard
Yahya ibn Sa`id al-Qattan say: "This is no lie on our part, by Allah! We
have not heard better than Abu Hanifa's opinion, and we have followed most
of his sayings." This is also related by Dhahabi in Manaqib Abi Hanifa
(p. 32).
b) Dhahabi relates in his Tadhkirat al-huffaz (1:306) in the
biography of Waki` that Yahya ibn Ma`in said: "I have not seen better than
Waki`, he spends the night praying, fasts without interruption, and gives
fatwa according to what Abu Hanifa said, and Yahya al-Qattan also used
to give fatwa according to what Abu Hanifa said."
c) Ibn `Abd al-Barr relates in al-Intiqa' (p. 127): `Abd Allah
ibn Ahmad al-Dawraqi said: Ibn Ma`in was asked about Abu Hanifa as I was
listening, so he said: "He is trustworthy (thiqatun), I never heard that
anyone had weakened him, and Shu`ba ibn al-Hajjaj wrote to him and told
him to narrate hadith. He ordered him to do so, and Shu`ba is Shu`ba!"
- Ibn `Adi groundless conclusion: "Most of what he [Abu Hanifa] narrates
is wrong." (7:2479) This is applicable to Ibn `Adi himself. As for Abu
Hanifa it is just as Shu`ba and Ibn Ma`in said, respectively: "He was,
by Allah! good in his memorization" (Ibn `Abd al-Barr, al-Intiqa'
p. 127), and "Indeed he was more than trustworthy (na`am thiqa thiqa)"
(al-Khatib, Tarikh Baghdad 13:449).
III. The "Salafi's" claim that the grading of Abu Hanifa as weak
for his poor memorization "was the position of Muslim (al-Kunaa wal
Asmaa) [and] Nasaa'ee (ad-Du'afaa)."
Answer: It is correct that Nasa'i included Abu Hanifa in his book al-Du`afa'
wa al-matrukin (p. 233 #614) where he said: Nu`man ibn Thabit Abu Hanifa,
laysa bi al-qawi fi al-hadith, kufi "He is not strong in hadith." Apart
from Nasa'i's passing bounds in including such as Abu Hanifa in his book,
and apart from the truth or merit of the remark "he is not strong," nevertheless
such a remark does not constitute tad`if as if he had said: "He is weak."
It only means that Nasa'i found something objectionable in him to deny
him the rank of strength, not that he considered him weak as a narrator
since one does not have to be strong in hadith in order to be a reliable
narrator. Therefore it cannot be claimed that "the grading of Abu Hanifa
as weak was the position of Nasa'i in his Sunan" for such was not
his position. If one insists that it was, then Nasa'i would be contradicting
it himself since in his Sunan he did narrate hadith from Abu Hanifa, as
stated in the latter's entries in al-Mizzi' Tahdhib (10:449), Dhahabi's
Tadhkirat
al-huffaz and his al-Kashshasf fi ma`rifati man lahu riwayatun fi
al-kutub al-sitta (p. 322 #5845), Ibn Hajar's Taqrib (2:248 #7179),
and al-Khazraji's Khulasat tadhhib tahdhib al-kamal (3:95 #7526)!
Equally false is the claim that Imam Muslim declared Abu Hanifa weak
since all he said in his book al-Kuna wa al-asma' (1:276 #963) is:
sahib al-ra'y mudtarib al-hadith laysa lahu kabir hadith sahih. "The scholar
of the "school of opinion," his narrations are not firm in their wording
and he has not many sound ones." He did not say that he was weak.
Furthermore, generally spealing Muslim's judgment is tainted by the
difference in methodology between him and Abu Hanifa. This is evident in
the tone he uses since he calls Abu Hanifa sahib al-ra'i, a loaded term
of criticism by which the Hanafis are labeled by those who disagree with
them. For this reason, neither Nasa'i's inclusion of Abu Hanifa in his
book of weak narrators nor his and Muslim's remarks about Abu Hanifa are
acceptable as a legitimate jarh or criticism of the Imam. The reason is
that one of the fundamental rules of narrator-criticism is that if the
critic is kown to differ with the narrator in matters of doctrine and methodology
-- and it is widely known that the so-called "school of hadith" differed
with the so-called "school of opinion" (ra'y) -- then the critic must state
the reason for his jarh, and both Nasa'i and Muslim omitted to state any
reason for theirs. Therefore their jarh is not retained until it is explained
and can thus meet the criteria of the discipline.
Finally, it is a rule of jarh wa al-ta`dil that if the unexplained jarh
(narrator-criticism) contradicts the explained ta`dil (narrator-authentication)
by an authority of authentication who is fully aware of the jarh, then
the explained ta`dil takes precedence over it without hesitation, as is
the case with Nasa'i's and Muslim's jarh of Abu Hanifa not being retained
after them by Abu Dawud and others, nor by later authorities such as al-Mizzi,
Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar, al-Khazraji, al-Suyuti, and others.
IV. The "Salafi's" claim that the grading of Abu Hanifa as weak for
his poor memorization "was the position of... Bukharee (at-Taareekh
al-Kabeer)."
Answer: Bukhari's negative opinion of Abu Hanifa in his Sahih and his
Tarikh is a rejected type of jarh and considered unreliable, since it is
known that he had fundamental differences with Abu Hanifa on questions
of principles, fiqh, and methodology, and his entire Sahih is in many parts
an unspoken attempt to refute Abu Hanifa and his school. The Indian scholar
Zafar al-Tahanawi showed Bukhari's fanaticism against Abu Hanifa in the
book edited by his student `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda under the title Qawa`id
fi `ulum al-hadith (p. 380-384), and other scholars have highlighted
this aspect of disagreement between them. Among them is the Hanafi faqih
and hadith master al-Zayla`i, who said in Nasb al-raya (1:355-356):
No student of the Science adorned himself with a better garment
than fairness and the relinquishment of fanaticism.... Bukhari is very
much pursuing an agenda in what he cites from the Sunna against Abu Hanifa,
for he will mention a hadith and then insinuate something about him, as
follows: "Allah's Messenger said: such and such, and some people said:
such and such." By "some people" he means Abu Hanifa, so he casts him in
the ugliest light possible, as someone who dissents from the hadith of
the Prophet!
Bukhari also says in the beginning of his book (Sahih): "Chapter
whereby Salat is part of Belief," then he proceeds with the narrations
of that chapter, and his purpose in that is to refute Abu Hanifa's saying:
"Deeds are not part of Belief" although many fuqaha' do not realize this.
And I swear by Allah, and again -- by Allah! -- that if Bukhari had found
one hadith [to the effect that Salat is part of Belief] which met his criterion
or came close to it, then his book would certainly not have been devoid
of it, nor that of Muslim.
As we just said regarding Nasa'i and Muslim, among the kinds of rejected
jarh are those based on differences of school, or `aqida, or methodology.
For example, the mere fact that a narrator is Shi`a in `aqida and showing
excessive love for `Ali, or if he is Nasibi in `aqida and showing hatred
of `Ali, does not automatically mean that he is majruh [defective]. An
example of a Shi`i narrator retained by Bukhari is the great muhaddith
`Abd al-Razzaq al-San`ani (d. 211), the author of the Musannaf,
from whom Bukhari took a quantity of hadiths. Two examples of narrators
retained by Bukhari and Muslim although they were accused of being Nasibi
are Huswayn ibn Numayr from whom Bukhari narrates the hadiths: "The Communities
were shown to me and I saw a great dark mass" and "The Communities were
shown to me and there was a Prophet with only one follower, and a Prophet
with only two followers"; and Ahmad ibn `Abdah al-Dabbi, from whom Muslim
takes one of three chains of the hadith: "I have been ordered to fight
people until they say la ilaha ilallah and believe in me."
Another example is the undue weakening of a scholar of the so-called
"school of ra'y" [opinion] at the hands of a scholar of the so-called "school
of hadith," in this case the weakening of a Hanafi by a Hanbali: thus Ahmad's
weakening of Mu`alla ibn Mansur al-Razi (d. 211) is rejected, as shown
by Dhahabi in al-Mughni (2:270) and by Abu Dawud before him, who
said in his Sunan (book of Tahara): "Yahya ibn Ma`in said that Mu`alla
is trustworthy while Ahmad ibn Hanbal would not narrate from him because
he followed the methodology of ra'y"; thus Abu Dawud rejects Ahmad's verdict
and narrates from Mu`alla, as did Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, and others.
Bukhari's narrations, in his Tarikh al-saghir, of reports ostensibly
detrimental to Abu Hanifa, just as his narration of Yazid ibn Harun's outlandish
labeling of Abu Hanifa's student, Muhammad al-Shaybani, as a Jahmi in his
Khalq af`al al-`ibad (1990 ed. p. 15), belong to this category of rejected
jarh. Such reports are simply dismissed as mistakes for which Bukhari must
be forgiven, as he is not ma`sum.
The same is said about Ibn Hibban's outlandish declaration in his Kitab
al-majruhin (3:63-64) that Abu Hanifa is not to be relied upon because
"he was a Murji' and an innovator." Such a judgment is discarded, as stated
by al-Lucknawi in al-Raf` wa al-takmil: "Criticism of Abu Hanifa as a narrator
on the claim of his irja' is not accepted." The reason is that the so-called
Murji'a among the Hanafi Imams all belong to Ahl al-Sunna and are in no
wise to be called innovators, such as Abu Hanifa, his shaykh Hammad ibn
Abi Sulayman, and his two students Muhammad and Abu Yusuf. al-Dhahabi said
in his Tarikh al-Islam (3:358f.): "The disapproved Murji'a are those who
accepted Abu Bakr and `Umar but withheld taking a position concerning `Uthman
and `Ali." It is obvious that the Hanafi Imams do not enter into such a
definition. Imam Abu Hanifa said in his Fiqh al-akbar (as narrated
by `Ali al-Qari in his Sharh, 1984 ed. p. 96-101):
The best of mankind after the Prophets, peace be upon them
all, are Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, then `Umar ibn al-Khattab, then `Uthman ibn
`Affan dhu al-Nurayn, then `Ali ibn Abi Talib al-Murtada, may Allah be
well pleased with all of them: men worshipping their Lord, steadfast upon
truth and on the side of truth. We follow all of them (natawallahum jami`an).
Nor do we mention any of the Prophet's Companions except in good terms.
A longer definition of the "Murji'a" is given by Ibn Hajar in Hadi al-Sari
(2:179)
where he says:
Irja' has the sense of "delaying" and carries two meanings
among the scholars: some mean by it the delaying in declaring one's position
in the case of the two warring factions after `Uthman's time [i.e. neither
following nor rejecting either one]; and some mean by it the delaying in
declaring that whoever commits grave sins and abandons obligations enters
the Fire, on the basis that in their view belief consists in assertion
and conviction and that quitting deeds [i.e. ceasing from obeying commands
and prohibitions] does not harm it."
The Sunni so-called "Murji'a" belong to the latter category but with one
important provision: they do not hold that quitting deeds does not harm
belief in the sense of threatening to destroy it: on the contrary, they
hold that quitting deeds does harm the quitter. As `Ali al-Qari said in
the title of one of his chapters in Sharh al-fiqh al-akbar (p. 67,
103), "Acts of disobedience harm their author, contrary to the belief of
certain factions." al-Mizzi relates in his Tahdhib al-kamal from
Abu al-Salt al-Harawi this clarification overlooked by Ibn Hajar, whereby
the Sunni "Murji'a" is thus called not because he considers that "quitting
deeds does not harm belief" but only because he professes hope (yarju)
of salvation for great sinners, as opposed to the Khawarij who declare
sinners disbelievers, and the Mu`tazila who disbelieve in the Prophet's
intercession for great sinners. In this sense Abu Hanifa and the Maturidi
school of doctrine hold what all other schools of Ahl al-Sunna hold. As
for the Murji'a who rely on faith alone exclusively of deeds, they belong
to the heretical sects, and the attribution of Abu Hanifa to such a belief
is iftira' and fabrication.
The difference with the Imam which Bukhari and Ibn Hibban were picking
upon resides in among others in Abu Hanifa's view that iman -- belief --
stands for one's Islam and vice-versa and therefore neither increases or
decreases once acquired. It is a fundamental tenet of the Maturidi school
with which Bukhari differed and which is illustrated by the latter's chapter-titles
like "Salat is part of belief," "Belief increases and decreases" etc. in
his Sahih as al-Zayla`i pointed out in the excerpt we already quoted from
him. The vast majority of Hanafis and the entire Maturidi school of doctrine
hold the opposite view, as illustrated by `Ali al-Qari's naming two chapter-titles
of his Sharh al-fiqh al-akbar: "Belief neither increases nor decreases"
(p. 126, 202), and another chapter is entitled: "The believers are equal
in belief but differ in deeds" (p. 128) and another: "The grave sin [such
as not performing salat] does not expel one from belief" (p. 102). All
the above is also the sound doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna, as opposed to some
present-day extremists who declare anyone who commits a major sin to be
a disbeliever in need of repeating his shahada or be killed -- and the
latter contradicts the view of Imam Ahmad, who insisted that no Muslim
should be called a disbeliever for any sin, as shown by Ibn Abi Ya`la in
Tabaqat
al-hanabila (1:329).
After these preliminaries we may now turn to show why Bukhari's aspersions
on Abu Hanifa in his Tarikh al-saghir are not retained by the scholars,
even if today's "Salafis" attempt to rely on them to justify Albani's position
against the Imam!
1st relation Bukhari said in his Tarikh al-saghir (p. 158): I
heard al-Humaydi say: Abu Hanifa said: "I came to Mecca and took from the
cupper three Sunan when I sat in front of him: He said to me to face the
Ka`ba, he began with the right side of my head [shaving], and he reached
the two bones." al-Humaydi said: "A man who does not have Sunan from the
Prophet nor from his Companions concerning the rituals of Pilgrimage or
other things, how can he be imitated in questions of inheritance, obligations,
charity, prayer, and the questions of Islam?!"
This relation is defective from several perspectives:
÷ `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda said in his annotations to
al-Lucknawi's
Raf` wa al-takmil (p. 395-397) that his shaykh al-Tahanawi said in
his book Inja' al-watan (1:23): "al-Humaydi wished to demean Abu
Hanifa with his comments, but in fact he praised him without realizing.
For Abu Hanifa was gracious and generous, and he would show gratefulness
to whomever showed him kindness or taught him something, even a single
letter. He was not one who kept hidden other people's goodness towards
him, or their favors. When he obtained something related to matters of
religion from a simple cupper, he told of the cupper's kindness and he
showed him up as his teacher, fulfilling the right he held over him. And
what a strange thing indeed to hear from al-Humaydi, when his own shaykh,
al-Shafi`i, said: I carried from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani knowledge
equivalent to a full camel-load, and he would say: Allah has helped me
with hadith through Ibn `Uyayna, and He helped me with fiqh through Muhammad
ibn al-Hasan. And it is well-known that the well-spring of Muhammad ibn
al-Hasan's sciences are Abu Hanifa. Imam Shafi`i also said: Whoever seeks
fiqh, let him frequent Abu Hanifa and his two companions; and he also said:
Anyone that seeks fiqh is a dependent of Abu Hanifa. And yet, with all
this, al-Humaydi does not show gratefulness for the Imam who is his Shaykh's
Shaykh, nor for the favor he represents for him."
÷ al-Tahanawi also mentioned that Abu Hanifa went to pilgrimage
with his father as a young man, and that the incident may well have taken
place at that time, since what is learnt in a young age is hardly ever
forgotten.
÷ al-Tahanawi also pointed out that in the time of Abu
Hanifa in Mecca knowledge was distributed everywhere among the people,
and it is not a far-fetched possibility that the humble cupper was one
of the Tabi`in who had heard or seen what he knew from the Companions themselves.
He asks: "From where does Humaydi know that that cupper was not one of
the knowledgeable Tabi`is, and that he either narrated these three Sunan
with their chain back to the Prophet, or suspended back to one of the great
Companions?!"
÷ al-Tahanawi concluded: "As for Humaydi's saying: how
can Abu Hanifa be imitated, then we know that a greater one than Humaydi
did imitate him, such as Imam al-Shafi`i -- whom al-Humaydi imitated, --
Yahya ibn Sa`id al-Qattan, Malik ibn Anas, Sufyan al-Thawri, Ahmad ibn
Hanbal (through Abu Hanifa's students the Qadi Abu Yusuf and Muhammad al-Shaybani),
Waki` ibn al-Jarrah, `Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak, Yahya ibn Ma`in, and their
likes. Then the kings, the sultans, the khulafa', the viziers imitated
him, and the scholars of knowledge, the scholars of hadith, the saints,
the jurists, and the commonality imitated him, until Allah was worshipped
through the school of Abu hanifa all over the world, and that was because
of the good manners upon which Abu Hanifa was grounded, because he did
not look down upon taking the highest knowledge from a cupper, and so Allah
made him the Imam of the Umma, the greatest of the Imams, and the guide
of humanity."
[Another illustration of Imam Abu Hanifa's great humility is the narration
of Ishaq ibn al-Hasan al-Kufi related by Dhahabi in Manaqib Abi Hanifa
(p. 38): A man came to the market and asked for the shop of Abu Hanifa,
the Faqih. Abu Hanifa said to him: "He is not a Faqih. He is one who gives
legal opinions according to his obligation."]
÷ Shaykh Abu Ghudda added (al-Raf` p. 397-398):
"In addition to the above it is noted that al-Humaydi said: Abu Hanifa
said without mentioning from whom he had heard it, and I have not found
any proof that al-Humaydi (d. 219) ever met Abu Hanifa at all.... It is
clear to us that he was not born when Abu Hanifa died (d. 150)... The report
is therefore weak due to the interruption in its chain of transmission,
and that is enough."
÷ Shaykh Abu Ghudda concluded with what we mentioned before,
in the section on Ibn `Adi, namely that any criticism of Abu Hanifa attributed
to Sufyan al-Thawri is rejected out of hand and there can be no reliance
on such criticism to establish narrator-criticism. This particular rule
was enunciated by al-Taj al-Subki in Qawa`id fi `ulum al-hadith
(p. 195) as well as his Qa`ida fi al-jarh wa al-ta`dil (p. 53-55),
also Haytami's al-Khayrat al-hisan (p. 74), al-Lucknawi's al-Raf`
wa al-takmil (p. 425), and Abu Ghudda's marginalia on Subki's and al-Lucknawi's
works.
2nd relation Bukhari also said in his Tarikh al-saghir (p. 174):
Nu`aym ibn Hammad narrated to us and said: al-Fazari narrated to us and
said: I was visiting with Sufyan al-Thawri and we received news of Abu
Hanifa's death, so Sufyan said: "al-Hamdu lillah! he was taking apart Islam
branch by branch. No greater misfortune than him was ever born into Islam
(ma wulida fi al-islami ash'amu minhu)."
This relation is even more defective than the first -- may Allah have
mercy both on Abu Hanifa and his detractors -- for the following reasons:
÷ Shaykh `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda said in his marginal
notes to al-Lucknawi's al-Raf` wa al-takmil (p. 393): "Our shaykh,
the verifying scholar al-Kawthari, said in his book Fiqh ahl al-`Iraq
wa hadithuhum (p. 87), and in the introduction of hafiz al-Zayla`i's
book Nasb al-raya (p.58-59):
There is a kind of criticism by which the critic destroys his credibility
from the start through the fact that his words bear all the traits of rashness.
If you see him saying, for example: "No greater misfortune than him was
ever born into Islam," you will notice that there is no misfortune (shu'm)
in Islam; even if we should admit that there is -- in the centuries other
than the three mentioned in the hadith -- still, without doubt, the gradations
of misfortune vary: and to declare a certain person to be the worst of
the worst without a statement to that effect from the Prophet is to claim
to know the unseen from which the people of Religion are clear. Such a
statement, therefore, destroys the credibility of its speaker, if it is
firmly established to come from him, before the credibility of the subject
of the statement. In a very precarious position indeed is the one who records
such an absurdity to the detriment of the leading Imams."
÷ "And in his book Ta'nib al-Khatib (p. 48, 72,
111) Kawthari also said:
If such a saying were ascertained from Sufyan al-Thawri, he would have
fallen from credibility due to this word alone for its passionate tone
and rashness. Suffice it to say in refutation of that narration that Nu`aym
ibn Hammad is in its chain of transmission, and the least that was said
about him is that he conveyed rejected narrations and he has been accused
of forging disgraceful stories against Abu Hanifa.
÷ "And our shaykh, the verifying savant and hadith scholar
Zafar Ahmad al-Tahanawi said in his book Inja' al-watan min al-izdira'
bi imam al-zaman (Saving the Nation from the scorn displayed against the
Imam of the Time) 1:22:
"It is a grievous thing that issues from their mouth as a saying. What
they say is nothing but falsehood!" (18:5). By Allah, there was not born
into Islam, after the Prophet, greater fortune and assistance than al-Nu`man
Abu Hanifa. The proof of this can be witnessed in the extinction of the
schools of his attackers, while his increases in fame day and night. I
do not blame al-Bukhari for it, since he only related what he heard. However,
I blame for it his shaykh Nu`aym ibn Hammad, even if the latter is a hadith
master whom some have declared trustworthy [e.g. Ahmad, Ibn Ma`in, and
al-`Ujli], nevertheless the hadith master Abu Bishr al-Dulabi said: "Nu`aym
narrates from Ibn al-Mubarak; al-Nasa'i said: he is weak (da`if), and others
said: he used to forge narrations in defence of the Sunna, and disgraceful
stories against Abu Hanifa, all of them lies." Similarly Abu al-Fath al-Azdi
said: "They said he used to forge hadiths in defence of the Sunna, and
fabricate disgraceful stories against Abu Hanifa, all of them lies." Similarly
in Tahdhib al-tahdhib (10:462-463) and Mizan al-i`tidal (3:238,
4:268) [and also Tahdhib al-tahdhib (10:460)]: "al-`Abbas ibn Mus`ab said
in his Tarikh: "Nu`aym ibn Hammad composed books to refute the Hanafis"...
[and in Hadi al-Sari (2:168): "Nu`aym ibn Hammad was violently against
the People of ra'y"] therefore neither his word nor his narration to the
detriment Abu Hanifa and Hanafis can ever be accepted....
It is, furthermore, established that Sufyan al-Thawri praised Abu Hanifa
when he said: "We were in front of Abu Hanifa like small birds in front
of the falcon," and Sufyan stood up for him when Abu Hanifa visited him
after his brother's death, and he said: "This man holds a high rank in
knowledge, and if I did not stand up for his science I would stand up for
his age, and if not for his age then for his godwariness (wara`), and if
not for his godwariness then for his jurisprudence (jiqh)."
Finally, we repeat Ibn al-Subki's instruction to hadith scholars already
quoted in the discussion of Ibn `Adi: "Pay no attention to al-Thawri's
criticism of Abu Hanifa" and `Abd al-Hayy al-Lucknawi's warning: "Beware
of paying any attention to what took place between Abu Hanifa and Sufyan
al-Thawri...." And Allah knows best.
V. The "Salafi's" claim that the grading of Abu Hanifa as weak for
his poor memorization "was the position of... al-Uqailee (ad-Du'afaa
p.432) [and] ibn Hibbaan (al-Majrooheen)."
Answer: We already mentioned that jarh -- narrator-criticism -- is rejected
if it is based on differences in methodology and school. Another category
of jarh that is not taken into account by the scholars is that declared
by a scholar who is known for his fanatic or blind condemnation of others.
Examples of this category of jarh are the fanaticism (ta`annut) against
Hanafis and Abu Hanifa of the following: Daraqutni and Ibn `Adi as already
shown, Ibn Hibban and al-`Uqayli as we will show presently.
Of Ibn Hibban's general method in narrator-criticism Dhahabi said in
Mizan
al-i`tidal (2:185, 3:121): "He vociferates, as is his habit" and he
calls him "Ibn Hibban the Shredder, the most reckless of the ill-natured
ones" (Ibn Hibban al-khassaf al-mutahawwir fi `arimin); while Ibn Hajar
said in al-Qawl al-musaddad fi al-dhabb `an musnad Ahmad (p. 33):
"Ibn Hibban all-too-readily declares the trustworthy to be weak, and acts
as if he does not know what he is saying." The editor of Ibn Hibban's book
al-Majruhin
min al-muhaddithin wa al-du`afa' wa al-matrukin, Mahmud Ibrahim Zayid,
says the following in the margin of his notice on Abu Hanifa (3:61):
[Ibn Hibban] did not leave a single device of the devices of
narrator-criticism except he used it [against Abu Hanifa], and in so doing
he accepted the reports of narrators whom he himself does not trust for
narration according to his own methodology. He discarded the reports of
those who are considered trustworthy among the Imams of the Umma and he
accepted the reports of the most extreme of those who have been criticized
for weakness.
Nor did he content himself with what he cited in the contents of his books
in such attacks against the Imam, but he also composed two of his largest
books exclusively as an attack against Abu Hanifa, and these books are:
Kitab
`ilal manaqib Abi Hanifa (Book of the defects in Abu Hanifa's qualities),
in ten parts, and Kitab `ilal ma istanada ilayhi Abu Hanifa (Book
of the defects of what Abu Hanifa relied upon), in ten parts!
As for the Hanbali scholar al-`Uqayli: he is possibly the most fanatic
and least reliable of narrator-criticism authorities. His notice on Abu
Hanifa in his book entitled Kitab al-du`afa' al-kabir (4:268-285
#1876) is, like that of Ibn Hibban on the Imam, a biased selection of weak,
very weak, and fabricated reports. As a result of this and other similar
displays he does not carry any weight with the hadith masters. To quote
his opinion as evidence for the weakening of Abu Hanifa is only a proof
of ignorance on the part of "Salafis."
`Uqayli attacked in his book narrator after narrator of the authorities
relied upon by Bukhari and Muslim, in addition to the Imams of fiqh and
hadith, hacking down, in the process, the names of `Ali ibn al-Madini,
Bukhari, `Abd al-Razzaq, Ibn Abi Shayba, Ubrahim ibn Sa`d, `Affan, Aban
al-`Attar, Isra'il ibn Yunus, Azhar al-Saman, Bahz ibn Asad, Thabit al-Bunani,
and Jarir ibn `Abd al-Hamid. Dhahabi throws the book at him in Mizan
al-i`tidal (2:230, 3:140):
Have you no mind, O `Uqayli?! (afama laka `aqlun ya `uqayli)
Do you know who you are talking about?! The only reason we mention what
you say about them is in order to repel from them the statements made about
them -- as if you did not know that each one of those you target is several
times more trustworthy than you?! Nay, more trustworthy than many trustworthy
narrators whom you did not even cite once in your book... If the hadith
of these narrators were to be abandoned, then shut the gates, cease all
speech, let hadith transmission die, put the free-thinkers in office, and
let the antichrists come out!
One of `Uqayli's worse traits in his Kitab al-du`afa' is his putting
derogatory reports in the mouth of great Imams, such as the story whereby
Imam Ahmad reportedly states that Abu Hanifa lies (4:284)! If this were
true, then how could Imam Ahmad allow himself to narrate hadith from Abu
Hanifa in his Musnad, as he did with the narration al-dallu `ala al-khayri
ka fa`ilihi which he took from the Imam with a sound chain to the Prophet
from Burayda? And the reason why Ahmad included it in the Musnad is that
no one other than Abu Hanifa narrated this hadith from Burayda. This is
a proof against `Uqayli's above relation from Ahmad since the latter would
not have related this hadith if he considered that Abu Hanifa lied.
A more explicit proof against this spurious attribution to Imam Ahmad
is his words as related by his close student, Abu Bakr al-Marrudhi al-Khallal:
I said to him [Ahmad ibn Hanbal]: "al-Hamdu lillah! He [Abu Hanifa] has
a high rank in knowledge." He replied: "Subhan Allah! He occupies a station
in knowledge, extreme fear of Allah, asceticism, and the quest for the
Abode of the hereafter, where none whatsoever reaches him." Dhahabi narrated
it in Manaqib Abi Hanifa (p. 43).
Another proof against `Uqayli's spurious attribution to Imam Ahmad is
given by Ibn Ma`in when he was asked: Does Abu Hanifa lie? and he replied:
Woe to you! He is nobler than that. We mentioned this report above, in
the first part of Ibn Hajar's notice from Tahdhib al-tahdhib.
Finally, it is established by Ibn `Imad in his Shadharat al-dhahab
(1:228), al-Dhahabi in Tarikh al-islam (6:141), and al-Khatib in
Tarikh
Baghdad (13:360) that whenever Abu Hanifa was mentioned to Imam Ahmad
he would speak kindly of him, and that when Ahmad under the whip was reminded
that Abu Hanifa had suffered the same treatment for refusing a judgeship,
he wept and said: Rahimahullah. [See above, Ibn Hajar's notice on Abu Hanifa
in Tahdhib al-tahdhib.] May Allah have mercy on both of them. We
also refer the reader to Ibn `Abd al-Barr's relevant section in his book
al-Intiqa', where he systematically refutes al-`Uqayli's narrations
against Abu Hanifa.
VI. The "Salafi's" claim that the grading of Abu Hanifa as weak for
his poor memorization "was the position of... ibn Abee Haatim (al-Jarh
wat Tadil)."
Answer: Ibn Abi Hatim's notice on Abu Hanifa in his book al-Jarh
wa al-ta`dil is plagued with grave weaknesses from the viewpoint of
reliability. The reason is not that Ibn Abi Hatim is unreliable as an authenticator
of narrations, but rather that he is intent on reporting what is damaging
to Abu Hanifa at all cost, even if he must turn a blind eye to the inauthenticity
of such reports. A flagrant sign of his bias is that he reports only a
few derogatory stories, but no positive report about Abu Hanifa, contrary
to the rule of fairness imposed on all scholars of narrator-criticism and
narrator-authentication. Some examples of those stories:
÷ Ibn Abi Hatim claims in al-Jarh wa al-ta`dil (8:449):
"Ibn al-Mubarak [d. 181], in his later period, quit narrating from Abu
Hanifa. I heard my father [b. 195!] say that."
The fact is that if Ibn Abi Hatim were to see such a report as this,
he would reject it out of hand and never adduce it as evidence for anything.
The reason is that when Ibn al-Mubarak died, Ibn Abi Hatim's father was
not even born. How then could a report from the latter constitute reliable
evidence about the former, when the chain of transmission of such a report
is cut off and misses one, two, or more narrators?
What puts a final seal on its inadmissibility is that it contradicts
the established position of the verifying scholars on Ibn al-Mubarak's
transmission from Abu Hanifa, which is that he never stopped taking hadith
from him whether in his early or his later period. This is stated by al-Mizzi
in his notice on Abu Hanifa in Tahdhib al-kamal and al-Dhahabi in Manaqib
Abi Hanifa (p. 20) and is confirmed by the following reports:
- Ibn al-Mubarak praised Abu Hanifa and called him a sign of Allah.
al-Khatib reports it in Tarikh Baghdad (13:337) and al-Dhahabi
in Siyar a`lam al-nubala' (6:398).
- `Ali ibn al-Madini said: "From Abu Hanifa narrated: al-Thawri, Ibn
al-Mubarak, Hammad ibn Zayd, Hisham, Waki`, `Abbad ibn al-`Awwam, and Ja`far
ibn `Awn." al-Haytami related it in al-Khayrat al-hisan (p. 74)
and al-Qurashi in al-Jawahir al-mudiyya (1:29).
- Both Ibn al-Mubarak and Sufyan al-Thawri said: "Abu Hanifa was the
most knowledgeable of all people on earth." Ibn Hajar related it in his
notice on Abu Hanifa in Tahdhib al-tahdhib and also Ibn Kathir in
al-Bidaya
wa al-nihaya (10:107).
- Ibn Hajar also related that Ibn al-Mubarak said: "If Allah had not
rescued me with Abu Hanifa and Sufyan [al-Thawri] I would have been like
the rest of the common people." [Dhahabi in Manaqib Abu Hanifa (p.
30) relates it as: "I would have been an innovator."]
- `Abdan said that he heard Ibn al-Mubarak say: "If you hear them mention
Abu Hanifa derogatively then they are mentioning me derogatively. In truth
I fear for them Allah's displeasure." Dhahabi related it in Manaqib
Abi Hanifa (p. 36).
- Hibban ibn Musa said: Ibn al-Mubarak was asked: "Who is more knowledgeable
in fiqh, Malik or Abu Hanifa?" He replied: "Abu Hanifa." Dhahabi relates
it in Tarikh al-islam (6:142) and Manaqib Abi Hanifa (p.
32).
The latter report echoes the statement of Imam Ahmad related by Dhahabi
in Manaqib Abi Hanifa (p. 41) whereby Nusayr ibn Yahya al-Balkhi
said: I said to Ahmad ibn Hanbal: "Why do you reproach to this man [Abu
Hanifa]?" He replied: al-ra'y = "[Reliance on] opinion." I said: "Consider
Malik, did he not speak on the basis of opinion?" He said: "Yes, but Abu
Hanifa's opinion was immortalized in books." I said: "Malik's opinion was
also immortalized in books." He said: "Abu Hanifa opinioned more than him."
I said: "Why then will you not give this one his due and that one his due?!"
He remained silent.
÷ Ibn Abi Hatim also claims in al-Jarh wa al-ta`dil
(8:450): Ibrahim ibn Ya`qub al-Jawzajani [d. 259] told me in writing, on
the authority of `Abd al-Rahman al-Muqri' [d. 185] that the latter said:
Abu Hanifa would talk to us, after which he would say: "All that you have
heard is wind and null and void" (hadha al-ladhi sami`tum kulluhu rih wa
batil).
This is another one of those reports which are against rather than for
Ibn Abi Hatim's credit to cite, due to uncertainty in the link or links
that may be missing in its chain of transmission.
As for the defect in the matn -- text -- itself, it is so evident that
it would be absurd to pretend that Ibn Abi Hatim missed it. Abu Hanifa
was described by the following as an Imam whose fiqh outweighed the intelligence
of everyone who lived on earth in his time: Abu Bakr ibn `Ayyash, Ibn Jurayj,
Yazid ibn Harun, Shaddad ibn Hakim, Sufyan ibn `Uyayna, Makki ibn Ibrahim,
Mis`ar ibn Kidam, `Ali ibn `Asim, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal! All this is related
by Dhahabi in Manaqib Abi Hanifa (p. 29-32, 42-43). Would all these
testify to the knowledge of an Imam who concludes his lessons by tossing
them out into the wind?
In fact, the reality of what Abu Hanifa would say in conclusion of his
lessons is linked to his humility and greast fear of Allah as shown by
the following reports taken from the same book by Imam Dhahabi (p. 34):
- Muhammad ibn Shuja` al-Thalji said: I heard Isma`il ibn Hammad ibn
Abi Hanifa say: Abu Hanifa said: "Our position here is only our opinion.
We do not oblige anyone to follow it, nor do we say that it is required
for anyone to accept it. Whoever has something better, let him produce
it."
- al-Hasan ibn Ziyad al-Lu'lu'i said: Abu Hanifa said: "Our science
in this is only an opinion. It is the best that we have been able to reach.
Whoever brings us better than this, we accept it from him."
The above clarifications of the Imam on his method are a far cry from
Ibn Abi Hatim's corrupt attribution to him of the words: " All that you
have heard is wind and null and void"!
÷ Ibn Abi Hatim in al-Jarh wa al-ta`dil (8:450)
claims on the written authority of the same Ibrahim ibn Ya`qub al-Jawzajani
that Ishaq ibn Rahawayh said: I heard Jarir say: Muhammad ibn Jabir al-Yamami
said: "Abu Hanifa stole Hammad's books from me"!
May Allah forgive Ibn Abi Hatim and all Abu Hanifa's detractors for
going to such extremes in attempting to discredit him. Such a mendacious
report as the above is easily thrown out on the two bases of its chain
and its text.
Its chain is weak due to Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Yamani whom Ibn Abi Hatim
himself in al-Jarh (1:219) declared to be weak with the words: da`if kathir
al-wahm, "He is weak and many times imagines things"! Others who declared
this narrator as weak are: Ibn Ma`in in his Tarikh (3:507), al-Nasa'i
in al-Du`afa' wa al-matrukin (p. 533), `Uqayli in al-Du`afa'
(4:41), Ibn Hibban in al-Majruhin (2:270), Ibn `Adi in al-Kamil
fi al-du`afa' (6:2158), al-Dhahabi in al-Mughni fi al-du`afa'
(#5349), among others.
Its text is absurd due to the fact that Abu Hanifa could have easily
gotten Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman's books directly from him, since he was
his student for more than twenty years. Furthermore Abu Hanifa was extremely
rich, and in no need of stealing what he could obtain by purchase. Finally,
Abu Hanifa was reputed for his extreme fear of Allah (wara`), which precludes
him, in accordance with all those who testified to his character, from
committing such an act. Dhahabi related in Manaqib Abi Hanifa (p.
24): Ibn al-Mubarak said: "Abu Hanifa for a long time would pray all five
prayers with a single wudu'," and Hamid ibn Adam al-Marwazi said: I heard
Ibn al-Mubarak say: "I never saw anyone more fearful of Allah than Abu
Hanifa, even on trial under the whip and through money and property."
VII. The "Salafi's" claim that the grading of Abu Hanifa as weak
for his poor memorization "was the position of... al-Haakim (Ma'rifa
Ulum al-Hadeeth)."
Answer: It seems this is but another proof of the fibbing of "Salafis,"
since al-Hakim in Ma`rifat `ulum al-hadith mentions the Imam only
among the "reputable trustworthy Imams"! as we see from the following excerpt
taken from Sa`id Muhammad al-Lahham's edition (Beirut: Dar al-hilal, 1409/1989):
The forty-ninth kind [of the sciences of hadith]: Knowledge of the famous
trustworthy Imams (ma`rifat al-a'imma al-thiqat al-mashhurin):
Among the people of Kufa:... Mis`ar ibn Kidam al-Hilali, Abu Hanifa
al-Nu`man ibn Thabit al-Taymi, Malik ibn Mighwal al-Bajali...
VIII. The "Salafi's" claim that the grading of Abu Hanifa as weak
for his poor memorization "was the position of... ibn Sa'd (Tabaqaat
6/256)."
Answer: Ibn Sa`d's weakening of a narrator is questionable when it pertains
to the scholars of Iraq -- Abu Hanifa being among them -- according to
Ibn Hajar's words in his notice for Muharib ibn Dithar in Hadi al-Sari
(2:164): "Ibn Sa`d's tad`if is questionable (fihi nazar), because he imitates
al-Waqidi and relies on him, and al-Waqidi, according to the fashion of
the scholars of Madina, is extremely adverse to the scholars of Iraq. Know
this and you will be directed to what is right, with Allah's will."
IX. The "Salafi's" claim that the grading of Abu Hanifa as weak for
his poor memorization "was the position of... adh-Dhahabee (ad-Du'afaa
q. 215/1-2)."
Answer: Dhahabi's authentic position on the reliability of Abu Hanifa
is established in the notices on Abu Hanifa in Tadhkirat al-huffaz
and al-Kashif fi ma`rifat man lahu riwaya fi al-kutub al-sitta,
in the monograph he wrote on him entitled Manaqib Abi Hanifa, and
in his mention of him in his introduction to Mizan al-i`tidal. In
none of the above texts does he mention any weakening of Abu Hanifa. Therefore
whatever contradicts them must be questioned and, if established as authentic,
retained, if not, rejected as spurious and inauthentic.
Let us examine the text of Dhahabi's purported notice in his Diwan
al-Du`afa' wa al-matrukin as found in Shaykh Khalil al-Mays's edition
(Beirut: Dar al-fikr, 1408/1988 2:404 #4389):
al-Nu`man: al-Imam, rahimahullah. Ibn `Adi said: "Most of what he narrates
is error (ghalat), corruption in the text (tashif), and additions (ziyadat),
but he has good narrations." al-Nasa'i said: "He is not strong in hadith,
he makes many errors although he has only a few narrations." Ibn Ma`in
said: "His narrations are not written."
This is a spurious attribution to Dhahabi and an evident case of interpolation
into the text of his book al-Du`afa. Dhahabi said in Tadhhib al-tahdhib
(4:101): "Our shaykh Abu al-Hajjaj [al-Mizzi] did well when he did not
cite anything whereby he [Abu Hanifa] should be deemed weak as a narrator."
He also said in the introduction of Mizan al-i`tidal, on which his Du`afa'
is based: "I do not mention [in my classifications of the weak narrators]
any of the Companions, the Tabi`in, or the Imams who are followed." It
is established that Abu Hanifa is a Tabi`i and the foremost of the Imams
who are followed. Moreover, in his entire book on Abu Hanifa entitled Manaqib
al-imam Abu Hanifa, Dhahabi mentions no such weakening nor even alludes
to it. Nor does he cite it in the chapter devoted to Abu Hanifa in Tadhkirat
al-huffaz! How then could he cite in al-Du`afa' Ibn `Adi's and
al-Nasa'i's biased opinions, which flatly contradicts his other works,
and his method as established from his own words, without any explanation
on his part? And how could he relate in the Du`afa' that Ibn Ma`in said:
"His narrations are not written" while he relates in Manaqib Abi Hanifa
(p. 45) and Tadhkirat al-huffaz (1:168): "Ibn Ma`in said: Abu Hanifa
is trustworthy (thiqa)" and: Ibn Ma`in said of Abu Hanifa: la ba'sa bihi
-- "there is no harm in him"? Note that in Ibn Ma`in's terminology such
a grading is the same as thiqa (i.e. he is reliable), as stated by Ibn
Salah in his Muqaddima (p. 134) and Dhahabi himself in Lisan al-mizan
(1:13).
The reason for the discrepancy is clearly that the passage in the Du`afa'
is a later addition to Dhahabi's book from those who wanted to put on Imam
Abu Hanifa's weakening the stamp of Dhahabi's credibility, even at the
cost of forgery.
A remarkable proof of this forgery is confirmed by the near-identical
spurious notice on Abu Hanifa in Dhahabi's Mizan al-i`tidal under
the name of al-Nu`man ibn Thabit, Abu Hanifa, whereby Dhahabi purportedly
said: "al-Nasa'i declared him weak from the perspective of his memorization,
also Ibn `Adi, and others" (ed. `Ali Muhammad al-Bajawi, Cairo: al-Halabi,
4:265 #9092). This is an addition by other than Dhahabi, which is found
in the less reliable copies (nusakh) of the Mizan and not in the authentic
manuscripts. There is a hint of this in the footnote by the editor, al-Bajawi,
who says: "This notice [on Abu Hanifa] is missing from two of the manuscripts."
The proofs that it is an interpolation are both internal and external,
as we quote below from Shaykh `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda's masterful demonstration
in his edition of al-Lucknawi's al-Raf` wa al-takmil (p. 121-126):
`Abd al-Fattah says: al-Lucknawi gave ample proofs for the tampering
of the notice on Abu Hanifa in some of the manuscripts of the Mizan in
his book Ghayth al-ghamam `ala hawashi imam al-kalam (p. 146), where
he mentions many factors for concluding that it does not authentically
belong to the Mizan. I will mention only some of them and direct the reader
to his book for the rest. He said: "There is no trace of this mention in
some of the reliable manuscripts which I have seen, and the following confirms
it:
÷ al-`Iraqi said in his Sharh al-alfiyya (3:260):
"Ibn `Adi mentioned in his book al-Kamil every narrator who was ever criticized
even if he is considered trustworthy, and Dhahabi followed him in this
in al-Mizan, except that he did not mention any of the Companions or the
Imams that are followed." ÷ al-Sakhawi said in his Sharh
al-alfiyya (p. 477): "Although Dhahabi followed Ibn `Adi in mentioning
every narrator who was ever criticized even if he is considered trustworthy,
yet he bound himself not to mention any of the Companions or the Imams
that are followed." ÷ al-Suyuti said in Tadrib al-rawi
sharh taqrib al-Nawawi (p. 519): "Except that Dhahabi did not mention
any of the Companions or the Imams that are followed."
`Abd al-Fattah says: Dhahabi himself explicitly declares in the introduction
of al-Mizan (1:3): "Similarly I did not mention in my book any of the Imams
that are followed in the branches of the Law due to their immense standing
in Islam and their greatness in the minds of people: such as Abu Hanifa,
Shafi`i, and Bukhari. If I mention any of them, I do not do so except to
render him his due (`ala al-insaf i.e. to be very fair). This does not
attack their standing before Allah and before men."
However, the edition of the Mizan published at Matba`at al-sa`ada
in Cairo in 1325 (3:237) contains a two-line notice on Abu Hanifa ["al-Nasa'i
declared him weak from the perspective of his memorization, also Ibn `Adi,
and others"] which contains no defense of Abu Hanifa at all, and consists
only in criticizing him and declaring him weak: and Dhahabi's words in
the introduction preclude the existence of such a notice, since it is all
faultfinding and renders him no justice....
I looked up the third volume of Mizan al-i`tidal kept in the Zahiriyya
library in Damascus under the number "368 New," a very valuable set indeed,
which begins with the letter m and ends with the end of the book, all written
in the hand of the savant and hadith master Sharaf al-Din `Abd Allah ibn
Muhammad al-Wani (d. 749) of Damascus, Dhahabi's student, who read this
back to Dhahabi three times while comparing it to his original, as declared
on the back of folios 109 and 159 of the volume, and elsewhere. I saw no
mention of Imam Abu Hanifa in that volume under the letter n [for Nu`man]
nor under the paternal names.
Similarly I saw no notice for Abu Hanifa in the manuscript kept at the
Ahmadiyya library in Aleppo uner the number 337, a good copy made in 1160
from an original made in 777...
Nor in the manuscript of Dhahabi's own copy of Mizan al-i`tidal
kept in the general storing-library in Rabat, Morocco under number 129Q
which is signed by the hand of eight different students of his to the effect
that they read it in his presence and were certified by him to have done
so....
This is a tremendous and rare examplar in the world of manuscripts,
and I did not find in it a mention of Abu Hanifa. Something such as this
is a decisive proof for anyone that the notice found in some copies of
the Mizan is not from the pen of al-Dhahabi, but was interpolated into
the book by some of the adversaries of the Imam Abu Hanifa....
Dhahabi's Mizan has been tampered with by foreign hands in more than
one place, and it is imperative that it be edited and published on the
basis of a manuscript that has been read before the author himself, such
as that in the Zahiriyya library of Damascus, or that in the library of
Rabat....
Our friend the savant Shaykh Muhammad `Abd al-Rashid al-Nu`mani al-Hindi
in his book Ma tamassu ilayhi al-haja li man yutali` sunan Ibn Majah
(p. 47) also showed another aspect of the tampering done with Abu Hanifa's
notice in the Mizan and I refer the reader to it. The same proof was mentioned
before him by Lucknawi's student, the brilliant verifying scholar Zahir
Ahmad al-Nimawi in his book al-Ta`liq al-hasan `ala athar al-Sunan
(1:88).
I also took notice of what was said by our shaykh the great savant Mawlana
Zafar Ahmad al-`Uthmani al-Tahanawi in his book Qawa`id fi `ulum al-hadith
(p. 211) in commenting on Dhahabi's words -- already quoted -- from the
introduction of his Mizan, whereupon Tahanawi said: "By this it is known
that what is found in some copies of the Mizan concerning Abu Hanifa and
his weakening due to poor memorization is an ilhaq -- something added which
was not there originally.... And how could it be there when Dhahabi included
Abu Hanifa in Tadhkirat al-huffaz, which he introduced with the
words: "This is the memorial of the names of those who were declared the
trustees among the carriers of the Science of the Prophet and to whose
ijtihad one refers concerning matters of narrator-certification (tawthiq),
authentication (tashih), and falsification (tazyif)." End of our shaykh's
words.
I also saw that the Emir al-San`ani said in Tawdih al-afkar (2:277):
"There is no notice for Abu Hanifa in al-Mizan."....
Nor is there any notice for Abu Hanifa in the manuscript of the Mizan
that was copied by the meticulous hadith master and muhaddith of Aleppo
in his time, Ibrahim ibn Muhammad Sibt Ibn al-`Ajami who finished copying
it in the year 789 from a copy that was certified in Dhahabi's handwriting.
It is therefore decisively ascertained that the notice on Abu Hanifa
in the Mizan is an interpolation in some of its manuscripts in which Dhahabi
had no part.
CONCLUSION
The great merits of Imam Abu Hanifa are extremely numerous. Imam Dhahabi
wrote one volume on the life of each of the other three great Imams but
he said in his Siyar a`lam al-nubala' (6:403): "The account of Abu
Hanifa's sira requires two volumes." The greatness of Abu Hanifa was never
reached by those who followed him, just as his son Hammad had predicted
when upon his father's body he said: " You have exhausted whoever comes
after you (who tries to catch up with you)." He is the first to have put
down the topics of Fiqh in a book, beginning with tahara and salat. Whoever
followed after him in Islam using that model, such as Malik, Shafi`i, Abu
Dawud, Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, and others, are indebted to him and give
him a share of their reward because he was the first to open that road
for them, according to the hadith of the Prophet: man sanna fi al-islami
sunnatan hasanatan: "Whoever starts something good in Islam..." and al-Shafi`i
referred to this when he said: al-nasu `iyalun `ala abi hanifa fi al-fiqh
= "people (scholars) are all the dependents of Abu Hanifa in fiqh." al-Dhahabi
relates it in Tadhkirat al-huffaz in the chapter on Abu Hanifa, and also
Ibn Hajar in Tahdhib al-tahdhib (10:450). And the hafiz al-Khatib
al-Baghdadi narrated in Tarikh Baghdad (13:344) that the hafiz Abu
Nu`aym said:
Muslims should made du`a to Allah on behalf of Abu Hanifa in their prayers,
because the Sunan and the fiqh were preserved for them through him.
Like Imam Bukhari, Abu Hanifa used to make 60 khatmas of Qur'an every
Ramadan: on in the day, one in the night, besides his teaching and other
duties. al-Subki relates it of Bukhari in Tabaqat al-shafi`iyya,
while Dhahabi and al-Haytami relate it of Abu Hanifa respectively in Manaqib
Abi Hanifa (p. 23) and al-Khayrat al-hisan. Al-Khatib in Tarikh
Baghdad (13:356), Dhahabi in the Manaqib (p. 22), and Suyuti
in Tabyid al-sahifa (p. 94-95) relate that Ibrahim ibn Rustum al-Marwazi
said: "Four are the Imams that recited the entire Qur'an in a single rak`a:
`Uthman ibn `Affan, Tamim al-Dari, Sa`id ibn Jubayr, and Abu Hanifa." Suyuti
also relates in Tabyid al-sahifa that a certain visitor came to
observe Abu Hanifa and saw him all day long in the mosque, teaching relentlessly,
answering every question from both the scholars and the common people,
not stopping except to pray, then standing at home in prayer when people
were asleep, hardly ever eating or sleeping, and yet the most handsome
and gracious of people, always alert and never tired, day after day for
a long time, so that in the end the visitor said: "I became convinced that
this was not an ordinary matter, but wilaya." May Allah be well pleased
with His Friend and make him inhabit the Highest Paradise.
May Allah have mercy on Imam al-A`zam Abu Hanifa and forgive his detractors.
al-Hamdu lillah it is proven without doubt that Abu Hanifa has been given
the three highest gradings by the verifying authorities in hadith since
he has been called imam by Abu Dawud, hafiz by al-Dhahabi,
and thiqa thiqa by Ibn Ma`in. More importantly, the claim that he
was declared weak has been shown to be itself a weak claim no sooner made
than proven wrong or worthless. The claims of present-day innovators against
him were anticipated and rejected in advance by the hadith master Ibn Hajar
al-`Asqalani when he said, as related by his student the hadith master
al-Sakhawi in his biography al-Jawahir wa al-durar (p. 227):
The Imam and his peers are of those who have reached the sky, and as
a result nothing that anyone says against any of them can have any effect.
They are in the highest level, where Allah raised them, through their being
Imams that are followed and through whom one reaches guidance. Let this
be clearly understood, and Allah is the Giver of success.
Shaykh Muhammad `Awwama mentioned it in his book Athar al-hadith
al-sharif (p. 116). And Allah Almighty knows best.
1_small.jpg)
