THE BIG DEBATE: What was the madhab of Imaam Abu Haneefah?

[Shehbaz Khan]

All the four Imams said it loud and clearly that 'If my fatwah matches the Quran and Sahih Hadith follow it else throw our Fatwah on the wall and follow Quran and Hadith'

I think this describes their religion!!

[maneatinglizard]

lizardeatingman,


Imam Ibn Taymiyah did not advocate for any madhab, nor did any of his students such as Ibn qayyum al jawziya or ibn kathir (ra).

Ibn Taymiyyah was a Hanbali, as was ibn al-Qayyim. Ibn Kathir was a Shafi`.

The fact that you not only didn't know this, but are still denying it, makes me think that you probably shouldn't be speaking on this subject any longer, because it seems you have no idea what you're talking about, and have been swindled by the liars who reject the Madhahib.

Also the evidence that Abu Hanifa wrote al fiqh ul akbar is weak and evidence contrary to the belief exists.

Sunnipress -> The Fiqh al-Akbar by Pseudo-Abu Hanifah


just letting you know...

I'm assuming that you didn't read that link through entirely, because the fact that Imam Abu Hanifa Rahmat Allahi Alayh produced a work named Fiqh al-Akbar is not being denied, but rather that the version we have today is what he had written.

As for that link, the evidence it presents is unimpressive and weak itself. The first problem with the idea of it being unauthentic is that no one claimed this up until Allamah Shibli Numani Rahmat Allahi Alayh, who lived less that 200 years ago, and, not only that, but he rejected the work for reasons that aren't considered in the Islamic methodology of text ascription (since he was a modernist). Later, Salafis latched on this claim because the work contradicts their beliefs and how they have projected those beliefs onto the early generations.

Notice how much time was spent on the beliefs enumerated in the book being "problematic." This is the true reason Salafis reject the book: because it destroys their claims that their aqeeda is the aqeeda of the early generations, which pretty much throws away any validity they have.

Here is a link which counters some of the claims made in your link:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6496&page=2

Finally, this subject isn't even really relevant to the topic it hand, as Fiqh al-Akbar is a book on beliefs, not on fiqh. I just brought it up to indicate that you were wrong in claiming that Imam Abu Hanifa never wrote a book.

All the four Imams said it loud and clearly that 'If my fatwah matches the Quran and Sahih Hadith follow it else throw our Fatwah on the wall and follow Quran and Hadith'

I think this describes their religion!!

Did you even read the rest of this topic, or did you feel it necessary to repeat that oft regurtitated line that was never meant for anyone on this board?

The purpose of making a statement like that is to emphasize that the Imams are only interpreters of the Law, not makers of the Law. It is not meant to be taken literally, because not every Sahih Hadith can be practiced upon, and the process of deriving rulings from the Quran and Sunnah is far more involved than opening up a translated book of ahadith and randomly acting upon them.

Furthermore, those statements were made to the students of the Imams, not people like us who can barely read Arabic, let alone decide whether a Hadith is Sahih or not.

Salam Alaikum

[maneatinglizard]

I appreciate the way maneatingglizard is defending his or her position. I personally feel highly impressed from Imam Abu hanifa and his approach. He was a man of vision, reason and knowledge thats why more than 70% Muslims follow his school of thought.

I agree

Also I like his approach on using Qiyas as a main tool in jurisprudence. I have heard that he believed only in 17 hadith I dont know how far its true!

Hold your horses right there, cowboy.

Imam Abu Hanifa Rahmat Allahi Alayh did not give preference to Qiyas over Quran or Hadith, and he explained this himself.

In addition, he himself narrated a lot more than 17 ahadith, so whoever made this claim is either ignorant or a liar. Either way, he is not fit to be followed or taken seriously, considering how incredibly wrong he or she was.

Salam Alaikum

[Mujib]

We don't follow only Imam Abu Hanifa. We follow the thousands of scholars who have carried his legacy.

This is an essential point that non-madhhabists seem not to understand. More than one thousand years of scholarship has contributed to the madhhabs.

[Mujib]

All the four Imams said it loud and clearly that 'If my fatwah matches the Quran and Sahih Hadith follow it else throw our Fatwah on the wall and follow Quran and Hadith'

Firstly, can you cite a source that attributes this to Imam Abu Hanifa (ra)? This is like the statement that was adduced earlier in the thread - there isn't an "Ibn Barr," but an Ibn `Abd al-Barr and he was a Maliki -, it is without a source.

Secondly, even if there is a source that attributes it to Imam Abu Hanifa (ra), it doesn't mean that we should be throwing fatwas against the wall. Why would the Imams give their opinions at all if you and I were able to look in the Qur'an and Sunna and see whether or not their opinions were correct? Shouldn't the Imams have instructed us to come up with our own opinions from the Qur'an and Sunna?

These and similar statements are often cited by those who are opposed to the following of qualified scholarship. The statements are often misquoted and always misinterpreted. For example, the statement of Imam al-Shafi`i (ra), “When the authenticity of the hadith is established, that is my madhhab.” Commenting on this statement, the great Shafi`i imam, Imam al-Nawawi (ra), said that Imam al-Shafi`i's (ra) statement does not apply to just anyone, but only to mujtahid scholars within the madhhab. He said:

What Imam al-Shafi‘i said does not mean that everyone who sees a sahih hadith should say “This is the madhhab of al-Shafi‘i,” applying the purely external or apparent meaning of his statement. What he said most certainly applies only to such a person as has the rank of ijtihad in the madhhab. It is a condition for such a person that he be firmly convinced that either Imam al-Shafi‘i was unaware of this hadith or he was unaware of its authenticity. And this is possible only after having researched all the books of al-Shafi‘i and similar other books of the companions of al-Shafi‘i, those who took knowledge from him and others similar to them. This is indeed a difficult condition to fulfill. Few are those who measure up to this standard in our times. ("The Statement 'If the Hadith is Authentic, that is my Madhhab'")

Commenting on Imam al-Nawawi's words, "Few are those who measure up to this standard in our times," Shaykh Gibril Haddad notes:

I.e. al-Nawawi’s times, a fortiori ours. Among those who lived in al-Nawawi’s century were al-Fakhr al-Razi, Ibn al-Salah, al-Mundhiri, Ibn ‘Abd al-Salam, al-Qurtubi, Ibn al-Munayyir, Ibn al-Qattan, al- Diya’ al-Maqdisi, Ibn Qudama, and Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id! (Ibid)

[Alchemist]

I'm assuming that you didn't read that link through entirely, because the fact that Imam Abu Hanifa Rahmat Allahi Alayh produced a work named Fiqh al-Akbar is not being denied, but rather that the version we have today is what he had written.

As for that link, the evidence it presents is unimpressive and weak itself. The first problem with the idea of it being unauthentic is that no one claimed this up until Allamah Shibli Numani Rahmat Allahi Alayh, who lived less that 200 years ago, and, not only that, but he rejected the work for reasons that aren't considered in the Islamic methodology of text ascription (since he was a modernist). Later, Salafis latched on this claim because the work contradicts their beliefs and how they have projected those beliefs onto the early generations.

Notice how much time was spent on the beliefs enumerated in the book being "problematic." This is the true reason Salafis reject the book: because it destroys their claims that their aqeeda is the aqeeda of the early generations, which pretty much throws away any validity they have.

Here is a link which counters some of the claims made in your link:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...?t=6496&page=2

Finally, this subject isn't even really relevant to the topic it hand, as Fiqh al-Akbar is a book on beliefs, not on fiqh. I just brought it up to indicate that you were wrong in claiming that Imam Abu Hanifa never wrote a book.



Did you even read the rest of this topic, or did you feel it necessary to repeat that oft regurtitated line that was never meant for anyone on this board?

The purpose of making a statement like that is to emphasize that the Imams are only interpreters of the Law, not makers of the Law. It is not meant to be taken literally, because not every Sahih Hadith can be practiced upon, and the process of deriving rulings from the Quran and Sunnah is far more involved than opening up a translated book of ahadith and randomly acting upon them.

Furthermore, those statements were made to the students of the Imams, not people like us who can barely read Arabic, let alone decide whether a Hadith is Sahih or not.

Salam Alaikum

Walikum Salam,

Yes, the site does say that the work in question "Fiqh ul Akbar", the original manuscript, was NOT written by Imam Abu Haneefah.
It also doesn't affirm that Imam Abu Hanifa did write a book at all. No one knows if he did because there is no material left over by him! There are no original copies. And therefore, the statement "he laid his foundation" is unfounded! People also say that Shakespear didn't write any of his play...they even speculate that it was actually Francis Bacon because the material is highly intellectual.
And besides, Fiqh ul Akbar could hardly be called a "book". It is only a few pages of a list of aqaid. You could hardly base a "madhab" based on a short list...now can you?

And like the OP said, different students of Imam ul Azzam, Imam Abu Hanifa, have different rulings. Like, did you know that sunniforum is run by Deobandies?
I checked the link to the forum you provided and it's actually affirming what I am saying. Poster sincerelearner put this summary after a long list of proofs:

To summarize all of this:

The Fiqh al-Akbar in the Riwayah of Hammad b. Abu Hanifah is definetily inauthentic, nay fabricated. The Isnad as well as the Matn testify for this. None of the early reliable scholars quoted it or commented upon it. Nay, neither a manuscript before the 10th century AH can be found for it.

The Fiqh al-Akbar in the Riwayah of Abu Muti' al-Balkhi is not of Imam Abu Hanifah. It seems more to be a work written by Abu Muti' al-Balkhi. The Isnad is weak too, but not so severely weak as that of the other. Its Matn is better attested, though not free of criticism. Early scholars have quoted and commented upon, the like of the 4th century critic of Ash'arism: Abu'l-Layth al-Samarqandi. Also Ibn Taymiyyah, al-Dhahabi and Ibn al-Qayyim, three Imams in the Science of Transmission and Preservation, have attested for its somehow 'early' existence.

And you are asking me if I read carefully what I posted.

P.s I didn't know I was a salafi

[Mujib]

Yes, the site does say that the work in question "Fiqh ul Akbar", the original manuscript, was NOT written by Imam Abu Haneefah.

Why are we adducing forum threads? That forum, brother, is a Wahhabi/"Salafi" forum; it's clear why they would have a problem with the text.

No one knows if he did because there is no material left over by him! There are no original copies.

There are several works that are narrated from Imam Abu Hanifa (ra), among them al-Fiqh al-Akbar. Islamic scholarship doesn't rely solely on manuscripts ("original copies"). Knowledge is preserved and transmitted through isnad.

And therefore, the statement "he laid his foundation" is unfounded!

This is a strange conclusion. Since there are no manuscripts in his hand, should it be denied that he was a scholar at all? Or that he even existed? How does his formulation of the madhhab depend on the existence of manuscripts in his hand?

People also say that Shakespear didn't write any of his play...they even speculate that it was actually Francis Bacon because the material is highly intellectual.

The transmission of the works of Shakespeare is nothing like the transmission of Islamic knowledge. Shakespeare scholars rely on the folios and quartos; they don't have isnad.

As to the plays being highly intellectual, the counter argument is that Shakespeare was trained in grammar school and was highly read; and there are numerous errors in the plays that preclude their being written by Marlowe or Bacon.

And besides, Fiqh ul Akbar could hardly be called a "book". It is only a few pages of a list of aqaid. You could hardly base a "madhab" based on a short list...now can you?

The fiqh madhhab is not based on the `aqida text.

And like the OP said, different students of Imam ul Azzam, Imam Abu Hanifa, have different rulings. Like, did you know that sunniforum is run by Deobandies?

The differences between the Imams of the madhhab has nothing to do with Barelwi and Deobandi differences. Barelwis and Deobandis both follow the same Hanafi fiqh.

Poster sincerelearner put this summary after a long list of proofs:

This is the problem with posting threads from other forums back and forth. That poster is actually posting the article posted at the forum to which you provided a link. He writes before it: "Can the shaykh Abdul Hasan or Salman or any other brothers refute this new claim made by salaafi about Fiqh al-Akbar."

You should read Mufti Abdurrahman ibn Yusuf's Imam Abu Hanifa's Al-Fiqh al-Akbar Explained, wherein he discusses the chain of the text and shows that the attribution to Imam Abu Hanifa (ra) is correct.

[Alchemist]

^ good!
Point by point criticism of what I said but I still don't get what a "hanifa madhab" means.
You say the website is salafi or whabi, but that is just a label and the link given by lizardeater checked fiqh ul akbar against the isnad and found it to be in error...just like you find error in shakespears work. And my example of Shakespear was to allude to it's literary nature, which it shares with the scholasticism of Islam. Even the isnad are written down and one student of Islam may study under several different shuyukh and form his own unique understanding of Islam. But then I fail to see how different a shafie is from a hanafi or a hanbali, in practical terms. Mostly muslim's nowadays imitate their surroundings so we find that muslims in Afghanistan have a different etiquette in the masjid than those in the neighboring regions and those far beyound. So once again brother, you are provided me with a link to a book in which the reviewer doesn't even mention proof of Abu Hanifa's authorship... rather it is a 250 page book with 4 + authors and fluffed up with topics unrelated to fiqhul akbar. Now as far as proof is concerned tarikh baghdadi quotes the contempories of Abu Hanifa, Imam MAlik, Imam Hanbal with negative views of Abu Hanifa. Other supposed "books" authored by imam abu hanifa are also questionable because the "isnads" are not verifiable. The two isnads of Fiqh ul akbar are deemed weak...no one is saying that they aren't there, they are but the transmission is judged weak.Plus the work it self raises eyebrows on issues that are beyound our comprehension but I don't mean to delve into that. I am just wondering how you can call it a "school of fiqh", a madhab, if there is no coherent and formalized principles that distinguish it as such. I have never in my life entered a masjid, and I have entered countless, heard a shaykh explain what madhab he was before he proceeded to lead the prayer or give a khutba. So I don't see how some muslims can puff with pride for belonging to a "madhab" when really they could just as well be muqalids (imitators). I need to understand the epistemology of hanafi fiqh...how would I be able to do that?

[maneatinglizard]

Walikum Salam,

Yes, the site does say that the work in question "Fiqh ul Akbar", the original manuscript, was NOT written by Imam Abu Haneefah.

You may not be familiar with textual authentication in Islam, because there's no way to decisively conclude that Imam Abu Hanifa Rahmat Allahi Alayh didn't write a book called Fiqh al-Akbar. In fact, the evidence points otherwise, with multiple early sources affirming that he did dictate a work called "Fiqh al-Akbar."

The intent of the article you linked to was to cast doubt upon the recension we have today, not to deny that the work ever existed in the first place.

The link I've provided already refuted that claim sufficiently, and I could go on if you'd like, but I think you're not reading my entire posts, and that you're not getting the point I've been trying to make, especially considering his tangent we've gone on that has nothing to do with the Hanafi Madhab.

It also doesn't affirm that Imam Abu Hanifa did write a book at all.

It doesn't affirm, but it also doesn't deny it. No one in the early history of Islam ever denied that a work called Fiqh al-Akbar existed, and that is despite the fact that a commentary was written by Imam al-Layth as-Samarqandi Rahmat Allahi Alayh, who died about 200 years after Imam Abu Hanifa, and with only a few people in between them.

No one knows if he did because there is no material left over by him!

This is not true, and I've already mentioned this. No one denies the authenticity of the Dhahir Riwayah, Kitab al-Athar, etc., and his statements contained therein.

There are no original copies.

Again, this statements reveals you don't know what you're talking about.

An original copy is not required to confirm the authenticity of a work in Islam. If it were, then no hadith would ever be authentic, because Rasulullah Salla Allahu Alayhi wa Salam couldn't write.

There doesn't even exist an "original" copy of the Quran, so this methodology would leave one to leave Islam completely if it were practiced consistently. In fact, your statement again brings evidence to my suspicion that you never fully read through your own link, because it clearly states some of the conditions for considering a work authentic.

A work is authenticated in Islam by a reliable chain of narrators to confirm it. And, while your link claims that the Fiqh al-Akbar in question fails this test, I'd have to say that the nobodies who wrote that article can't hold a candle to the experts in this field that have confirmed the authenticity of this work, including Shaikh Wahbi al-Ghawji, who was mentioned in my link, let alone the great scholars like Mulla Ali al-Qari (who was considered by some to have been the Mujaddid of his era) who felt confident enough in the work that they not only wrote a ascribed it to Imam Abu Hanifa, but even wrote a commentary on it.

And therefore, the statement "he laid his foundation" is unfounded!

And here is the kicker, and proof you're either not reading everything I have to say, or at least not understanding it completely.

Let me repeat it again:

Fiqh al-Akbar is a book on Aqeeda, not on fiqh!

The foundation of the Madhab has nothing to do with the book, as it is not a book of fiqh.

People also say that Shakespear didn't write any of his play...they even speculate that it was actually Francis Bacon because the material is highly intellectual.

There is a world of difference between the world of Islamic textual research and scholarship, and the methods the West has employed.

Our confidence in the Quran and Ahadith rest on this science, so don't belittle it by comparing it to plays.

And besides, Fiqh ul Akbar could hardly be called a "book".

Its length has nothing to do with anything really. Call it a book, an epistle, whatever.

By the way, the definition of book has nothing to do with the number of pages it contains.

It is only a few pages of a list of aqaid. You could hardly base a "madhab" based on a short list...now can you?

Fiqh al-Akbar is a book on Aqeeda, not on fiqh!

It is not what the Madhab is based upon. I've already explained this repeatedly.

And like the OP said, different students of Imam ul Azzam, Imam Abu Hanifa, have different rulings.

I've already mentioned this, and I've already explained that we follow the Usul Imam Abu Hanifa developed, not necessarily all of his opinions.

Like, did you know that sunniforum is run by Deobandies?

I knew that.

However, let me ask you something:

Do you know what a Deobandi is?

I checked the link to the forum you provided and it's actually affirming what I am saying. Poster sincerelearner put this summary after a long list of proofs:

What are you talking about?

He copied that article you linked to and asked for a refutation of it.

Didn't you recognize that?

And you are asking me if I read carefully what I posted.

Every time you make a post you affirm how justified my question was.

P.s I didn't know I was a salafi

I don't think I called you one.

^ good!
Point by point criticism of what I said but I still don't get what a "hanifa madhab" means.

The Madhab is the collection of Usul that Imam Abu Hanifa developed, which is a system designed to extract rulings from the primary sources of Islam, which are the Quran and Sunnah.

You say the website is salafi or whabi, but that is just a label

It is a label, but that doesn't make it wrong to use. Christian is also a label, and I'd hope you'd be weary to trust what a Christian says about Islam.

Likewise, you should be weary of what a Salafi says about a book like Fiqh al-Akbar, because they have a motive in discrediting it, as it proves many of their claims to be false.

and the link given by lizardeater checked fiqh ul akbar against the isnad and found it to be in error...just like you find error in shakespears work.

Both I and Mujib already explained that you misread my link.

And my example of Shakespear was to allude to it's literary nature, which it shares with the scholasticism of Islam.

The Quran and ahadith are also literature. I don't see your point.

Even the isnad are written down and one student of Islam may study under several different shuyukh and form his own unique understanding of Islam.

This is not a problem, and I don't see why you bring it up.

Just because a scholar has a given interpretation of Islam, doesn't mean he's going to lie and fabricate to give his opinions credibility. If that were true, then there is no way Islam would have survived in a pristine form till today.

But then I fail to see how different a shafie is from a hanafi or a hanbali, in practical terms.

There is no difference except in what the Imams differ in. In those instances a Hanafi acts according to the Hanafi opinion, and like wise for a Shafi`i, Maliki, Hanbali, etc.

Mostly muslim's nowadays imitate their surroundings so we find that muslims in Afghanistan have a different etiquette in the masjid than those in the neighboring regions and those far beyound.

It has been this way for pretty much all of the history of Islam.

Again, what is the relevance of bringing this up?

So once again brother, you are provided me with a link to a book in which the reviewer doesn't even mention proof of Abu Hanifa's authorship... rather it is a 250 page book with 4 + authors and fluffed up with topics unrelated to fiqhul akbar.

You clearly did not read the book, as it does provide evidence for the authenticity in its introduction.

Now as far as proof is concerned tarikh baghdadi quotes the contempories of Abu Hanifa, Imam MAlik, Imam Hanbal with negative views of Abu Hanifa.

1. Tarikh Baghdadi contains many narrations regarding Imam Abu Hanifa, some positive, others negative. And, while the majority are negative, most if not all of them have very weak insads. I see you mention the matter of sanad when it comes to the authorship of Fiqh al-Akbar but not when it comes to you discrediting Imam Abu Hanifa.

This is called injustice.

2. Ibn Abdil Barr Rahmat Allahi Alayh, who was a contemporary of al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, the write of Tarikh al-Baghdadi, wrote in his Inqitaa' that what was said in praise of Imam Abu Hanifa outweighs what was said in criticism.

3. In the science of Jarh wa Ta`deel, Ta`deel (i.e. authentication) is given precedence over a Jarh (i.e. criticism) that is general. The criticisms against Imam Abu Hanifa were mostly either general, or made by people who were known to have a grudge against him, and so they carry no weight.

4. If you want to reject anything written by a person who was criticized, then you would have nothing left to accept.

Imam Bukhari Rahmat Allahi Alayh faced criticisms as fierce as Imam Abu Hanifa did, and was in fact kicked out of his own homeland. Will you now reject his Sahih?

Other supposed "books" authored by imam abu hanifa are also questionable because the "isnads" are not verifiable.

And you decided this how?

The two isnads of Fiqh ul akbar are deemed weak...no one is saying that they aren't there, they are but the transmission is judged weak.

This claim is sufficiently refuted by the link I posted, the link Mujib posted, and the simple fact that no one ever rejected the authenticity of the work until the modern era.

Plus the work it self raises eyebrows on issues that are beyound our comprehension but I don't mean to delve into that.

Well, you've already derailed the topic for a discussion that belonged in its own topic, so I don't see the harm in mentioning this "eyebrow raising issues."

I am just wondering how you can call it a "school of fiqh", a madhab, if there is no coherent and formalized principles that distinguish it as such.

I am wondering how you could be debating here for so long without understanding things I've mentioned days ago.

let me repeat it again:

The primary source for the Madhab of Imam Abu Hanifa is in the works of his closest students, particularly in the Dhahir Riwayah of Imam Muhammad ash-Shaybani, as well as some works of Imam Abu Yusuf.

I have never in my life entered a masjid, and I have entered countless, heard a shaykh explain what madhab he was before he proceeded to lead the prayer or give a khutba.

Maybe because there would be no point in doing so?

So I don't see how some muslims can puff with pride for belonging to a "madhab" when really they could just as well be muqalids (imitators).

I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings here. Allow me to enumerate:

1. Belonging to a Madhab is not something to show off. Rather, one of the benefits behind following a Madhab is so that a person is kept away from the potential arrogance that can occur when he deludes himself into thinking that he can "throw the fatwa of an Imam to the wall" because he has "found a hadith that that Imam wasn't aware of."

2. A follower of a Madhab is a muqallid. A muqallid is a follower, and one who follows a Madhab is a muqallid of that madhab.

I need to understand the epistemology of hanafi fiqh...how would I be able to do that?

You don't.

That's the whole point og following a Madhab, so you don't have to get into the nitty gritty details.

Salam Alaikum

[شمله ور خراساني]

Few questions that require an answer:


Did Allah decree that we should belong to a particular Madhab? If yes, then the Sahaba were wrong for not following any madhab at all, no?

If Hanafi Madhab's mujtahids have the monopoly on the truth, then all other non-Hanafi scholars and Mujtahids are by definition always wrong, and therefore followers of baatil. Yes or not?

If a particular hadeeth is rejected by Hanafis because it conflicts with their desires, then any other Muslim scholar who accepts that hadith and applies it in fiqha then this scholar must be a deviant, right?


If all 4 Madhabs are haqq, then there are 4 different versions of haqq. How do Hanafi fascists explain this?

If Hanafis are right, then obeying the prophet saww is impossible without the Hanafi imams. If so, then what's the difference between Shi'ites and Hanafis?

Were the Hanafi scholars superior to the prophet saww's companions? If yes, then why didn't allah praise Abu Haneefah and Abu Yusuf and Ibn Abideen Shaami in QUr'an?

[شمله ور خراساني]

If Hanafis are following Haqq how come their madhab keeps changing?

[Alchemist]

so basically he is saying that the fiqh of imam abu hanifa is explained by his students.

However, this still I don't see how this can be called a "madhab" of Abu Hanifa, given that the two students of Abu Hanifa, imam Muhammad ash-Shaybani, studied under Imam Malik ibn Anas (the founder of Maliki madhab)...also whose own student founded the Shafi fiqh because he disagreed with As Shaybani...then Imam Abu Yusuf also studied under Imam Malik and Imam Layth bin Sa'd. Then lizardman says that the people who criticized Abu Hanifa had some grudge on him and had...even though that person is none other than Imam Malik..whose words hold no weight ... very confusing ...yeah lizard ... ur too smart for me. I guess I should just follow your madhab because you know better.

[graveyardofempires]

Few questions that require an answer:


Did Allah decree that we should belong to a particular Madhab? If yes, then the Sahaba were wrong for not following any madhab at all, no?

If Hanafi Madhab's mujtahids have the monopoly on the truth, then all other non-Hanafi scholars and Mujtahids are by definition always wrong, and therefore followers of baatil. Yes or not?

If a particular hadeeth is rejected by Hanafis because it conflicts with their desires, then any other Muslim scholar who accepts that hadith and applies it in fiqha then this scholar must be a deviant, right?


If all 4 Madhabs are haqq, then there are 4 different versions of haqq. How do Hanafi fascists explain this?

If Hanafis are right, then obeying the prophet saww is impossible without the Hanafi imams. If so, then what's the difference between Shi'ites and Hanafis?

Were the Hanafi scholars superior to the prophet saww's companions? If yes, then why didn't allah praise Abu Haneefah and Abu Yusuf and Ibn Abideen Shaami in QUr'an?

Aleka asey zaan me sharmawa
da se de geert wilders karuna dey shoro keley dey
leg sharem weka ,salafi se shwey che mung ta dey zaan na neeke jor kelay day.
zaan bandey de salafi noem eekhodel ta ne sahab ghondey ne jorayee,ze khabar yem che kom arab tala pe ghwak ke da khaberey ekhee dey.

te se way che te noro na khe musulman yee? pe Afghanistan ke khe khalak zanuno ta musulman wayee.
so according to you majority muslims are wrong and you are right?

[شمله ور خراساني]

aleka asey zaan me sharmawa
da se de geert wilders karuna dey shoro keley dey
leg sharem weka ,salafi se shwey che mung ta dey zaan na neeke jor kelay day.
Zaan bandey de salafi noem eekhodel ta ne sahab ghondey ne jorayee,ze khabar yem che kom arab tala pe ghwak ke da khaberey ekhee dey.

Te se way che te noro na khe musulman yee? Pe afghanistan ke khe khalak zanuno ta musulman wayee.
So according to you majority muslims are wrong and you are right?

بحث کښې مداخله مکوه

ماشوم یې

[Alchemist]

I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings here. Allow me to enumerate:

1. Belonging to a Madhab is not something to show off. Rather, one of the benefits behind following a Madhab is so that a person is kept away from the potential arrogance that can occur when he deludes himself into thinking that he can "throw the fatwa of an Imam to the wall" because he has "found a hadith that that Imam wasn't aware of."

2. A follower of a Madhab is a muqallid. A muqallid is a follower, and one who follows a Madhab is a muqallid of that madhab.

Wait a minute...isn't that what Imam Abu Hanifa said...to throw away his fatwa if it was contradicted by a hadith? Or you don't believe he said that?