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

[graveyardofempires]

بحث کښې مداخله مکوه

ماشوم یې

jara me kha
warsha "salafi" mullah ta dey warsha che dam de key.

ka ze mashom yem no te la ter osa pe kheta ke yee.

[شمله ور خراساني]

jara me kha
warsha "salafi" mullah ta dey warsha che dam de key.

ka ze mashom yem no te la ter osa pe kheta ke yee.

Jamaat Dawah Wal Jihad of Dawran Khan in Kunar are Salafis ( the men in your avatar)

[Fatima]

Raise your hand if you're hanafi.

Sorry, I think Imam Abu Hanifa wins. Next.

[شمله ور خراساني]

Raise your hand if you're hanafi.

Alhamdu lilah I am a Hanafi. Because Imam Abu Haneefah was from the Salafu Saalih.

[graveyardofempires]

Jamaat Dawah Wal Jihad of Dawran Khan in Kunar are Salafis ( the men in your avatar)

your point is ?
you think they are as hater mongers as you?

there is nothing wrong with salafi itself,something is wrong with you.
i was in kunar and had a disucssion with a guy claiming to be wahabi and was pushing it while he himself works in an american base.
Are taliban salafi as well?

[شمله ور خراساني]

[QUOTE=graveyardofempires;347706
i was in kunar and had a disucssion with a guy claiming to be wahabi and was pushing it while he himself works in an american base.
[/QUOTE]

the guy was propably as intelligent as you are.

[graveyardofempires]

the guy was propably as intelligent as you are.

no he was from your gang of selfritious hypocrites.

[Alchemist]

Raise your hand if you're hanafi.

Sorry, I think Imam Abu Hanifa wins. Next.

guess lizardeatingman was right...it isn't about pride.

[Fatima]

guess lizardeatingman was right...it isn't about pride.

Well there you go, you've debunked his whole argument with just a quote by nme and a couple of ellipses. You should be proud of yourself..oops I mean...

[Alchemist]

Well there you go, you've debunked his whole argument with just a quote by nme and a couple of ellipses. You should be proud of yourself..oops I mean...

I don't run in circles Fatima jan.
And I am not here to debunk his argument. I am trying to figure out what his argument is, in other words, what hanafi fiqh means to him.
I can already tell what it means to you.
Off u go...

[maneatinglizard]

Few questions that require an answer:

They're stupid questions, but I'll answer them anyways, Inshallah.

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?

Allah Subhana wa Taala didn't decree that one should follow a Madhab, but that one should follow the people of knowledge, and those in authority, i.e. the scholars.

The way fiqh developed was that scholars began forming schools to ease the learning process and prevent the chaos that may ensue from every scholar having a completely separate system of usul and opinions, and eventually four schools began to overtake the others, until only those four remained.

We follow one of those because that's all that's left, not because it is stated in the Quran that we must.

Now, I have to wonder what your answer is to a person who asks you if Allah Subhana wa Taala decreed that we should follow the ahadith in Sahih Bukhari, Muslim, etc.

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?

No one ever said that they have a monopoly on the truth.

By definition a Mujtahid is entitled to his opinion, and therefore, even if he were wrong, there would be nothing wrong with that.

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?

1. This is begging the question, and not even worth answering.

2. Hanafis don't reject any ahadith because it conflicts with their desires. I can't say the same about the Ahle Hadith, unfortunately.

3. If a mujtahid rejects a hadith for a justifiable reason, and another accepts it for another justifiable reason, there this is nothing wrong with this.

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

Appeal to ridicule.

Anyways, there is only one haqq, but the issues in which the mujtahideen differ are considered valid differences of opinions, i.e. ones where both sides present an argument strong enough that it is difficult to determine which is correct and which is incorrect.

Of course, there is no way for an ignorant person like you or me to make such a decision.

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?

This is the one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

The Hanafi Imams are right in that they made justifiable Ijtihad. They are not the only source of truth as the Shia believe with their Imams.

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?

This is so fallacious I feel sorry for you for even asking the question.

No one has ever made the claims you want me to answer, so I wont even bother taking this seriously enough to answer it.

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

If Salafis are following Haqq how come they have changed and splintered into more sects in their short history than the Hanafis, nay, all of the 4 Madhabs, have done in their over 1000 years of existence?

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

Of course. He taught his students, who taught their students, etc. until today.

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)

1. Imam Abu Hanifa had far more than 2 students.

2. It was only Imam Muhammad ash-Shaybani who studied with Imam Malik

3. Imam Muhammad disagreed with Imam Malik on many issues, which he explains in some of his books, including his recension of the Muwatta (which is translated into English)

4. Imam Muhammad agreed with and gave verdicts according to Imam Abu Hanifa's Usul, nor Imam Malik's. That is what makes him a Hanafi.

...also whose own student founded the Shafi fiqh because he disagreed with As Shaybani...

And your point?

Imam Muhammad had a lot more than one student, you know.

then Imam Abu Yusuf also studied under Imam Malik and Imam Layth bin Sa'd.

A scholar may have had thousands of teachers.

It doesn't change the fact that Imam Abu Yusuf agreed with Imam Abu Hanifa in matters of Usul, and gave fatawa according to those Usul, and propagated the school of Imam Abu Hanifa, making him a Hanafi.

Then lizardman says that the people who criticized Abu Hanifa had some grudge on him and had

They did.

...even though that person is none other than Imam Malik

He never criticized Imam Abu Hanifa.

..whose words hold no weight

His words do hold weight. But he never said those words.

... very confusing ...yeah lizard ... ur too smart for me. I guess I should just follow your madhab because you know better.

I'm not worthy of being followed, as I am myself a follower.

I will respond to the rest of the posts later, Inshallah.

Salam Alaikum

[Alchemist]

They're stupid questions, but I'll answer them anyways, Inshallah.

Why do you do that?
Why do you chide inquirers?
Why do you say that we are not allowed to question the how of fiqh but just accept it verbatim?
Why do you treat us like fools?
These are important questions that you may not have the answer to. That much is clear.

Allah Subhana wa Taala didn't decree that one should follow a Madhab, but that one should follow the people of knowledge, and those in authority, i.e. the scholars.

Yes, we follow scholars when we go to the masjid and pray behind the "imam" and listen to his khutbah during jummah and maybe in some halaqat or off of youtube...but what does that have to do with imam abu hanifa? Because when I listen to the khateeb he doesn't say "because Imam abu hanifa says this that" ...he quotes the Quran and the ahadith.

The way fiqh developed was that scholars began forming schools to ease the learning process and prevent the chaos that may ensue from every scholar having a completely separate system of usul and opinions, and eventually four schools began to overtake the others, until only those four remained.

their remained four?
Why can't the school of jafari fiqh be considered a madhab as well then? Imam Jaffar was the great great grandchild of the Prophet peace be upon him, surely he was taught by those most closest to The Prophet Peace be upon him.
And what are the great differences between the shafee and the hanafi? That they raise their hands during dua or not? Wiggle the finger during salah or dont? Aren't these more stupider questions?

We follow one of those because that's all that's left, not because it is stated in the Quran that we must.

well that is your opinion!

Now, I have to wonder what your answer is to a person who asks you if Allah Subhana wa Taala decreed that we should follow the ahadith in Sahih Bukhari, Muslim, etc.

Allah decreed that we should follow the example of the Prophet peace be upon him. And Bukhari and Muslim (ra) compiled the eye witnessed examples and sayings of The Prophet peace be upon him.

No one ever said that they have a monopoly on the truth.

By definition a Mujtahid is entitled to his opinion, and therefore, even if he were wrong, there would be nothing wrong with that.

1. This is begging the question, and not even worth answering.

2. Hanafis don't reject any ahadith because it conflicts with their desires. I can't say the same about the Ahle Hadith, unfortunately.

3. If a mujtahid rejects a hadith for a justifiable reason, and another accepts it for another justifiable reason, there this is nothing wrong with this.



Appeal to ridicule.

Anyways, there is only one haqq, but the issues in which the mujtahideen differ are considered valid differences of opinions, i.e. ones where both sides present an argument strong enough that it is difficult to determine which is correct and which is incorrect.

Two hanafi scholars have posted two different verdicts on masturbation on the internet. One of them is from a famous fatwa factory in deoband. The problem with mujtahids having "opinions" is that it is too whimsical a way of dealing with serious issues.
Did you know that Imam Abu Hanifa studied under Imam Jaffar for two years? Upon their first encounter Imam Jaffar asked Abu Hanifa if he judges by "qias" (analogy). Then he asked him if this were the case, then which one would be deemed a greater sin: Murder or Adultery? Imam Abu Hanifa said Murder. Imam Jaffar asked "If this is the case then why does Allah demand just two witnesses for Murder but four for Adultery?" Logically analogy has room for "error" so you can't say "Haq is one" and also say that "mujtahids may have varying opinions"....how silly is that?

Of course, there is no way for an ignorant person like you or me to make such a decision.

speak for your self.

This is the one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

The Hanafi Imams are right in that they made justifiable Ijtihad. They are not the only source of truth as the Shia believe with their Imams.

Justified according to who?
If you are too ignorant to make that judgment call on his Ijtihad how would you know it's "justifiable"?

This is so fallacious I feel sorry for you for even asking the question.

No one has ever made the claims you want me to answer, so I wont even bother taking this seriously enough to answer it.



If Salafis are following Haqq how come they have changed and splintered into more sects in their short history than the Hanafis, nay, all of the 4 Madhabs, have done in their over 1000 years of existence?

That is a good counter but it doesn't explain the differences in verdicts from imams from the same school of fiqh.
Do you understand the basics of law? How, for example, the legal system in America works? Do you know how cases are treated in an individual basis such that those cases that have similar scenerios are treated the same way so that justice is meted evenly? If hanafi imams are all of the same school of thought, shouldn't they also have the same rulings on major issues? Will you deny that there are differences?

Of course. He taught his students, who taught their students, etc. until today.



1. Imam Abu Hanifa had far more than 2 students.

2. It was only Imam Muhammad ash-Shaybani who studied with Imam Malik

3. Imam Muhammad disagreed with Imam Malik on many issues, which he explains in some of his books, including his recension of the Muwatta (which is translated into English)

4. Imam Muhammad agreed with and gave verdicts according to Imam Abu Hanifa's Usul, nor Imam Malik's. That is what makes him a Hanafi.



And your point?

Imam Muhammad had a lot more than one student, you know.



A scholar may have had thousands of teachers.

It doesn't change the fact that Imam Abu Yusuf agreed with Imam Abu Hanifa in matters of Usul, and gave fatawa according to those Usul, and propagated the school of Imam Abu Hanifa, making him a Hanafi.



They did.



He never criticized Imam Abu Hanifa.
His words do hold weight. But he never said those words.

The criticism is in Tarikh al-Baghdad Volume 13 page 392

I'm not worthy of being followed, as I am myself a follower.

I will respond to the rest of the posts later, Inshallah.

Salam Alaikum

Wa3alikum asalm

[Mujib]

Why do you chide inquirers?

They are questions/arguments the same persons have made before and they've been answered in many discussions.

Brother Alchemist, forgive me, but you seem to be arguing for argument's sake. Or you are presenting sincere inquiries in a confrontational language. You're even taking on the arguments of other people, arguments which in other circumstances you would have been far removed from.

You want the details of every Islamic science, the foundations of jurisprudence, the methodologies of the schools, the history of their formulations, and much more, all explained to you on a discussion forum. That won't happen, brother. If your inquiries are serious, sign up for an introductory course, either with a reliable scholar in your area, or online with services such as SunniPath.com or SeekersGuidance.org.

Long discussions with point by point responses won't be of benefit, especially since you seem to be bringing up a different issue in each response.

There are also a few books brother maneatinglizard or I could recommend, if you'd like.

[Azad Khel]

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. 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!

This is totally false...............

[Alchemist]

They are questions/arguments the same persons have made before and they've been answered in many discussions.

Brother Alchemist, forgive me, but you seem to be arguing for argument's sake. Or you are presenting sincere inquiries in a confrontational language. You're even taking on the arguments of other people, arguments which in other circumstances you would have been far removed from.

You want the details of every Islamic science, the foundations of jurisprudence, the methodologies of the schools, the history of their formulations, and much more, all explained to you on a discussion forum. That won't happen, brother. If your inquiries are serious, sign up for an introductory course, either with a reliable scholar in your area, or online with services such as SunniPath.com or SeekersGuidance.org.

Long discussions with point by point responses won't be of benefit, especially since you seem to be bringing up a different issue in each response.

There are also a few books brother maneatinglizard or I could recommend, if you'd like.

No, they haven't been answered.
So far your answer and lizardeatingman's answer has been: "The answer is too complicated and difficult for someone like you to understand just accept it and don't question."
That is hardly an answer. How can you have a madhab when the differences are merely regional. This is what happened with the christians. They institutionalized religion in such a way so that common worshippers felt that they had to have someone like the pope or the father to intercede for them because they were illiterate and could not possibly understand the text of the bible. It's not nuclear science. The questions are clear and simple but you have to make the answers so twisted and convoluted that even you don't recognize it...which is why you have to say that the problem is not the question but the questionaire...
You have recommended books for me already but none of those books answered my question. How do you know you are following hanafi fiqh? Because your own family, relatives and friends follow it? Then it is just something you follow out of convenience and not because of a conscious effort on your part to know what is haq. See I can psychoanalyze you too. If it is more than you care to take up on...there is no pressure on you or lizardman to answer me. Salam.