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

[شمله ور خراساني]

As salaamu aleikoum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,

Let us delve in to this highly controversial subject and discuss what the Madhab of the founder of the biggest school of fiqh among Muslims was.

It is highly unlikely to claim that Imaam Abu Haneefah was Hanafi by Madhab. Because most of the Hanafi madhab of today is very confusing. There are so many different opinions and views among people who claim to be Hanafi. It is often very confusing for people to understand what exactly Hanafi is.

So let us try to come to a better understanding by going to the root of the issue. And ask the fundamental question: What was the madhab of Imaam Abu Haneefah himself?


Who can define the madhab of Imaam Abu Haneefah?

[Millatpal Noorzai]

That of Quran and Hadith.

[شمله ور خراساني]

[maneatinglizard]

A very stupid question.

Imam Abu Hanifa Rahmat Allahi Alayh was a Mujathid that laid down the foundations for the Hanafi Madhab.

He belonged to the Kufan tradition of scholars, who took the knowledge of various Sahaba and primarily that Abdullah ibn Mas`ud Radi Allahu Anh.

The question is similar to a person asking what the religion of a founder of a religion was, or the nationality of the founder of a nation was.

As for the claim that the current Hanafi Madhab is confusing, then this is a lie. Rather, it should be said that those who claim to follow the "Quran and Sunnah only" are confused, as can be seen in the many divisions of the Salafi sect.

After all, if the Salafis belong to the correct sect, then which brand is it? Is it:

Madkhalis?
Qutbis?
Surooris?
Ahle Hadith?
Hadaadis?

And which of their Imams were correct when they differed? Uthaymeen, or Bin Baaz, or Mubarakpuri, or Sa`di, or Albani?

Yet another question to ask, if the Salafis are correct in their demand that `Aam (lay) people get involved in the evidences that lead to the opinions in fiqh, then why is this not an opinion that existed amongst the vast majority of scholars in the past, who demanded that non-scholars refer to the scholars?

Perhaps that should be THE BIG DEBATE.

[graveyardofempires]

Sangara dey na dey matlab se day?

zanoono nam ratha ta de wechy aaleman jor kerey dey.

[KhyberKhan]

As salaamu aleikoum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu,


Who can define the madhab of Imaam Abu Haneefah?

The wonderful Faqih, Numan ibn Thabit as related by Imam Ibn Barr, said "When a hadeeth is found to be saheeh, then that is my madhhab."

He also told his students not to write down his opinions, incase his position changed from one to another and he feared it would be taken above a stronger hadeeth that hadn't yet reached him.

[maneatinglizard]

The wonderful Faqih, Numan ibn Thabit as related by Imam Ibn Barr, said "When a hadeeth is found to be saheeh, then that is my madhhab."

That only applies to one who is well versed in the evidences, usul, lugha, etc.

Not for people like us who can barely read Arabic properly, let alone decide whether an evidence can be practiced upon

He also told his students not to write down his opinions, incase his position changed from one to another and he feared it would be taken above a stronger hadeeth that hadn't yet reached him.

This is the same claim and argument used by Hadith rejectors to reject Ahadith. After all, there are Sahih Ahadith in which Rasulullah Salla Allahu Alayhi wa Salam ordered the Sahaba not to write down his words.

And yet, here we are 1400 years later with Ahadith, and, likewise, here we are 1300 years later with the opinions if Imam Abu Hanifa Rahmat Allahi Alayh.

The truth of the matter is that the Madhab, and Fiqh in general, are much more complicated and involved than, "The Sahih Ahadith are my way." This is because what is Sahih is not always clear, what is Sahih may be contradictory to something else that is also Sahih, or what is Sahih may be abrogated.

Salam Alaikum

[Khidr]

A very stupid question.

Imam Abu Hanifa Rahmat Allahi Alayh was a Mujathid that laid down the foundations for the Hanafi Madhab.

He belonged to the Kufan tradition of scholars, who took the knowledge of various Sahaba and primarily that Abdullah ibn Mas`ud Radi Allahu Anh.

The question is similar to a person asking what the religion of a founder of a religion was, or the nationality of the founder of a nation was.

As for the claim that the current Hanafi Madhab is confusing, then this is a lie. Rather, it should be said that those who claim to follow the "Quran and Sunnah only" are confused, as can be seen in the many divisions of the Salafi sect.

After all, if the Salafis belong to the correct sect, then which brand is it? Is it:

Madkhalis?
Qutbis?
Surooris?
Ahle Hadith?
Hadaadis?

And which of their Imams were correct when they differed? Uthaymeen, or Bin Baaz, or Mubarakpuri, or Sa`di, or Albani?

Yet another question to ask, if the Salafis are correct in their demand that `Aam (lay) people get involved in the evidences that lead to the opinions in fiqh, then why is this not an opinion that existed amongst the vast majority of scholars in the past, who demanded that non-scholars refer to the scholars?

Perhaps that should be THE BIG DEBATE.

Game, set and match!

[Alchemist]

A very stupid question.

Imam Abu Hanifa Rahmat Allahi Alayh was a Mujathid that laid down the foundations for the Hanafi Madhab.

He belonged to the Kufan tradition of scholars, who took the knowledge of various Sahaba and primarily that Abdullah ibn Mas`ud Radi Allahu Anh.

The question is similar to a person asking what the religion of a founder of a religion was, or the nationality of the founder of a nation was.

As for the claim that the current Hanafi Madhab is confusing, then this is a lie. Rather, it should be said that those who claim to follow the "Quran and Sunnah only" are confused, as can be seen in the many divisions of the Salafi sect.

After all, if the Salafis belong to the correct sect, then which brand is it? Is it:

Madkhalis?
Qutbis?
Surooris?
Ahle Hadith?
Hadaadis?

And which of their Imams were correct when they differed? Uthaymeen, or Bin Baaz, or Mubarakpuri, or Sa`di, or Albani?

Yet another question to ask, if the Salafis are correct in their demand that `Aam (lay) people get involved in the evidences that lead to the opinions in fiqh, then why is this not an opinion that existed amongst the vast majority of scholars in the past, who demanded that non-scholars refer to the scholars?

Perhaps that should be THE BIG DEBATE.

He never wrote any book so where did he "lay the foundation of hanafi fiqh"?

[maneatinglizard]

He never wrote any book so where did he "lay the foundation of hanafi fiqh"?

A few things to note:

1. He did write books.

Fiqh al-Akbar (a translation into English is available)

al-`Alim wal-Muta`alim

Are two examples that I can remember off the top of my head, though there are more.

2. He did not have to have written anything to lay down the foundations of the Madhab. Remember, Rasulullah Salla Allahu Alayhi wa Salam wrote nothing down either.

Rather, his students collected his statements and verdicts, as well as his Usul, and then they complied these into works.

There are a few Ahadith works that consist of Ahadith related by Imam Abu Hanifa Rahmat Allahi Alayh which he related to his students. There is his Musnad, as well as the Kitab al-Athar (which is also translated).

In addition to that, the core of the Madhab lies in the Dhahir Riwayah, a collection of works written by Imam Muhammad ash-Shaybani Rahmat Allahi Alayh, the direct student of Imam Abu Hanifa, who recorded the opinions of Imam Abu Hanifa, as well as those of his most senior students.

There are a few other works written by his direct students that are also foundational to the Madhab.

[KhyberKhan]

That only applies to one who is well versed in the evidences, usul, lugha, etc.

Not for people like us who can barely read Arabic properly, let alone decide whether an evidence can be practiced upon

I've heard this response before.

His notable students, who *were* versed in evidences disagreed with Imam Abu Hanifa, in so much as as a third of his madhab. Some accepted the mutawatir hadith of rafulyadain, others held the view that there was a rain prayer, contrary to Imam Abu Hanifa's position at his time. Since the evidences of the Sharee'ah had been scattered with the successors and their successors, and had not been collected in his lifetime, his position is therefore understandable. This does not take anything away from Imam Abu Hanifa as similar incidents happened with the other Imams.

This is the same claim and argument used by Hadith rejectors to reject Ahadith.

I have no time for the Quraniyoon. They defeat themselves with their qiyas.

The truth of the matter is that the Madhab, and Fiqh in general, are much more complicated and involved than, "The Sahih Ahadith are my way." This is because what is Sahih is not always clear, what is Sahih may be contradictory to something else that is also Sahih, or what is Sahih may be abrogated.

Salam Alaikum

That's why it's a science in and of itself. If someones living his/her life as a cattle herder, in the middle of no where, day in, day out. Fine, stick to your madhab. It's sufficient for you. But when you go overboard with personalities, in clear cut circumstances, then there's time for introspection.

Allah knows best.

[Alchemist]

fiqh ul Akbar wasn't written by Abu Hanifah.

[maneatinglizard]

I've heard this response before.

His notable students, who *were* versed in evidences disagreed with Imam Abu Hanifa, in so much as as a third of his madhab.

And the Madhab in general does not follow every single opinion that Imam Abu Hanifa Rahmat Allahi Alayh had. Sometimes one of his students had a stronger opinion according to the usul of the madhab, and so that opinion is favored.

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

Some accepted the mutawatir hadith of rafulyadain,

1. Which of his companions?

2. Where is your proof that the making of rafa` al-yadain is proven by mutawatir ahadith? Moreover, even if there is mutawatir proof, then this does not mean that this was the final practice of Rasulullah Salla Allahu Alayhi wa Salam, as there also exists strong evidence and ahadith that indicate that he Salla Allhu Alayhi wa Salam didn't make rafa` al-yadain. A lot has been written on this subject due to the fitna of the Ahle Hadith, some of which go so far as to make takfir on one who doesn't perform this practice, which is at best mustahab. Suffice it to say that it has been proven multiple times over and over that the Hanafi position is a strong one, Alhamdulillah.

others held the view that there was a rain prayer, contrary to Imam Abu Hanifa's position at his time.

Imam Abu Hanifa did not reject the Salat al-Istisqaa', rather his opinion was that it should be prayed alone, and not in a group. And there is evidence for this position.

Since the evidences of the Sharee'ah had been scattered with the successors and their successors, and had not been collected in his lifetime, his position is therefore understandable.

The problem with this is that it isn't true, and is again another misconception spread by the Hadith rejectors. While written compilations weren't as common during this time as they were after the first three generations, they certainly existed. One of the most famous of all the ahadith compilations, and third most authentic, the Muwatta of Imam Malik Rahmat Allahi Alayh, was written by a contemporary of Imam Abu Hanifa. There were others as well. Some have been lost, many of them eventually incorporated into the larger works. But it is foolish to believe that no one knew what they were talking about for the first two or three hundred years of Islam, and we had to wait until the famous six collections were written before we could begin to define Islam and Sharia properly.

In fact, it is somewhat funny that you mention that the evidences had been scattered with the successor, when he was one of them himself!

Imam Abu Hanifa learned ahadith with many teachers, narrated many ahadith to his students (which can be found in his Musnad and Kitab al-Athar), and suffice it to say that the notion that he didn't know ahadith well enough to give proper rulings is foolish indeed.

I have no time for the Quraniyoon. They defeat themselves with their qiyas.

The problem is that you are using the same argument they use to reject the ahadith to reject the Imams and the Madhahib.

That's why it's a science in and of itself. If someones living his/her life as a cattle herder, in the middle of no where, day in, day out. Fine, stick to your madhab.

Were the scholars of Islam, almost all of which after the first three generations followed one of the 4 Madhahib cattle herders in the middle of nowhere?

Were:

Imam Muhammad ash-Shaybani
Imam Abu Yusuf
Imam Zufar
Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi
Shaikh al-Islam Marghinani
Imam al-Quduri
Mulla Ali al-Qari
Shah Waliullah
Ibn Abideen ash-Shaami

Imam Nawawi
al-`Izz ibn Abdus-Salam
Hafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani
Imam adh-Dhahabi
Imam al-Mizzi
Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Haythami
Imam Ramali
Imam ibn Kathir

Imam ibn Abdul Barr
Ibn Rushd
Imam al-Qurtubi
ibn Khaldun
Uthman dan Fodio

Imam al-Khalal
Imam Khiraqi
Imam ibn Qudama
Imam Majdudeen ibn Taymiyyah
Shaikh al-Islam Taqiudeen ibn Taymiyyah
ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah
ibn al-Jawzi
Shaikh Abdul Qadir al-Jaylani

(Rahmat Allahi Alayhum)

And just about every other scholar, major or minor you can think of, aside from Ibn Hazm and the other Dhahiris, Qadi Shawkani, and the Ahle Hadith of modern days, ignorant sheep herders? Why did they follow a Madhab?

Or were they all lazy? Or were they intentionally destroying the Deen?

Or, are you wrong?

It's sufficient for you. But when you go overboard with personalities, in clear cut circumstances, then there's time for introspection.

Allah knows best.

No one is going overboard with personalities by following a Madhab. Like I said, we don't follow Imam Abu Hanifa exclusively, but we follow the Usul he formulated, and the scholars who have extracted the Sharia from the sources through them.

fiqh ul Akbar wasn't written by Abu Hanifah.

Yes it was.

Salam Alaikum

[Badlun]

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!

[Alchemist]

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).

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...