Author: Shaykh Muallim Jan
Imam al-A‘zam Abu Hanifah (RA): The Role Model (part 3)
Collection of Articles
Responses to the Objections Raised Against Imam al-Aʿzam Abu Hanifah (RA)
First Objection
The first objection is that Imam al-Nasa’i (RA) mentioned Imam Abu Hanifah (RA) in his book Al-Du‘afa’ and wrote: “Nu‘man ibn Thabit Abu Hanifah is not strong in Hadith.” In other words, Imam Abu Hanifah (RA) was allegedly not proficient in the science of Hadith.
Response
The scholars of Jarh wa Ta‘dil established principles according to which criticisms of narrators are evaluated. If these principles are not observed, the integrity and reliability of many great Hadith scholars would also become questionable, because virtually every major scholar has been criticized by someone.
For example:
-
Yahya ibn Ma ‘in (RA) criticized Imam al-Shafi ‘i (RA).
-
Imam al-Karabisi (RA) criticized Imam Ahmad (RA).
-
Al-Dhuhali (RA) criticized Imam al-Bukhari (RA).
-
Imam Ahmad (RA) criticized Imam al-Awza ‘i (RA).
If all such criticisms were accepted without qualification, none of these great scholars would remain trustworthy.
Furthermore, Ibn Hazm (RA) considered both Imam al-Tirmidhi (RA) and Imam Ibn Majah (RA) to be unknown (majhul). Likewise, some scholars accused Imam al-Nasa’i (RA) himself of having Shi‘i inclinations.
The reality is that scholars laid down principles for Jarh wa Ta‘dil. One of the foremost principles is that when a scholar’s leadership, integrity, and reliability have reached the level of widespread acceptance (tawatur), the criticism of one or two individuals is not considered authoritative. The integrity and leadership of Imam Abu Hanifah (RA) undoubtedly reached such a level. Therefore, isolated criticism from one or two individuals is not sufficient to undermine his standing.
Some contemporary critics object by citing the famous principle: Al-Jarh Muqaddam ‘Ala al-Ta’dil: “Criticism takes precedence over accreditation.” They argue that since both criticism and praise exist regarding Imam Abu Hanifah (RA), the criticism should be preferred.
However, this objection stems from a misunderstanding of the principles of Jarh wa Ta‘dil. The Hadith scholars explained that this rule is not absolute; rather, it is subject to conditions.
When criticism and accreditation conflict, scholars adopted two methods for determining preference.
The first method, which represents the second principle of Jarh wa Ta‘dil, was explained by Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (RA) in Al-Kifayah fi Usul al-Hadith wa al-Riwayah. According to this approach, the number of scholars on each side is considered, and preference is given to the side with greater support. Taj al-Din al-Subki (RA) also endorsed this view.
Applying this method, there remains no doubt concerning the reliability of Imam Abu Hanifah (RA). Those who criticized him were only a few individuals, namely:
-
Imam al-Nasa’i (RA)
-
Imam al-Bukhari (RA)
-
Imam al-Daraqutni (RA)
-
Hafiz Ibn ‘Adi (RA)
Moreover, Ibn ‘Adi (RA) later revised his opinion after becoming a student of Imam al-Tahawi (RA) and recognizing the greatness of Imam Abu Hanifah (RA). He subsequently stated: “Abu Hanifah was narrated from by al-Thawri, Ibn al-Mubarak, Hisham, Waki‘, ‘Abbad ibn al-‘Awwam, and Ja‘far ibn ‘Awn. He is trustworthy and there is no problem with him.”
In addition, many leading Hadith authorities authenticated him, including:
-
‘Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak (RA)
-
Makki ibn Ibrahim (RA)
-
Yazid ibn Harun (RA)
-
Sufyan al-Thawri (RA)
-
Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah (RA)
-
Isra’il ibn Yunus (RA)
-
Yahya ibn Adam (RA)
-
Waki‘ ibn al-Jarrah (RA)
-
Imam al-Shafi‘i (RA)
-
Fadl ibn Dukayn (RA)
Therefore, even if preference is based solely on the number of scholars, the accreditation of Imam Abu Hanifah (RA) remains firmly established.
The second method, which represents the third principle of Jarh wa Ta‘dil, was mentioned by Hafiz Ibn al-Salah (RA) in his Muqaddimah and reflects the position of the majority of Hadith scholars.
According to this principle: If a criticism is not explained (ghayr mufassar), accreditation takes precedence. Accreditation is accepted whether detailed or general, whereas criticism must be supported by a clear explanation.
Applying this principle to Imam Abu Hanifah (RA), the criticisms directed against him are vague and unexplained, whereas the statements praising him are detailed and supported by evidence concerning his piety, righteousness, and exceptional memory.
Second Objection
The second objection is based on a statement attributed to Hafiz Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi (RA) in Mizan al-I‘tidal fi Asma’ al-Rijal, where he allegedly writes, “Nu’man ibn Thabit al-Kufi, the Imam of the People of Opinion; he was declared weak by al-Nasa’i, Ibn ‘Adi, al-Daraqutni, and others.”
Response
The answer is that this statement is an interpolation and is not part of the original text. It is not the statement of al-Dhahabi (RA) himself. Rather, it was either added later as a marginal note and subsequently incorporated into the text, inserted mistakenly by a copyist, or deliberately added by someone else.
Several pieces of evidence support this conclusion:
1. In the introduction to Mizan al-I‘tidal, al-Dhahabi (RA) explicitly states that he does not include those great Imams whose integrity and reliability have reached the level of widespread acceptance, even if some criticism has been directed against them. He specifically mentions Imam Abu Hanifah (RA) as an example.
How, then, could he later include him in the book?
2. Al-Dhahabi (RA) generally did not include major Imams in Mizan al-I‘tidal. Instead, he wrote a separate work entitled Tadhkirat al-Huffaz for such scholars, where he not only mentions Imam Abu Hanifah (RA) but also praises him extensively.
3. Hafiz Ibn Hajar (RA) based his book Lisan al-Mizan upon Mizan al-I‘tidal. Individuals not mentioned in Mizan al-I‘tidal are generally not included in Lisan al-Mizan either.
Imam Abu Hanifah (RA) is not mentioned in Lisan al-Mizan, which strongly indicates that he was likewise absent from the original text of Mizan al-I‘tidal and that the disputed passage was added later.
4. Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah (RA) writes in the footnotes of Al-Raf‘ wa al-Takmil (p. 101) that he visited Damascus and examined a manuscript of Mizan al-I‘tidal in the Zahiriyyah Library. The manuscript had been copied by one of al-Dhahabi’s students, Sharaf al-Din al-‘Alwani, who recorded that he had read the work before his teacher three times.
In that manuscript, there was no mention whatsoever of Imam Abu Hanifah (RA).
Similarly, a manuscript preserved in the famous Khizanah al-‘Amirah Library in Rabat, Morocco, catalogued under number 139, contained several ownership and reading records from al-Dhahabi’s students. One record indicated that the manuscript had been read before al-Dhahabi (RA) only a year before his death. This manuscript also contained no mention of Imam Abu Hanifah (RA). Therefore, attributing this statement to al-Dhahabi (RA) is an unfounded accusation.
As for Ibn ‘Adi (RA), it is true that he initially opposed Imam Abu Hanifah (RA) and criticized him. However, after becoming a student of Imam al-Tahawi (RA) and recognizing Imam Abu Hanifah’s true stature, he changed his position and even compiled Musnad al-Imam al-A‘zam. Consequently, his earlier criticism is not regarded as authoritative evidence.
The response to Imam al-Nasa’i’s criticism has already been discussed above.
Third Objection
The third objection is that Imam al-Daraqutni (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote under the hadith, “Whoever has an imam, the imam’s recitation is sufficient for his recitation,” the following statement: “No one narrated it as a connected chain from Musa ibn Abi A’ishah except Abu Hanifah and al-Husayn ibn ‘Umarah, and both are weak.”
Response
The answer to this objection is the same as the response given to the criticism of Imam al-Nasa’i (may Allah have mercy on him). The essential question is: whose judgment concerning Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) should be given greater weight—those great hadith authorities who were his contemporaries or lived close to his time, such as Imam Shu‘bah, Yahya ibn Sa‘id al-Qattan, Yahya ibn Ma‘in, ‘Ali ibn al-Madini, Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, Sufyan al-Thawri, Waki‘ ibn al-Jarrah, Makki ibn Ibrahim, Isra’il ibn Yunus, and Yahya ibn Adam, or that of Imam al-Daraqutni, who lived approximately two hundred years after Imam Abu Hanifah?
In fact, a statement of Yahya ibn Ma‘in indicates that up to his time no one had criticized Imam Abu Hanifah. He said, “I have not heard anyone criticize him.”
A question may arise: How could eminent hadith scholars such as Imam al-Daraqutni and Imam al-Nasa’i make such claims regarding Imam Abu Hanifah?
The answer is that we do not doubt their sincerity. However, the reality is that Allah granted Imam al-A‘zam Abu Hanifah an extraordinary scholarly rank and distinction, which naturally attracted many detractors. Various allegations were spread against him, such as the claim that he preferred analogical reasoning (qiyas) over hadith. These reports became so widespread that many scholars who were unaware of the actual facts were influenced by them.
Many scholars who later discovered the truth retracted their earlier positions. One example is Hafiz Ibn ‘Adi, and another is Imam al-Awza‘i.
Allamah al-Kardari narrates through al-Saymari from Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak (may Allah have mercy on them) that he said:
“I traveled to Syria and met Imam al-Awza‘i. When he learned that I had come from Kufa, he asked me, “Who is this innovator who has appeared in Kufa and is known as Abu Hanifah?” Ibn al-Mubarak said, “At that moment, I did not think it appropriate to answer in detail. Instead, after returning to my residence, I compiled a collection of legal rulings deduced by Imam Abu Hanifah, which I had memorized. However, instead of writing ‘Abu Hanifah said,’ I wrote ‘al-Nu‘man ibn Thabit said.’ I then presented the collection to Imam al-Awza‘i and asked him to examine these rulings.”
After reviewing them, Imam al-Awza‘i asked, “Who is al-Nu‘man?” I replied, “He is the same Abu Hanifah whom you mentioned.”
Later, Imam al-Awza‘i met Imam Abu Hanifah personally and discussed those legal issues with him. Imam Abu Hanifah explained them clearly and thoroughly. After Imam Abu Hanifah departed, I asked Imam al-Awza’i, “What do you think of him?” Imam al-Awza‘i replied, “I envy this man for his vast knowledge and exceptional intelligence. I seek Allah’s forgiveness. I was clearly mistaken about him. He is entirely different from what I had heard about him.”
As for those scholars who never became aware of the actual facts, they remained on their earlier opinions. We hope that, due to their sincerity, they are excused. Nevertheless, their statements cannot outweigh the judgments of those scholars who came to know the reality firsthand.
Conclusion
The conclusion is that Imam Abu Hanifah held a very high rank in the science of hadith. Any criticisms directed at him were based on inaccurate information. Those who studied his life impartially acknowledged his great status in hadith scholarship and rejected the objections raised against him.
For example, Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan discusses Imam Abu Hanifah in his book al-Taj al-Mukallal, praising his jurisprudence and piety. At the end, he states: “Nothing was criticized about him except a supposed deficiency in Arabic.” Even this allegation is unfounded.
Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan quoted this statement from Qadi Ibn Khallikan in Wafayat al-A‘yan. However, Ibn Khallikan himself later refuted this accusation. The allegation was based on a single incident in which Imam Abu Hanifah was sitting in the Sacred Mosque when a Nahwi (Arabic grammarian) asked him the following: “If a person strikes another with a stone, is retaliation (qisas) applicable?” Imam Abu Hanifah replied, “No.” The Nahwi then asked, “Even if he strikes him with a large rock (sakhrah)?” Imam Abu Hanifah replied, “Yes, even if he strikes him with Abu Qubays.” The Nahwi later spread the claim that Imam Abu Hanifah lacked proficiency in Arabic because he said “bi Aba Qubays” instead of “bi Abi Qubays.”
However, Ibn Khallikan explains that this criticism is invalid because there is an Arab tribe whose dialect uses the letter alif instead of the expected grammatical form in such constructions. As evidence, he cites the famous verse:
إِنَّ أَبَاهَا وَأَبَا أَبَاهَا
قَدْ بَلَغَا فِي الْمَجْدِ غَايَتَاهَا
Here too, the standard form would differ, yet the poet used the dialectal construction. Therefore, Imam Abu Hanifah’s expression conformed to a recognized Arabic dialect, demonstrating—not diminishing—his mastery of the Arabic language. Thus, this accusation, like the others, is nothing more than an unfair and baseless allegation.
To be continued…
