Author: Shaykh Muallim Jan Hanafi
Imam al-A‘zam Abu Hanifah (RA): The Role Model (part 4)
Collection of Articles
Fourth Objection
The fourth objection is that Imam al-Bukhari (RA), in al-Tarikh al-Saghir, narrates through Nuʿaym ibn Hammad that when news of the death of Imam Abu Hanifah (RA) reached Sufyan al-Thawrī (RA), he reportedly said: “الحمد لله كان ينقض الإسلام عروة عروة ما ولد في الإسلام آثم منه.” Translation: “Praise be to Allah (SWT)! He was dismantling Islam strand by strand; no one more sinful than him has ever been born in Islam.”
In response, it is said that this narration is undoubtedly false. Imam al-Bukhārī should not be blamed in this regard, for he merely recorded what had reached him. Nuʿaym ibn Hammad harbored severe prejudice against Imam Abu Hanifah (RA), and the strongest proof of the falsity of this report is that it was transmitted by Nuʿaym himself. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (RA) wrote in Tahdhib al-Tahdhīb that although some hadith scholars regarded Nuʿaym ibn Hammad as trustworthy, he used to narrate fabricated reports concerning Imam Abu Hanifah. Ibn Hajar states: “يروى حكايات في ثلب أبي حنيفة رحمه الله كلها كذب.” Translation: “He narrates stories criticizing Abu Hanifah, all of which are false.”
After this statement, there remains little need to further refute Nuʿaym’s narration. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine how Sufyan al-Thawrī (RA) could have uttered such words when he was himself a student of Imam Abu Hanifah and issued legal verdicts in approximately ninety percent of matters according to the opinions of the Imam.
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar also relates an incident in which Imam Abu Hanifah came to offer condolences upon the death of Sufyan al-Thawrī’s brother. Sufyan was teaching at the time, yet he stood up in respect. Some people disapproved of this gesture, whereupon Sufyan said: “هذا رجل من العلم بمكان، فإن لم أقم لعلمه قمت لسنه، وإن لم أقم لسنه قمت لفقهه، وإن لم أقم لفقهه قمت لورعه.” Translation: “This man occupies an eminent position among the scholars. If I do not stand for his knowledge, then I should stand for his seniority in age; if not for his age, then for his jurisprudence; and if not for his jurisprudence, then for his piety.”
This incident clearly demonstrates the immense respect and esteem that Sufyan al-Thawrī held for Imam Abu Hanifah.
A question may then be raised: Why would a distinguished ḥadīth scholar such as Imam al-Bukhārī narrate such a false report?
The first answer is that some opponents of Imam Abu Hanifah may have influenced Imam al-Bukhari’s perception, causing him not to detect any problem with reports transmitted by Nuʿaym ibn Hammad.
Another possible factor is that one of Imam al-Bukhari’s teachers was al-Humaydi, who inclined toward the Zahiri methodology. Followers of this school were often strongly critical of Imam Abu Hanifah, and it is possible that Imam al-Bukhārī was affected by some of his teacher’s views.
Shaykh ʿAbd al-Wahhab al-Shaʿrani (RA) relates in al-Mizan al-Kubra that Sufyan al-Thawrī himself was initially influenced by those who claimed that Imam Abu Hanifah gave preference to analogical reasoning (qiyas) over explicit textual evidence. On one occasion, Sufyan al-Thawrī, Muqatil ibn Hayyan, Hammad ibn Salamah, and Jaʿfar al-Sadiq (may Allah have mercy on them all) engaged in scholarly discussions with Imam Abu Hanifah from morning until midday. Imam Abu Hanifah presented the evidence of his school, and at the conclusion of the discussion they kissed his hand and said, “أنت سيد العلماء فاعف عنا فيما مضى منا من وقعتنا فيك بغير علم.” Translation: “You are the master of the scholars. Forgive us for the statements we previously made against you out of ignorance.”
Fifth Objection
The fifth objection is based on a report from Walid ibn Muslim, who said, “قال مالك بن أنس: أيذكر أبو حنيفة في بلادكم؟ قلت: نعم. فقال: ما ينبغي لبلادكم أن تسكن.” Translation: “Malek ibn Anas asked, ‘Is Abu Hanifah mentioned in your lands?’ I replied, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Then your lands are not worthy of being inhabited.’”
In response to this allegation, ʿAbd al-Wahhab al-Shaʿrani writes in al-Mizan al-Kubra that al-Hafiẓ al-Muzani considered Walid ibn Muslim, the narrator of this report, to be weak. Furthermore, even if the statement were authentically attributed to Imam Malek, its intended meaning would be that when a scholar of the stature of Imam Abu Hanifah is present in a city, there is little need for another scholar to settle there.
Sixth Objection
The sixth objection is that no narrations from Imam Abu Hanifah are found in the six canonical collections (al-Ṣiḥāḥ al-Sittah). It is therefore claimed that the compilers of these works did not regard him as a reliable authority.
Response: This is a very simplistic and unscholarly argument. Imam al-Bukhārī did not transmit even a single narration from Imam al-Shafiʿī. Likewise, Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal—who was one of al-Bukhari’s teachers—narrated only two reports from him: one in a suspended form (taʿliq) and the other through an intermediary.
Similarly, Imam Muslim did not narrate from Imam al-Bukhārī, despite the fact that al-Bukhārī was his teacher. Imam Aḥmad, in his Musnad, transmitted only three narrations from Imam Malek, even though Malek’s chain of transmission is widely regarded as among the strongest of all chains.
Should we then conclude that Imam Malek, Imam al-Shafiʿī, and Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on them all) were weak authorities? Certainly not.
The reality, as explained by al-Zahid al-Kawthari in his commentary on al-Aʾimmah al-Khamsah by al-Khwarazmi, is that the methodology of the ḥadīth scholars was to preserve and record narrations that were at risk of being lost. The four great Imams, however, had vast numbers of students and transmitters, and there was no fear that their narrations would disappear. Consequently, the scholars of ḥadīth did not consider it necessary to repeatedly record and preserve narrations that were already widely transmitted through their numerous disciples.
To be continued…
By admin2