Claims on Imam Abu Haneefah

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله رب العالمين والصلاة والسلام على نبيه الكريم وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين

In the name of Allaah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful. All praise is due to Allaah, Lord of the worlds. Peace and blessings upon His noble Prophet, upon his family and all of his companions.

This is a companion piece to our article regarding Imam Abu Haneefah. The reason this has been made into a separate post, is due to the long length and complexity of the topic.

1- He is criticized and condemned by the Salaf

• The Inherent Invalidity in the Claim

→ Meaning of the word 'Salaf'

Linguistically, Salaf is the plural of saalif (predecessor), and the term denotes precedence and coming before. It is also said that salaf refers to every righteous deed that a servant has sent forth in advance for himself. Allaah, the Exalted, says:

فَلَمَّآ ءَاسَفُونَا ٱنتَقَمْنَا مِنْهُمْ فَأَغْرَقْنَـٰهُمْ أَجْمَعِينَ ٥٥ فَجَعَلْنَـٰهُمْ سَلَفًۭا وَمَثَلًۭا لِّلْـَٔاخِرِينَ ٥٦

55. So when they angered Us, We punished them, and drowned them all. 56. And We made them a precedent (salafan), and an example to later generations. [Az-Zukhruf 43:55-56]

Ibn al-Atheer (d. 606 AH), may Allaah have mercy on him, said:

"A person's salaf are those of his fathers and relatives who preceded him in death. For this reason, the earliest generation of the Tabi'oon came to be known as as-Salaf al-Saalih (the Righteous Predecessors)."

[النهاية في غريب الحديث والأثر]

Terminologically, in the Sharee'ah, as-Salaf refers to the Companions (Sahaabah), the Successors (Tabi'oon), and the Successors of the Successors (Atba' at-Tabi'een). This is the view held by the majority of scholars. See: [شرح أصول اعتقاد أهل السنة والجماعة]

Among the evidences for this is the statement of the Prophet ﷺ:

"The best of people are my generation, then those who come after them, then those who come after them. Then there will come people whose testimony precedes their oath, and whose oath precedes their testimony." [Narrated by Al-Bukhaari and Muslim]

Imam an-Nawawi in [شرح النووي على مسلم] explaining this hadeeth said:

"The correct view is that his generation, peace and blessings upon him, consists of the Companions; the second generation consists of the Successors (Tabi'oon); and the third consists of the Successors of the Tabi'oon (Atba' at-Tabi'een)."

Therefore, what is meant by as-Salaf as-Saalih (the Righteous Predecessors) among the virtuous generations are those who are to be followed in matters of religion, namely, those who adhered to the methodology of the Quraan and the Sunnah. As for anyone who departed from the methodology of the Quraan and the Sunnah, he is not included among them, even if he lived in their midst.

→ Abu Haneefah is from the Salaf

Imam Abu Haneefah (may Allaah have mercy on him) was born in 80 AH. He saw a number of the Companions, including Anas ibn Maalik. It is said he also saw 'Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa al-Ansaari, Abu at-Tufayl 'Aamir ibn Wathilah, 'Abdullah ibn Juz' az-Zubaydi, Jaabir ibn 'Abdullah and some others, may Allaah be pleased with them all.

Adh-Dhahabi in [مناقب الإمام أبي حنيفة وصاحبيه] said:

"He was, In sha Allaah, among the Tabi'oon who followed them with excellence, for it is authentically established that he saw Anas ibn Malik when Anas came to Kufa."

"Muhammad ibn Sa'd said: Sayf ibn Jaabir narrated to us that he heard Abu Haneefah say: 'I saw Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him).'"

Jalaal ad-Deen as-Suyooti in his [تبييض الصحيفة بمناقب أبي حنيفة ] reported that Ibn Hajar al-'Asaqalaani was asked:

"Did Abu Haneefah narrate from any of the Companions? And is he considered one of the Tabi'oon?"

He answered:

"Abu Haneefah lived during the lifetimes of a number of the Companions, for he was born in Kufa in the year 80 AH" - I say: this is the strongest opinion regarding his birth - "and at that time 'Abdullah ibn Abi Awfa was still there, and he died sometime afterwards. In Basrah, Anas was also still alive. Ibn Sa'd narrated with a chain with no issue that Abu Haneefah saw Anas. Besides these two, a number of other Companions were still living in various regions."

"Some scholars compiled a treatise collecting the reports of Abu Haneefah narrating from the Companions, but none of those chains are free from weakness. The reliable position rests upon the fact that he lived during the lifetimes of the Companions mentioned above and that he saw some of them, as reported by Ibn Sa'd in at-Tabaqaat. On this basis, he is considered to belong to the generation of the Tabi'oon. This distinction was not established for any of the leading scholars of the major regions who were his contemporaries, such as al-Awzaa'i in Syria, the two Hammads in Basrah, ath-Thawri in Kufa, Muslim ibn Khalid az-Zinji in Makkah, or al-Layth ibn Sa'd in Egypt."

Some oppose what Adh-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar al-'Asaqalaani mentioned from Ibn Sa'd in at-Tabaqaat as that narration is not found among the copies of it today. There are two answers to it. The first is that it was omitted or not found in the published at-Tabaqaat (at that time), which also ocurred with the biographies of Imams from Hejaz and Kufa. It is possible the same ocurred here. The second, that Abu Ahmad al-Haakim in his [الأسامي والكنى] also narrated with his own chain to Ibn Sa'd which is authentic from Sayf ibn Jaabir that Abu Haneefah said:

"Anas ibn Maalik came to Kufa and stayed among the Banu an-Nakha'. He used to dye his hair with red henna, and I saw him many times."

As-Suyooti also said:

"I came across a fatwa that was submitted to Shaykh Wali ad-Deen al-'Iraqi, a copy of which was found."

He was asked:

"Did Abu Haneefah narrate from any of the Companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him? And is he considered one of the Tabi'oon or not?"

He replied:

"No authentic narration from any of the Companions has been established for Imam Abu Haneefah. He did, however, see Anas ibn Malik. Therefore, whoever considers merely seeing a Companion sufficient for one to be regarded as a Tabi' will count him among the Tabi'oon. As for whoever does not consider mere sight sufficient, he will not regard him as one of the Tabi'oon."

Therefore, imam Abu Haneefah himself was from the Salaf, and belonged to the righteous generations. So the claim itself is false as it implies he was not from them. It also amazes us that his opponents quote from some of the scholars who came after the Salaf, or belonged to the generation that came after his. Whereas according to the Prophet's statement (peace be upon him), the Imam belongs to the generation that is better than those who came after them. If you do not agree with the Haddaadi claims, they will accuse you of going against the Salaf despite the fact the scholars they quote do not come from the Salaf.

• Who criticized him?

Most of the criticisms came from the scholars of Hadeeth, and the reasons ranged from that what was true regarding him, that which was definitively false, and that which consisted of insults and disparaging remarks, as we mentioned in the introduction.

Imam Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (may Allaah have mercy on him) stated in [جامع بيان العلم وفضله]:

"The scholars of hadeeth went to excess in their criticism of Abu Haneefah, exceeding the proper bounds. The reason for this, in their view, was that he used opinion and qiyaas and relied on them over the narrations. The majority of the scholars maintain that, 'When an authentic report is established through a sound chain of transmission, qiyaas and opinion become invalid.' As for the reports that he rejected, his rejection was open to interpretation, and in many cases others had preceded him in doing so, while still others who were known for relying on opinion agreed with him. Most of what is found of this nature in his legal opinions was simply his following the scholarly tradition of his own region, namely that of Ibraheem an-Nakha'i and the companions of 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ood. The only matter in which he and his students truly went to great lengths was in formulating rulings for new cases and answering them according to their legal reasoning and juristic preference, which many from the righteous generations opposed, and their opponents denounced these as innovations."

The defense for this accusation, is in sha Allaah, in the section of him being called the imam of Ahl ar-Ra'y. Refer to that.

In addition to this, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said as in [جامع بيان العلم وفضله]:

"They also criticized Abu Haneefah on account of al-Irjaa'. Many scholars have likewise been attributed with al-Irjaa', yet no one took such pains to collect and transmit every disparaging remark made about them as they did in the case of Abu Haneefah. This was due to his prominence as an Imam. Moreover, he was envied, things that were not true were attributed to him, and falsehoods unbefitting him were fabricated against him.

The answer to this is likewise also in its appropriate section.

What Ibn 'Abd al-Barr means when he said, "no one took such pains to collect and transmit every disparaging remark" is that these scholars of Hadeeth went into great lengths in preserving and narrating these reports, the reason for that has been mentioned by the scholars.

Shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr was asked about the weak reports concerning imam Abu Haneefah found in Kitab as-Sunnah by 'Abdullah ibn imam Ahmad. He responded:

... In the book as-Sunnah by 'Abdullah ibn imam Ahmad (may Allaah have mercy on them), there are weak reports, and this is the case in many of the works of the early scholars, where the author did not necessarily adhere strictly to authenticity in all reports.

What is mentioned regarding imam Abu Haneefah (may Allaah have mercy on him) is part of the broader context of criticizing innovators. Criticism of innovators at the time was significant because the innovations were still recent, and it was easier to turn away from them. However, when dealing with an innovator, it is clear that the innovator is in opposition to the Sunnah. Innovations vary in severity, some of which are blasphemous and some are not. The one who follows a heretical innovation that leads to disbelief should be treated as a disbeliever, especially if they are obstinate and there is no confusion or doubt remaining about the truth. If the doubt was removed and the truth was made clear to them, but they still persisted in their stance, they are treated in the same manner as disbelievers.

On the other hand, if the person has genuine doubts, and no one has been able to remove them, or if their doubt is strong and they are excused due to their ignorance, then the matter is different. There are factors that must be taken into account.

In any case, imam Abu Haneefah (may Allaah have mercy on him) remains one of the great imams of the Muslims, and the reports about him, especially regarding innovation, are meant to serve as a warning against innovations that arose during his time.

(Source)

This was further explained in detail by shaykh Saalih Aal ash-Shaykh, who directly addressed the accusations attributed to imam Abu Haneefah in the same work. He was asked: "What is your view on what is mentioned in Kitab as-Sunnah by 'Abdullah ibn imam Ahmad regarding the accusation that Abu Haneefah said that the Qur'an is created, and so on?" He answered:

This is a good question. This is found in the Kitab as-Sunnah of 'Abdullah ibn imam Ahmad. At his time, the fitnah regarding the createdness of the Qur'an was significant, and people would cite things attributed to Abu Haneefah, from which he was innocent, such as the claim that the Qur'an was created. Other things were attributed to him by the Mu'tazilah, from their interpretation of the divine attributes and so on, which he was also innocent of. Some of these reports spread among the people and were transmitted by some scholars, who ruled according to the apparent wording. This was before Abu Haneefah had an established school or madhhab, because this was close to his time. Statements were transmitted, the words of Wakee', the words of Sufyan ath-Thawri, Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah, and the words of other scholars regarding imam Abu Haneefah. At that time, by the ijtihaad of 'Abdullah ibn imam Ahmad, there was a need to transmit the sayings of scholars as they were reported.

(Source)

These reports can be found in a myriad of books such as the aforementioned Kitab as-Sunnah of 'Abdullah ibn al-Imam Ahmad, there is also Tareekh Baghdad of al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, al-Majrooheen of Abu Haatim ibn Hibban al-Busti, and other works, may Allaah have mercy on them. The claims we are addressing in this post have also been used in the narrations they report.

In addition to this, we will present some important principles to keep in mind and observe when it comes to the judgement regarding this matter.

• Scientific principles for dealing with these criticisms

"One of the issues that significantly enriched the Islamic juristic heritage is the long-standing disagreement between the Ahl ar-Ra'y (the School of Opinion) and the Ahl al-Hadeeth (the School of Hadeeth). Although this disagreement had many positive effects, contributing to the development and refinement of Islamic jurisprudence, it also gave rise to certain negative consequences. The intensity of the conflict between the two schools, together with Abu Haneefah's well-known view in al-Irjaa', resulted in the transmission of numerous reports criticizing Imam Abu Haneefah an-Nu'maan. These reports eventually became scattered throughout a number of classical works, such as as-Sunnah by 'Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, ad-Du'afa' by al-'Uqayli, and Tareekh Baghdad by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi."

"This has created a significant challenge in contemporary Islamic scholarship, particularly for younger students of knowledge. Mere praise of Abu Haneefah by later scholars, even by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah himself, is often insufficient to resolve the issue, since it appears to involve weighing the judgments of the early scholars against those of the later generations. It is only natural that a student of knowledge, especially one who is young and has not yet acquired the necessary scholarly tools, will, when faced with a choice between an early and a later authority, instinctively favor the former under the banner of following the righteous predecessors."

"By contrast, a student who possesses the proper scholarly tools, understands the historical development of the schools, and appreciates the intellectual foundations that gave rise to the criticisms directed against Abu Haneefah, while reading those criticisms in their proper historical context, will readily understand why later authorities departed from the judgments of the early critics regarding Abu Haneefah. Among the foremost of these later scholars were Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, and adh-Dhahabi."

Refer to the work:

• قواعد علمية للتعامل مع قضية الإمام أبي حنيفة رحمه الله [PDF]

From this work, I will be mentioning what principles must be utilized and applied appropriately. I will not be going into details of each principle. The work we have linked above explains each in depth, and that is sufficient to display the lack of any knowledge or principles behind the way of the Haddaadiyyah. It proves that they are nothing but parrots, regurgitating whatever they hear from their "shaykhs" such as al-Khulayfi or Muhammad as-Sulayman.

→ Condemnation may be intended as emphatic rebuke and deterrence, rather than absolute condemnation.

The method of the scholars of hadeeth is often to employ emphatic language in rebuke for the sake of preserving the integrity of Islam and the Sharee'ah. By this, they do not intend absolute condemnation such that they strip the person being criticized of every virtue.

Al-'Allamah al-Mu'allimi, explaining the methodology of the scholars of hadeeth in using such emphatic language, said:

"Among the people of knowledge and virtue were those who, when they saw a group following one of the distinguished scholars in a matter in which they believed he should not be followed, either because their circumstances differed from his, or because they believed he had erred, would utter words that appeared to diminish that virtuous scholar, in order that people might refrain from excessive veneration of him, which would lead them to follow him in matters wherein they should not follow him...If you carefully reflect upon those expressions, you will find acceptable explanations for them, even though their outward wording appears to constitute severe censure"

Among the indications that the criticism of the scholars of hadeeth is sometimes intended as stern rebuke and deterrence rather than complete disparagement are the following:

1. The statements from some scholars of Hadeeth.
2. The method of Ad-Daarimi in how he transmits the sayings of al-Marisi from Abu Haneefah.
3. The people of Hadeeth referring to Abu Haneefah in Fiqh.

→ Taking into consideration the differences between the schools of Fiqh

Keeping in mind the nature of the disagreement between the Ahl ar-Ra'y and the Ahl al-Hadeeth is one of the primary factors that greatly helps the student of knowledge understand the issue properly and navigate it in a sound manner.

There were also disagreements among the schools of the Ahl al-Hadeeth themselves during those eras, such as between the school of Syria (ash-Shaam) and the school of Makkah. Likewise, there was disagreement between the Ahl ar-Ra'y in Iraq and the Ahl al-Hadeeth in the Hejaz and Syria. Once we understand the nature of how these schools arose, it becomes easier to understand the nature of their disagreement.

Imam Abu Haneefah was the first to speak systematically about Fiqh, its classifications, the methods of legal deduction, and analogical reasoning (qiyas). These were matters with which the scholars of hadeeth were unfamiliar, for in their view, extensive discussion not supported by hadeeth carried little value. Knowledge, to them, consisted of the transmitted reports.

The circumstances surrounding both led to two different approaches, both of which had roots in the teachings of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with him). For instance, for Iraq, the school developed was mostly based on the teaching and approach of Ibn Mas'ood, 'Ali, 'Umar, and the companions who settled in 'Iraq. Whereas the Ahl al-Hadeeth inherited their approach from Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) who remained in Hejaz such as 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar (may Allaah be pleased with them both).

→ Examining the reason of criticism

Among the matters to which the student of knowledge should pay attention is that a large portion of the criticism directed at Abu Haneefah requires careful examination and study of the reason for the criticism, especially when the critic explicitly states the reason. At times, one of the early scholars would mention a reason for criticizing Abu Haneefah, yet his criticism would not be justified.

An example is the statement of one of the scholars: "Abu Haneefah was a Nabataean." This is not a valid criticism, for a person's lineage does not harm him in any way. Likewise, some criticized him over certain legal issues because of the disagreement between the two schools. In such cases, accepting the criticism without examining the reason that led the critic to make it constitutes negligence on the part of the researcher.

The criticisms directed at Abu Haneefah fall into several categories. Among them are:

1. Criticism in which the truth was actually on Abu Haneefah's side.
2. Criticism that was simply mistaken.
3. Criticism based on something that was incorrectly attributed to him.
4. Criticism based on reports that were transmitted in a corrupted form.
5. Criticism arising from a misunderstanding of his statements.
6. Criticism concerning views from which Abu Haneefah later retracted.
7. Criticism that is valid because of what is authentically established.

Each of these categories requires careful investigation and thorough examination.

→ Taking the surrounding circumstances into consideration

It is important to bear in mind that Iraq was a place in which fabrication had become widespread among the people of innovation, such as the Shee'ah, the Khawarij, and the Mu'tazilah. Each group narrated hadeeth according to its own whims and fabricated reports against the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ. For this reason, Abu Haneefah had additional conditions for the acceptance of reports beyond the well known conditions of authenticity that we know today. Therefore, his refraining from acting upon some reports was due to those conditions not being fulfilled in his view, not because he deliberately rejected the Sunnah.

These conditions have been stated in the work [أصول الشاشي مع الحاشية أحسن الحواشي]:

شرط العمل بخبر الواحد: أن لا يكون مخالفا للكتاب والسنة المشهورة وأن لا يكون مخالفا للظاهر

"The conditions for acting upon a singular narration are: that it not contradict the Book (Quraan) and the well-known Sunnah, and that it not contradict what is apparent."

Al-Lucknawi said:

"His saying (upon a singular narration): Know that the acceptance of a singular report and the obligation to act upon it are contingent upon eight conditions, as the Shaykh indicated in the book: four pertaining to the report itself and four pertaining to the narrator."

"The four for the first are: that it does not contradict the Quraan, does not contradict the well-known Sunnah, that it is not concerning a matter of widespread occurance, that it is not from the reports whose use as evidence is abandoned when disagreement is apparent."

"As for the four conditions concerning the narrator, they are: intellect, uprightness, precision (in transmission) and Islam."

An example of this is the famous issue, which is used to discredit the Imam and the Hanafis by the Haddaadiyyah, regarding the marriage of a woman without the permission of a guardian. It is the view of Imam Abu Haneefah that a woman may marry without the permission of her guardian, whereas that of the three Imams is that the permission of her guardian is a condition. They base their opinion on the apparent wording of the hadeeth: "Any woman who marries without the permission of her guardian, her marriage is invalid", and the hadeeth: "There is no marriage except with a guardian." As for Imam Abu Haneefah, then he did not act upon the apparent wording of this hadeeth because in his view, it opposed what came in the Quraan where Allaah said:

فَلَا تَعْضُلُوهُنَّ أَن يَنكِحْنَ أَزْوَٰجَهُنَّ

"So do not prevent them from marrying their [former] husbands.." [Al-Baqarah 2:232]

So in the Ayah, Allaah attributed the Nikaah to the women. Imam Abu Haneefah takes by the apparent wording of the Quraan, and he interpreted the report of the Prophet (peace be upon him) away from its apparent meaning based on this principle. Thus one sees that the reason for this difference between the imams was due to differing principles, not that imam Abu Haneefah intentionally rejected ahadeeth, as some of the Ahl al-Hadeeth would claim.

Another interesting point in this specific topic is the view of imam Abu Haneefah was also the view of Ash-Sha'bi and Ibn Shihab az-Zuhri, yet the Haddaadiyyah only attack imam Abu Haneefah over this opinion. This yet again only exposes their insincerity and lack of methology of Ahlus-Sunnah. Rather their way is the way of the two innovators al-Khulayfi and Muhammad as-Sulaymaan, the German Youtuber. They take what suits them, reject what does not, and contradict themselves on their own supposed principles.

Other than what we discussed above, another another important point to consider regarding this principle is that Abu Haneefah lived during the earliest period, before the Sunnah had been compiled widely and before the sciences of al-Jarh wat Ta'deel had become fully established. It is well known that the first person to speak about critcism and authentication of narrators was Shu'bah ibn al-Hajjaj. This science only became firmly established in its well-known form during the time of Yahya ibn Ma'een, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Abdur-Rahman ibn Mahdi. The early scholars among the Tabi'een and those who followed them did not adhere to these sciences in the same manner, nor had they yet devoted themselves to gathering together the various narrations and textual differences or to investigate the narrators and their circumstances as it was established later on.

→ Considering the severity of the salaf toward those who differed with them, even in minor matters

Among the important matters to which the student of knowledge should pay attention is that the Salaf would sometimes speak very harshly against someone for the slightest disagreement, or over an issue in which disagreement was considered acceptable. This was because the community had been united upon a particular, well-known view. Thus, if a scholar appeared and expressed a view contrary to what they recognized, they might deal with him sternly so that his opinion would not lead the common people to something even more serious, even though, later on, that very opinion might come to be recognized as a legitimate view over which there is no condemnation.

→ Considering the existence of fabrications attributed to Abu Haneefah

It should be kept in mind that some people of innovation, such as the Mu'tazilah, attributed themselves to Abu Haneefah and falsely attributed to him statements to support their own views, and try to get legitimacy for their misguided views from a well known and reliable authority. We will quote some scholars later which indicate this consideration.

→ The status of the criticism that is authentically established

Similarly, it should be kept in mind that the criticism of Abu Haneefah which is authentically established concerns innovations in which he had predecessors, such as al-Irjaa' of the jurists. A number of the Salaf also fell into al-Irjaa', as he did, although they were mistaken in doing so. Nevertheless, they were regarded by the scholars of hadeeth as trustworthy, and the hadeeth scholars excused them in this regard.

→ Respecting what has become the established practice of the Muslims

Adhering to what has become the established practice is a fundamental principle among Ahlus-Sunnah. It means that when the Muslims have come to unanimously accept a part of knowledge or an imam, this serves as an indication that it is accepted, in sha Allaah.

For example, the Salaf spoke critically of the recitation of Hamzah az-Zayyat, even though it is one of the seven recognized recitations (qira'at sab'iyyah). Many of them even held that a person should repeat his prayer if he had prayed behind an imam who recited according to Hamzah's reading. However, the practice of the Muslims later became firmly established upon recognizing it as a valid and accepted recitation.

Ibn Hani' relates in his Masaa'il:

"I asked Abu 'Abdullah that is, Imam Ahmad, 'Should we pray behind one who recites according to the recitation of Hamzah?' He replied, 'If he is someone who will accept your advice, then forbid him from doing so.'"

"Abu 'Abdullah said: 'I heard 'Abdur-Rahman ibn Mahdi say: If I were to pray behind someone who recited according to the recitation of Hamzah, I would repeat the prayer.'"

However, the practice of the Muslims ultimately became firmly established upon recognizing it as one of the seven accepted mutawatir recitations. Imam adh-Dhahabi said:

"Consensus was eventually established upon accepting Hamzah's recitation, and upon condemning anyone who spoke against it."

• Addressing the categories of narrations

With that out of the way, I would like to address the narrations which fall into the second and third category which we have mentioned seperately as the Haddaadiyyah use these narrations the most, the reason for which being so that they can emotionally manipulate and fool the laymen to misguide them and take them away from the established path of the Ahlul-'Ilm from Ahlus-Sunnah wa'l Jama'ah. Ibn 'Abd al-Barr has already alluded to these instances as he mentioned how the people of Hadeeth from those who criticized the Imam exceeded proper bounds in what they said about him. Likewise, he also mentioned how they treated the Imam differently from others, the reasons for which he has mentioned.

→ Individual statements are not independent sources of the Sharee'ah

The misguidance of the Haddaadiyyah and lack of knowledge in principles of jurisprudence is apparent when they quote the statements of scholars (not from the Sahaabah) and treat it as if it were revelation, or that they must be accepted otherwise you become misguided. This itself is against the way of the scholars and Salaf as no one has ever advocated for this.

Quoting from [Concerning Imam Abu Haneefah and the Hanafi Madhhab]:

Individual statements are not independent sources of the Shari'ah

The recognized sources of the Shari'ah are not replaced by isolated statements selected from books of transmitted reports. After the Qur'an and Sunnah, the scholars discuss such evidences as ijmaa', the statement of a Sahaabi, and qiyaas, together with the conditions and differences relating to their authority and application.

As for the individual statement of a Taabi'ee, ibn al-Lahhaam stated in al-Mukhtasar fee Usool al-Fiqh 'ala Madhhab al-Imam Ahmad:

مذهب التابعي ليس بحجة عند الأكثر، وكذا لو خالف القياس في ظاهر كلام أحمد وأصحابنا

"The position of a Taabi'ee is not an authoritative proof according to the majority. The same applies when it apparently contradicts qiyaas, according to the apparent position of Ahmad and our companions."

(Source)

The title of the section itself is:

مسألة: مذهب التابعي ليس بحجة

"Issue: The position of a Taabi'ee is not an authoritative proof."

Shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen likewise explained the statement of Shu'bah ibn al-Hajjaaj and others:

"The statements of the Taabi'een concerning subsidiary rulings are not authoritative proofs, so how could they be authoritative proofs in tafseer?"

He explained that this means their individual statements are not binding upon those who disagree with them. If they unanimously agreed upon something, their agreement would have a different ruling. However, when they disagreed, the statement of one was not an authoritative proof against another or against those who came after them. The matter would instead be referred back to the language of the Qur'an, the Sunnah, the Arabic language, and the statements of the Sahaabah. (Source)

If an individual statement of a Taabi'ee is not by itself an independently binding proof, then the individual statements of the Atbaa' at-Taabi'een and scholars who came after them cannot be treated as though they were revelation. Their statements may contain knowledge, clarification, criticism, and important evidence, but they must be authenticated and understood according to the recognized principles.

The Haddaadiyyah reverse this order in their practical argumentation. They begin with individual statements selected from transmitted compilations and treat them as though they conclusively establish the misguidance, innovation, or disbelief of imam Abu Haneefah. They then force all other evidence to conform to that predetermined conclusion.

This is not the methodology of the fuqahaa'. The statements of scholars are not placed before the Qur'an, Sunnah, ijmaa', or the recognized principles of understanding and deduction. Nor does the presence of a severe statement in a book make the statement authentic, unrestricted, correctly applied, or binding upon everyone who came after its speaker.

End quote.

I say as a benefit for the reader, this is also our view, and it is established that imam Abu Haneefah (may Allaah be pleased with him) would not take the statements of the Tabi'i as proof.

Abu Zayd ad-Dabusi said in his [تقويم الأدلة في أصول الفقه]

والمروي عن أبي حنيفة رضي الله عنه: "إذا اجتمعت الصحابة سلمنا لهم، وإذا جاء التابعون زاحمناهم". لأنه كان منهم فلا يثبت لهم بدونه إجماع.

"It is narrated from Abu Haneefah (may Allaah be pleased with him): 'If the Companions agree, we submit to them; but when it comes to the Tabi'oon, we compete with them.'' This is because he was one of them, so their consensus cannot be established without his inclusion."

'Ala ad-Deen al-Bukhaari in his [كشف الأسرار عن أصول فخر الإسلام البزدوي] said,

فَأَمَّا قَوْلُ التَّابِعِيِّ فَلَيْسَ بِحُجَّةٍ

"As for the statement of a Tabi'i, it is not a binding proof."

Shams al-Aimmah as-Sarakhsi in [أصول السرخسي] said:

لَا خلاف أَن قَول التَّابِعِيّ لَا يكون حجَّة على وَجه يتْرك الْقيَاس بقوله فقد روينَا عَن أبي حنيفَة أَنه كَانَ يَقُول مَا جَاءَنَا عَن التَّابِعين زاحمناهم

"There is no disagreement that the statement of a Tabiʿi is not a binding proof which leads to leaving Qiyaas due to his statement. It has been narrated to us from Abu Haneefah that he used to say: 'What comes to us from the Tabi'een, we contend with them.'"

Since imam Abu Haneefah was from the minor Tabi'een, [صغار التابعين], he did not take their statements as proof. Rather, he made ijtihaad just as they did.

Therefore as our brother mentioned, when the statements of the Tabi'een are not considered as proof, then how do the Haddaadiyyah take the statements of later scholars who come after the Tabi'een and Atba' at-Tabi'een as if it is revelation, proclaiming loyalty and disloyalty on its basis?!

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) also mentioned the criticism of Ahl al-Hadeeth on imam Abu Haneefah as an example of consideration not given to who says it, but rather at the proof. He said in refutation to As-Subki in [الرد على السبكي في مسألة تعليق الطلاق]:

"Consideration upon sayings is by its proofs and not by who says it, and it is not seen who said it ..."

"The statements that were refuted against those who I refuted from the people of innovation, and their status was lowered through it, were refuted due to their contradiction of the Qur'aan and Sunnah, not merely due to others differing with them regarding those statements ..."

".. and most of the people of hadeeth popularly criticize Abu Haneefah and his companions, the books are filled with it. The matter reached to the point where they did not see about them a thing in the books of hadeeth, and there is no mention for them in the two saheehs (of al-Bukhaari and Muslim) and the sunan (of at-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood, an-Nasaa'i and Ibn Maajah etc).'"

So he mentions that all of such statements are rejected and not considered about these imaams, even if the one saying is of great importance.

Likewise, this justice and fairness is well established, even among the people of Hadeeth. Imam Yahya ibn Ma'een, the giant of al-Jarh wat Ta'deel, and an Imam in Hadeeth said:

"Our companions (Ahl al-Hadeeth) are excessive in (dispraising) Abu Haneefah and his companions."

Reported by Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in [جامع بيان العلم وفضله] with an authentic chain.

It is reported from Ibn al-Junayd in [السؤالات]:

"Abu Dawood an-Nahwi Sulayman ibn Ma'bad said to Yahya ibn Ma'een: 'Muslim ibn Ibraheem narrated to us that Hammad ibn Salamah used to say: may Allaah afflict Abu Haneefah with such and such.' so Ibn Ma'een said, 'He has said an abhorrant thing, he has said an abhorrant thing.'"

Yahya used to speak well of Abu Haneefah, and defend him from what some of Ahl al-Hadeeth used to say about him.

→ Ruling regarding the sayings of scholars against each other

Once it is established that statements of the scholars after the Sahaabah cannot be taken as if it is relevation, and that one must act with them as he does with other knowledge, seeking clarification, understanding by combining all aspects, and basing his opinion on what is established from the principles of Ahlus-Sunnah.

The principle of Ahlus-Sunnah on this matter has been elaborated upon, and beautifully explained by Imam al-Andalus, Haafidh al-Maghreb Abu 'Umar Yoosuf ibn 'Abdullah ibn 'Abd al-Barr al-Andalusi al-Maaliki (may Allaah have vast mercy on him). Once again in his book [جامع بيان العلم وفضله: باب حكم قول العلماء بعضهم في بعض], he said:

Chapter: The ruling of the saying of scholars against each other

"... Many people have erred in this matter, and an ignorant group has gone astray, not knowing what is required of them regarding it. The correct position in this matter is that if a person's integrity is well-established, his leadership in knowledge is proven, his trustworthiness is evident, and he is known for his dedication to knowledge, then no attention should be paid to anyone’s criticism of him, unless the critic brings forth clear and just evidence that validates his criticism. This must be done in the manner of proper testimony, with direct observation and concrete proof that confirms the claim, ensuring that the critic is free from malice, envy, hostility, rivalry, or any such motives. Only under such conditions can his criticism be accepted from a scholarly and reasoned standpoint. As for someone whose leadership is not proven, whose integrity is not known, and whose narration is not reliable due to lack of accuracy and preservation, his case is judged according to the consensus of scholars, and his narrations are examined according to what careful reasoning determines."

"The proof that criticism is not accepted against someone whom the vast majority of Muslims have taken as an authority is that even among the righteous predecessors (may Allaah be pleased with them), there were many statements some made about others, some out of anger, some influenced by envy, as Ibn 'Abbas, Maalik ibn Dinar, and Abu Haazim said, and some due to misinterpretation, where the one criticized was not necessarily guilty of what was said about him. Some even fought each other by the sword, based on interpretation and ijtihaad, yet we are not obligated to follow them in any of this without clear proof and evidence that compels us. We will present in this chapter some statements of trustworthy and great imams about one another, which should not be paid heed to or relied upon, to clarify the correctness of what we have stated, and with Allaah lies success."

Before and after this, imam Ibn 'Abd al-Barr narrated the reasons on why they spoke against each other. Then after saying what we mentioned, he started listing out various examples from various imams of the Salaf, including the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with him). He continued later on saying:

"For we have seen falsehood, injustice, and envy to be among the quickest things people rush toward from early times. Do you not see the statement of a man from Kufa about Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas: 'He does not act justly among the subjects, he does not go out in military expeditions, and he does not divide equally'? Yet Sa'd was at Badr, one of the ten promised Paradise, and one of the six whom Umar ibn al-Khattab placed in the council among them, and he said: 'The Messenger of Allaah, peace be upon him, died while he was pleased with them.' And it has been narrated that Moosa, peace be upon him, said: 'O Lord, cut off from me the tongues of the Children of Israel.' So Allaah, the Exalted, revealed to him: 'O Moosa, I did not cut them off from Myself, so how could I cut them off from you?'"

"By Allaah, people have gone beyond bounds in backbiting and disparagement, and they have not been content with criticizing the common people while leaving the elite, nor with criticizing the ignorant while leaving the scholars. And all of this is driven by ignorance and envy."

Towards the end of the chapter, he stated:

"Whoever wants to accept the statements of the trustworthy scholars, the imams, the firmly established authorities, some of them about others, then let him also accept the statements that we have mentioned from the Companions, may Allaah be pleased with them all, of some of them about others. If he does that, he will go far astray and suffer great loss."

After listing some of the examples he narrated, he said:

"... the rest of those we have mentioned in this chapter, what we have narrated from some of them about others, then if he does not do so, — and he will not do so unless Allaah guides him and inspires him with right guidance — then he should stop at what we have stipulated: that one does not accept the statement against someone whose uprightness has been established, whose concern for knowledge is known, who has been safe from major sins, who adheres to decency and restraint, whose good deeds are dominant and whose bad deeds are few. Regarding such a person, the statement of one who has no proof is not accepted. This is the truth other than which nothing is correct, if Allaah wills."

He (may Allaah have mercy on him) then describes the correct course of action in such matters. He says:

" And those who praised Sa'eed ibn al-Musayyib and the rest of those we have mentioned among the Tabi'een and the imams of the Muslims are more than can be counted. People have compiled their virtues and taken care regarding their biographies and reports. So whoever reads their virtues, and the virtues of Maalik, and the virtues of ash-Shaafi'i, and the virtues of Abu Haneefah, after the virtues of the Companions and the Tabi'een, may Allaah be pleased with them, and pays attention to them, and becomes aware of the noble aspects of their lives, and strives to imitate them, and follows their path in their knowledge, their character, and their guidance, then that will be for him a pure righteous deed. May Allaah, Mighty and Majestic, benefit us through loving all of them."

And then he describes the one who fails to do that, by saying:

"... And whoever preserves from their reports only what is rare from some of them about others based on envy, slips, anger, and desires, without caring for their virtues and narrating their merits, is deprived of success and falls into backbiting and deviates from the path. May Allaah make us and you among those who hear speech and follow the best of it."

End quote from the chapter. For those who wish to read the complete chapter in order to contextualize and understand Ibn 'Abd al-Barr's statements, may head over to the following post where I translated the entire chapter, by the will of Allaah.

• How to deal with the sayings of some Scholars against Others: Refutation of Ibn 'Abd al-Barr on the Haddaadiyyah:

It is one of the established principles among the scholars of al-Jarh wat Ta'deel that the statements of scholars against their peers are not accepted, and should be disregarded and not recounted, especially if it is found to be due to envy or hostility.

One such scholar to repeatedly reiterate this important principle was imam Shams ad-Deen adh-Dhahabi in his various works of biographies and history. He said as in [سير أعلام النبلاء]:

"If it becomes clear to us that the words of contemporaries are based on bias and prejudice, they should not be heeded, but rather disregarded and not transmitted."

And he said as in [سير أعلام النبلاء]:

"It is well known that much of what contemporaries said about one another is to be disregarded and carries no weight, especially when a narrator has been declared trustworthy by a group of scholars whose judgments clearly exhibit fairness and impartiality."

In his [ميزان الاعتدال], Adh-Dhahabi stated:

"The criticism exchanged between contemporaries carries no weight, especially when it becomes apparent that it stems from enmity, a view, or jealousy. No one is spared from this except those whom Allaah has protected. I know of no generation whose people were entirely free from such behavior except the Prophets and the Siddiqeen (the truthful). If I wished, I could fill notebooks with examples of it. O Allaah, do not place in our hearts any resentment toward those who believe. Our Lord, You are indeed Most Kind, Most Merciful."

Therefore, according to these principles, the misguidance and destructive way of the Haddaadiyyah becomes apparent. Their attacks on Imam Abu Haneefah are based on what some scholars said on him, and they only mention these reports while denying and rejecting many of the scholars and narrations from them which spoke well of him, and praised him greatly. The principle near the Haddaadiyyah is to attack whoever the scholars spoke against, even if those statements on other scholars on whom the Ummah has agreed upon. Therefore according to their way, it becomes permissible to attack the Companions based on what some of them said on others, attack imams of Fiqh (other than imam Abu Haneefah) based on what some of them said on others, attack the scholars of Hadeeth and the narrators of Hadeeth based on what some of them said against others. So once then occurs, then who else is left for us to take as an Imam?! The way of the Haddaadiyyah divides the Salaf from being a united body on which Ahlus-Sunnah agree on, to breaking them down and dividing them into camps. The Shee'ah Rawaafidh already do this when they insult the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), may Allaah be utmostly pleased with them. Some of their arguments come from what is narrated in the books of Sunnah when one companion may have spoken against other. The Shee'ah treat this as a divider, treating both companions as if they were both enemies, even though that is not the case, for all the companions had each other in high esteem and respect, even when they differed due to matters of Ijtihaad.

The Haddaadiyyah way mimicks that of the Shee'ah. Whereas the Shee'ah only do this with the companions, the Haddaadiyyah have went a step further and dragged the entire Salaf, our righteous generations, into matters which were above their status and rank. They open the door for the enemies of Islam to use these same arguments and argue against the Salaf, but does that matter to them? No, of course not. Rather they resemble the Khawaarij on this matter. They only attack the Muslims, while leaving the disbelievers alone. One can see this from their leaders such as Muhammad as-Sulaymaan who claims to get "protective jealous" for Islam when it comes to insulting the likes of imam Ibn Hajar, imam an-Nawawi and imam Abu Haneefah (may Allaah have mercy on them). But when it comes to atheists insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him), they have no protective jealousy for him, and sit and listen to these insults while praising the transgressing party for their "manners"! (Source)

→ The majority did not criticize him

Another such misguided claim is that they say that the majority of scholars criticized imam Abu Haneefah, and some of them even claim it was consensus. This is false, and there is no proof behind this claim, rather ther are dozens of proof against it.

Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (may Allaah have mercy on him) has written extensively on this topic, and he was fair and just in his research on the matter. He said in his [جامع بيان العلم وفضله]:

"Those who narrated from Abu Haneefah, authenticated him, and praised him are far more numerous than those who spoke about him (i.e. criticized him).." Until he said, "It was said: The eminence of a man from the past is evidenced by the differences of opinion people have about him. They said: Do you not see Ali ibn Abi Talib, peace be upon him? Two young men perished because of him: one who loved him excessively and one who hated him excessively. It has been mentioned in the hadeeth that two types of men will perish because of it: a lover who praises excessively and a hater who slanders. This is the characteristic of people of intelligence and those who have reached the highest level of religion and virtue. And Allaah knows best."

Ibn 'Abd al-Barr also mentioned why the critcisms and remarks against imam Abu Haneefah (may Allaah have mercy on him) were preserved to the extent it was not done for any other except him. He said:

"They also criticized Abu Haneefah on account of al-Irjaa'. Many scholars have likewise been attributed with al-Irjaa', yet no one took such pains to collect and transmit every disparaging remark made about them as they did in the case of Abu Haneefah. This was due to his prominence as an Imam. Moreover, he was envied, things that were not true were attributed to him, and falsehoods unbefitting him were fabricated against him. At the same time, a number of scholars praised him and regarded him as superior. Perhaps, if we are granted the opportunity, we shall compile an independent work on the virtues of Abu Haneefah, Malik, Ash-Shaafi'i, ath-Thawri, and al-Awzaa'i, may Allaah have mercy on them all, a comprehensive book on the leading Imams of the major centers of the Muslim world, if Allaah wills."

Alhamdulillah, the book Ibn 'Abd al-Barr is referring to here, he did end up writing this, titled al-Intiqa', which we quoted from frequently in our biography of imam Abu Haneefah. From that biography, we also see the number of people imam Ibn 'Abd al-Barr narrated in those who praised and authenticated the Imam.

These men of the Salaf narrated by Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in his praise, virtue, and leadership in jurisprudence exceed 50, each known for their place in the religion.

(Source)

Just as there are more who praised him, authenticated him, and spoke well of them, the vast majority of what the oppoents quote against the Imam is also weak. Shaykh al-Qahtaani in his research of Kitab as-Sunnah which has some of these narrations said:

"I examined and catalogued the reports in these criticisms that were not authentic. In fact, vast majority of them are transmitted through unknown and weak narrators, or narrators who have been criticized by the scholars of al-Jarh wat Ta'deel. I found that the number of such reports amounts to eighty-six."

That is over 50% of the narrations mentioned.

Likewise, another popular book from which narrations are quoted is the work [تاريخ بغداد] of al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi. One of the best researches and verification done on this work was by Dr. Bashhar 'Awad Ma'roof.

He stated under the biography of Imam Abu Haneefah:

"Al-Khateeb's biography has provoked considerable debate among scholars because it contains reports that compile the views of both his supporters and his opponents, mixing the weak with the sound, the authentic with the unsound. These reports reveal the intensity of the disagreements that arose as a result of differing beliefs, opinions, and methodologies. Al-Khateeb's method was to present both what was in favor of the person being biographed and what was against him. However, it would have been incumbent upon the author to clarify the status of such reports, whether they were for praise or criticism, especially since he was one of the foremost authorities in hadeeth criticism and thoroughly familiar with the hidden defects of chains of transmission. Instead, he left them without comment, exposing himself to criticism."

Then when al-Khateeb begins with the sections where he started to narrate the criticisms, Dr. Bashhar said:

"This is not true in absolute terms, for many of the reports he cited are not authentic and therefore cannot be relied upon."

→ The unfairness and bias in criticism

As has come before in the words of Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, the criticisms and remarks against imam Abu Haneefah were transmitted, reported, and exaggerated beyond proper bounds. He said:

"The scholars of hadeeth went to excess in their criticism of Abu Haneefah, exceeding the proper bounds..."

And he said:

"... yet no one took such pains to collect and transmit every disparaging remark made about them as they did in the case of Abu Haneefah. This was due to his prominence as an Imam. Moreover, he was envied, things that were not true were attributed to him, and falsehoods unbefitting him were fabricated against him."

We do not find any joy or satisfaction in mentioning the conduct of some scholars which detracts from their status, however due to the lack of wisdom in the Haddaadiyyah, bringing up imam Abu Haneefah in such a negative way necessitates bringing up the various biased, and extreme things said against imam Abu Haneefah, the falsehood of which is blatant.

One such bias that we wish to talk about is from the aforementioned imam al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi (d. 463 AH) It was mentioned by Ibn al-Jawzi in [المنتظم في تاريخ الملوك والأمم]:

"Abu Bakr al-Khateeb had originally adhered to the school of Ahmad ibn Hanbal. However, our Hanbali companions turned against him when they perceived that he had begun to incline toward the innovators. They mistreated him, so he adopted the madhhab of Ash-Shaafi'i, may Allaah be pleased with him, and afterwards showed bias against the Hanbalis in his writings. He alluded to criticism of them and expressed it as openly as he could. Thus, in the biography of Ahmad ibn Hanbal he described him as 'the master of the hadeeth scholars', whereas in the biography of Ash-Shaafi'i he called him 'the crown of the jurists', without mentioning Ahmad's standing as a jurist. He also related in the biography of Husayn al-Karabisi that al-Karabisi said regarding Ahmad:"

"What are we supposed to do with this young man? If we say, 'Our utterance of the Quraan is created,' he says, 'Innovation.' And if we say, 'It is uncreated,' he says, 'Innovation.'"

"He then turned to Ahmad's companions and criticized them as much as he could. He employed subtle devices in disparaging them."

He later said after these examples:

"There were two characteristics in al-Khateeb:"

"The first was following the common practice of hadeeth scholars in al-Jarh wat Ta'deel, they criticize for things that do not warrant criticism, this is due to their lack of understanding."

"The second was his bias against the school of Ahmad and its adherents. In his book al-Jahr, he cited hadeeths that we know are inauthentic, and he did the same in his book on Al-Qunut. Likewise, in discussing the issue of fasting on a cloudy day, he cited a hadeeth that he knew to be fabricated, using it as evidence without any comment..."

Imam adh-Dhahabi in his biography of Al-Khateeb stated:

"Al-Mu'taman said: "The Hanbalis treated al-Khateeb unfairly until he eventually inclined in the direction that he did'."

[سير أعلام النبلاء]

In addition to this, imam adh-Dhahabi also commented on Ibn al-Jawzi, saying:

"Ibn al-Jawzi, may Allaah have mercy on him, became embittered toward al-Khateeb and spoke disparagingly of him, accusing him of showing bias against our Hanbali companions."

He then lamented, saying:

"I only wish that al-Khateeb had omitted some of the disparaging remarks directed against the great scholars instead of transmitting them."

I say, this is a principle of Ahlus-Sunnah mentioned, which is famous, and Adh-Dhahabi himself has discussed it in various places. He denounced against transmitting reports or discussing about matters which afflicted the previous generations such as what occurred between the companions, and what occured afterwards from among the Tabi'een and Atba' at-Tabi'een, and scholars in general. This is what Imam at-Tahaawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) has also transmitted in his famous treatsie. He stated:

وَعُلَمَاءُ السَّلَفِ مِنَ السَّابِقِينَ وَمَنْ بَعْدَهُمْ مِنَ التَّابِعِينَ أَهْلِ الْخَيْرِ وَالْأَثَرِ وَأَهْلِ الْفِقْهِ وَالنَّظَرِ لَا يُذْكَرُونَ إِلَّا بِالْجَمِيلِ وَمَنْ ذَكَرَهُمْ بِسُوءٍ فَهُوَ عَلَى غَيْرِ السَّبِيلِ

"The scholars of the Salaf from the predecessors and those after them among the Tabi'een (successors), are the Ahlul-Khayr wa'l Athar (people of virtue, and tradition), and Ahlul-Fiqh wa'n Nadhr (people of jurisprudence and insight), they are not mentioned except with praise, and whoever mentions them in an evil way, he is not on the path (i.e. path of the believers)."

In the case of Al-Khateeb, Ibn al-Jawzi is not the only one to write about it. Ibn Mibrad al-Hanbali (may Allaah have mercy on him) has spoken about what al-Khateeb narrated, specifically in regards to imam Abu Haneefah. From the work [المنتقى من اوائل كتاب تنوير الصحيفة بمناقب ابي حنيفة]

"Al-Khateeb continued to be biased against our Imam (i.e. Imam Ahmad), Abu Haneefah, and against both of their companions. His conduct in this regard is well known, to the point that he spoke about Abu Haneefah in ways that it is not permissible even to mention."

He also said:

"Al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi criticized the leading imams and spoke against them. His criticism of Imam Abu Haneefah was particularly severe, and he attributed to him every kind of defect and fault. Likewise, he spoke against Imam Ahmad and other leading imams."

He further said:

"No one should be deceived by al-Khateeb's statements, for he possessed excessive bias against a number of scholars, such as Abu Haneefah, Imam Ahmad, and some of Ahmad's companions. He attacked them from every angle and found every possible way to disparage them. Therefore, his statements in this regard should not be relied upon."

There are a number of scholars as well who wrote refutations against al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi. One of them is the aforementioned Ibn al-Jawzi who wrote the work "The Piercing Arrow Concerning al-Khateeb's Partisanship" [السهم المصيب في تعصيب الخطيب].

From the Hanafis, there was al-Malik al-Mu'adham 'Eesa ibn al-Malik al-'Aadil Muhammad al-Ayyubi, one of the kings from the Ayyubids. His father was Muhammad al-'Aadil, the brother of As-Sultan an-Naasir Salaah ad-Deen al-Ayyubi (may Allaah have mercy on him). As-Sultaan al-Mu'adham 'Eesa had the territory between Hims (Homs) and Al-'Arish, including the coastal areas that were in the hands of the Muslims, the Jordan Valley, Palestine, Jerusalem, Karak, Shawbak, Sarkhad, and other places. He was a man of great honor, a brave knight, who often rode alone to fight the Franks, followed by the Mamluks and soldiers. He was knowledgeable in the Hanafi Madhhab and Arabic. He wrote the work titled, "The Piercing Arrow in Refutation of al-Khateeb" [السهم المصيب في الرد على الخطيب].

Another work intended to refute al-Khateeb from a Hanafi was by Muhammad Zaahid al-Kawthari titled, "Rebuke of Al-Khateeb for the lies he included in his biography of Abu Haneefah" [تأنيب الخطيب على ما ساقه في ترجمة أبي حنيفة من الأكاذيب]. In it, he examined every chain of transmission cited by al-Khateeb, discussing each in terms of al-jarh wat Ta'deel, authentication, and identifying defects. However, al-Kawthari himself was heavily biased, and showed great mistreatment to the leading imams from Ahlus-Sunnah, thus he fell into exactly what he criticized al-Khateeb for. Rather, it is correct to say al-Kawthari was more extreme to the extend the apparent bias from al-Khateeb is like a drop of water in an ocean. When his work was published, the judge and scholar of Yemen, shaykh 'Abd ar-Rahmaan al-Mu'allami wrote a refutation of al-Kawthari titled, "Refutation of the falsehoods mentioned in al-Kawthari's Rebuke" [التنكيل لما ورد في تأنيب الكوثري من الأباطيل]. In the introduction, shaykh al-Mu'allami clarified that the sole purpose of this work was al-Kawthari's discussion of the Imams of the Sunnah and its narrators. He did not wrote it to defend either imam Abu Haneefah, or his opponents. Shaykh al-Mu'allami's own opinion is evident where he refers to Abu Haneefah as an imam in the introduction. More so, his opinion on the matter as a whole has been quoted by our brother student.faith which I have linked. From it:

The wisdom of not reviving old disputes

Al-'Allaamah 'Abdurrahman al-Mu'allami al-Yamaani said concerning those who stir up the old disputes surrounding imam Abu Haneefah:

"What wisdom required was to follow what the people of knowledge had proceeded upon for nearly seven hundred years: drawing the curtain over those matters and exchanging praise."

(Source)

Al-Mu'allami was not someone unfamiliar with the science of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel or unable to evaluate its reports. He was one of the leading recent scholars of hadith, 'Ilm ar-Rijaal, and al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel. Muhammad al-Idreesi referred to him as "Shaykhul-Islam," while shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd described him as:

"The Dhahabi of his era, the 'Allaamah, the critical verifier."

(Source)

His advice to draw the curtain over those old disputes was therefore not based upon ignorance of the criticisms or an inability to examine them. Rather, it came from a scholar deeply familiar with the field who recognized the harm caused by reviving such matters without necessity, justice, and complete scholarly examination.

In addition to al-Khateeb, it was unfortunate that Ibn al-Jawzi - despite his criticism of al-Khateeb - also fell into the same mistake, may Allaah forgive him, when he described Abu Haneefah in the work we quoted from earlier.

Ibn al-Mibrad commented on this mistake, saying:

"As for Ibn al-Jawzi, he followed al-Khateeb in that, and his grandson was surprised (by him) in that. The greatest caution must be exercised in this matter, for Abu Haneefah is one of the great pillars of Islam."

He then copied the words of Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi (may Allaah have mercy on him), who is his maternal grandson and studied under him. He said:

"The surprising thing is not al-Khateeb, for he criticized a number of scholars. Rather, what is truly surprising is my grandfather, how he followed al-Khateeb's method in his history entitled al-Muntadham, and included matters that were even more grave and more objectionable. I have not responded to what they mentioned and I say as al-Haarith ibn Wa'lah said: "

"My own people were the ones who killed my orphaned brother ... So whenever I shoot an arrow, it strikes me instead."

"If I pardon, I do so out of steadfast self-restraint ... And if I strike, I only weaken my own bones."

The next example is one of the most appaling said regarding imam Abu Haneefah which is from Ibn al-Jaarood who said:

"An-Nu'maan ibn Thabit Abu Haneefah, most of his hadeeth is erroneous, and they differed regarding his Islam."

Glory be to Allaah, this is a great lie and fabrication. Such an outrageous falsehood should not be uttered about a common Muslim with no proof, let alone an imam from the Imams of the Muslims upon whom the Ummah has agreed upon. Ibn al-Mibrad said under this:

"This is a fabrication that is unworthy of someone like him. Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said: 'This, and similar (statements) like it, are not hidden from anyone (i.e. in their falsehood) who considers the matter with sound judgment and careful reflection.'"

One of the last examples being about As-Saaji. Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said:

"As-Saaji mentioned in his book al-'Ilal, in the chapter on Abu Haneefah, that Abu Haneefah was asked to repent over the issue of the createdness of the Quraan, and that he did repent. As-Saaji was among those who were hostile toward the companions of Abu Haneefah."

Ibn al-Mibrad then commented, saying:

"Therefore, his statement concerning him is not to be accepted, and what he said is far-fetched."

From all of the above, it becomes evident that the criticisms directed against imam Abu Haneefah cannot be approached in isolation. The statement of leading scholars demonstrates that many of these reports were transmitted through the lens of rivalry, bias, or hostility, while others are unsupported, weak, or outright false. This is not to deny that differences and criticisms existed, nor to claim infallibility for any of them, but rather to emphasize that justice, fairness, and adherence to the principles of Ahlus-Sunnah be observed and relied upon. As al-Mu'allami observed, the scholars of the Ummah chose to draw a curtain over these disputes and exchange praise rather than revive matters that serve little purpose.

• Consensus on leadership of Abu Haneefah and validity of his madhhab

Ijmaa' or consensus is the unanimous agreement of the scholars on a matter in any era after the Prophet (peace be upon him). Consensus can be in any particular thing, whether that is agreement in belief, on a statement, or an action. More so, consensus is limited to the mujtahid scholars only, the opinions of commonfolk and laymen are not considered in any capacity.

→ Ijmaa' is a shar'i proof

There are countless evidences regarding the validity of the consensus from the Quraan, Sunnah, and ironically consensus itself. In the Quraan, Allaah said:

وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ الرَّسُولَ مِن بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ الْهُدَىٰ وَيَتَّبِعْ غَيْرَ سَبِيلِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ نُوَلِّهِ مَا تَوَلَّىٰ وَنُصْلِهِ جَهَنَّمَ ۖ وَسَاءَتْ مَصِيرًا

And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers’ way, We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell - what an evil destination! [An-Nisa' 4:115]

Imam Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

"Allaah's statement [meaning] (and follows other than the believers' way,) refers to a type of conduct that is closely related to contradicting the Messenger ﷺ. This contradiction could be in the form of contradicting a text (from the Qur'an or Sunnah) or contradicting what the Ummah of Muhammad has agreed on. The Ummah of Muhammad is immune from error when they all agree on something, a miracle that serves to increase their honor, due to the greatness of their Prophet. There are many authentic Hadiths on this subject."

[تفسير ابن كثير]

Imam Ibn Jareer at-Tabari (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

"Concerning His statement, [meaning] "and follows a path other than that of the believers," he said: it means that he follows a way other than the way of the people of faith and treads a course different from theirs. That is disbelief in Allaah, for disbelief in Allaah and His Messenger is contrary to the path and way of the believers."

[تفسير الطبري]

Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas (may Allaah have mercy on him) stated:

"He coupled following a path other than that of the believers with opposing the Messenger in the warning He mentioned for both. This indicates the validity of the consensus (ijmaa') of the Ummah, since He attached the same warning to those who follow a way other than that of the believers."

[أحكام القرآن للجصاص]

As for evidence from the Sunnah, then the scholars of principles cite numerous hadeeths as evidence for the proof of consensus. Although these narrations differ in wording, they all convey a single underlying meaning: that the Muslim Ummah will never unite upon error. Collectively, they therefore attain the status of tawatur ma'nawi (mass transmission in meaning). One such hadeeth is that narrated by Anas ibn Maalik (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said, the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him) said:

"Allaah has protected my Ummah from agreeing on falsehood."

In another narration from Ibn 'Umar that he (peace and blessings upon him) said:

"Indeed Allaah will not gather my Ummah", or he said: "[Muhammad's] Ummah upon misguidance, and Allaah's Hand is over the Jama'ah, and whoever deviates, he deviates to the Fire."

The scholars explained:

Allaah, Glorified and Exalted, has preserved the Muslim Ummah and its religion from ever unanimously agreeing to alter it or approve anything contrary to what He has legislated. Thus, He protected it from what the Jews and Christians before it fell into, as a grace and mercy from Him.

In this hadeeth, the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ said: "Indeed, Allaah will not unite my Ummah - or he said: the Ummah of Muhammad ﷺ - upon misguidance." That is, the Ummah as a whole will never unanimously agree upon deviation from the truth, whether in belief, speech, or action, in a manner that contradicts what the Prophet ﷺ taught his community, what Allaah revealed in His Book, and what the Companions unanimously affirmed. It has also been said that the meaning is that the Ummah will never unanimously agree upon disbelief.

He then said: "The Hand of Allaah is with the Jama'ah," meaning that Allaah preserves and protects the united body of the Muslims.

He further said: "Whoever separates himself from the Jama'ah has separated himself into the Fire." That is, whoever distances himself and breaks away from the body of the Muslims in matters pertaining to the religion and worship has departed from the company of the believers in this world and strayed from the path of guidance and truth followed by the overwhelming majority of the Muslims. They proceed toward Paradise, while he proceeds toward the Fire because, by separating himself from them, he has committed that which warrants entry into it.

(Source)

I have previously explained the validity of ijmaa' from the words of the scholars, as well as one who denies ijmaa' as a source of shar'i proof in my PDF regarding music. One may refer to that. (Further Reading)

→ Ijmaa' on Abu Haneefah and the Hanafi Madhhab

There is a consensus of the scholars on the leadership of imam Abu Haneefah, and the validity of his madhhab. This is evident from the words of the scholars. I wish to address a claim made by the Haddaadiyyah in general regarding this. They say that the consensus of the scholars holds no value because consensus already exists on denouncing and condemning him from the earlier generations.

In support of their claim, they report famously from Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawood, the son of imam Abu Dawood as-Sijistaani, the author of one of the Sunan. Al-Khateeb narrated with his chain to Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn 'Abdullah al-Abhari that he said, I heard Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawood as-Sijistaani saying one day to his companions:

"'What do you say about an issue upon which Maalik and his companions, ash-Shaafi'i and his companions, al-Awzaa'i and his companions, al-Hasan ibn Saleh and his companions, Sufyaan ath-Thawri and his companions, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal and his companions all agreed?' They replied, 'O Abu Bakr, there could hardly be a matter more soundly established than this.' He then said, 'They all agreed that Abu Haneefah was misguided.'"

Dr. Bashhar said in the footnote:

"This is the view of Abu Bakr Abdullah ibn Abi Dawood as-Sijistani..."

I say, it is surprising for Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawood to say this, as his own father, Abu Dawood Sulaymaan ibn al-Ash'ath as-Sijistaani said, and it is authentically reported from him:

"May Allaah have mercy on Abu Haneefah, he was an Imam."

As-Saffaareeni said in [لوائح الأنوار السنية ولواقح الأفكار السنية]:

"Abu Bakr (Ibn Abi Dawood) and his father, the Imam, the author of as-Sunan, were both among the leading scholars of our madhhab (i.e. Hanbali Madhhab). His father was one of the transmitters of the madhhab of Imam Ahmad. Our scholars, as well as others, counted both of them among the scholars of the (Hanbali) madhhab."

Imam Ahmad is one of the teachers of Imam Abu Dawood, and Abu Dawood is also from those who transmitted legal matters from imam Ahmad. (Source)

Thus, Imam Abu Dawood knows more about imam Ahmad and his madhhab than his son. So on what basis did the son say this, while his own father opposes him? This is yet another example of statements being made out of hostility, rather than what we know to be the truth. Such a criticism then is rejected. How can this be said while we have authentic transmissions that contradict the claim of Ibn Abi Dawood?

For Ash-Shaafi'i himself after he learned under Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ash-Shaybaani, and learned the truth about the matter, would mention Abu Haneefah well, asking Allaah to have mercy on him, as he did in his book al-'Umm. He would mention the opinion of imam Abu Haneefah, alongside others such as Ibn Abi Layla, discussing the legal issues, sometimes taking the opinion of imam Abu Haneefah, and sometimes the opinion of Ibn Abi Layla, none of this is concievable for someone if the people of their time had agreed upon his misguidance.

He said at the starting of the chapter known as "Differences of the 'Iraqis" [اختلاف العراقيين] in [الأم]:

"This is the book on what was differed upon by Abu Haneefah and Ibn Abi Layla, transmitted from Abu Yoosuf, may Allaah have mercy on them all."

This is no different to what will come later on how imam Ahmad used to ask Allaah to have mercy on Abu Haneefah, after he was also beaten by the 'Abbasids when its caliphs were Mu'tazilis (They are Al-Ma'moon, al-Mu'tasim Billah, and al-Waathiq Billah) over the issue of the createdness of the Quraan. The scholars of the Hanbalis have mentioned this.

Similarly, this is contradictory to what is reported regarding al-Hasan ibn Saleh. For he and his sons would praise and speak well of imam Abu Haneefah, all of this is reported in the various books of virtues that have been gathered on him.

More so, I have mentioned authentic reports on imam Abu Haneefah from twenty-three leading authorities and imams, all of whom spoke well of imam Abu Haneefah, praised him, and held him in high regard. Apart from these reports, counting others, the number of authorities go well beyond fifty imams, jurists, and scholars of Hadeeth.

How then could the fair minded researcher accept what ibn Abi Dawood says, unless that he wishes to utilize what occurred from before between the imams for his own personal gain. If one relies on the words of Ibn Abi Dawood alone to dismiss imam Abu Haneefah, would they then also rely on Yahya ibn Ma'een to dismiss Ash-Shaafi'i? From ibn al-Junayd in [السؤالات] who said:

"I said to Yahya ibn Ma'een: 'Do you think a man should look into anything from opinion?' He said, 'Which opinion?' I said, 'The opinion of ash-Shaafi'i and Abu Haneefah', so he said, 'I do not think that a Muslim should look into the opinion of ash-Shaafi'i. Looking into the opinion of Abu Haneefah is more beloved to me than that looking into the opinion of ash-Shaafi'i.'"

On this, we say as imam Ahmad said, Yahya ibn Ma'een does not know ash-Shaafi'i, so how can Yahya say this? This is what fairness and justice demands from those who adhere to it. It does not mean to take what suits you and reject what does not. This however is too difficult for the Haddaadiyyah, because by Allaah I have not seen a movement in this day and age more flippant on how they act than the Haddaadiyyah. The testimony from a former Haddaadi on how this sect acts and behaves is suffiicent proof for those who are mindful.

• شهادة مزلزلة من قلب الحدادية | تلميذ الخليفي يفضح أسرار شيخه !

For a description of what the video contains, see:

• Earth-Shattering Testimony from the Heart of the Haddaadiyyah | al-Khulayfi's Student Exposes His Shaykh's Secrets

With this claim finished and dealt with, we transmit the various tranmissions of consensus on the leadership of imam Abu Haneefah, and the validity of his madhhab.

Despite the various criticisms that were made against the Imam, no one denied his knowledge, worship, and intellect. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah al-Hanbali (d. 728 AH) said in [منهاج السنة النبوية]:

"Although people opposed Abu Haneefah regarding some matters and denied it from him, no one has any doubt about his fiqh, his understanding, and his knowledge. They also transmitted things from him by which they intended to defame him, but they are certainly lies against him."

Similarly, in [جامع المسائل], he included imam Abu Haneefah among:

"The imams of Islam upon whom the Muslims have agreed upon their guidance and understanding, and who possess a truthful reputation among the Ummah."

He also said:

"Whoever declares them disbelievers has contradicted the consensus of the Ummah and departed from its religion, for all believers hold these people in high esteem and speak well of them."

Similar, he also counted him among those upon whom the Muslims are unanimously agreed in praising. He said:

"... among those whose faith and piety have become widely renowned among the people, and upon whom the Muslims have unanimously agreed in praising."

[مجموع الفتاوى]

Al-Haafidh Shams ad-Deen Ibn 'Abd al-Haadi (d. 744 AH) said in his book [مناقب الأئمة الأربعة] in which he wrote about the virtues of the four imams:

"To Allaah, the Exalted, belongs the choice from among His creation. He creates whatever He wills and chooses. He chose Adam and his progeny above all the worlds, then from among them He chose the master of all the children of Adam. Then He chose for him companions, whom He favored above all the rest of the believers. Then He chose their heirs and successors, making them the best of the Followers (Tabi'oon), and He raised from among them people above all others in the world."

"Among them are the four Imams, the Imams of Islam and the lamps of mankind, whose legal verdicts and opinions became renowned throughout the horizons, and whose leadership was unanimously acknowledged by the people. Their mention spread across lands and cities, and their knowledge traveled through every region like the course of the sun. That was only because of qualities known of them by the Knower of the hidden secrets. Allaah has among His creation special servants whom He singles out with such distinctions and decrees for them, and everything with Him is according to due measure."

Imam Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (d. 795 AH) said in [الرد على من اتبع غير المذاهب الأربعة], which he wrote in refutation of those who followed other than the four madhhaib:

"It was therefore part of Allaah's wisdom, Glorified and Exalted is He, to preserve and safeguard the religion by appointing for the people leading scholars who were united in their knowledge, understanding, and attainment of the highest rank in mastering legal rulings and issuing fatwas, from among the scholars of opinion and hadeeth. Consequently, all people came to rely on them for legal verdicts and to refer back to them in understanding the rulings of the religion."

"Allaah also raised up those who would preserve their madhhab and refine their principles, until the madhhab of each of these imams, its foundations, legal principles, and detailed branche, was carefully recorded and established. In this way, legal rulings could be traced back to those principles, and discussions concerning matters of the lawful and the unlawful could be conducted with precision. This was among Allaah's kindness toward His believing servants and one of His gracious favors in preserving this religion."

Al-'Allamah ibn al-Wazeer (d. 805 AH) said in [الروض الباسم في الذب عن سنة أبي القاسم] about imam Abu Haneefah:

"It has been proven through continuous transmission that his virtue, justice, piety, and trustworthiness are well-established."

Al-'Allamah Jamaal ad-Deen Ibn al-Mibrid (d. 909 AH) as recorded in [المنتقى من اوائل كتاب تنوير الصحيفة بمناقب ابي حنيفة], establishes the consensus of the Ummah regarding the leadership of the four Imams and that whoever disparages them deserves punishment at the hands of the authorities because of his evil conduct. He says, specifically about imam Abu Haneefah:

"No one has ever spoken against them except that it has indicated a deficiency in his intellect. Know that no one has ever spoken against any one of the four Imams except someone with hypocrisy or an innovation in his heart. This is something that must not be committed, nor is it permissible even to approach it. How can it be lawful for anyone to speak against the pillars of Allaah's religion, whom Allaah, Mighty and Exalted, chose so that the best of nations would hold fast to their statements and actions and follow their example?"

"Whoever reflects upon this, verifies it, and whom Allaah opens the eye of insight for, will know that Allaah, Mighty and Exalted, chose these four from this Ummah so that the rest of the Ummah might follow them until the Day of Resurrection. He made them the mainstay of His religion and those to be followed. Just as this Ummah is the best of nations, chosen by Allaah from among all other nations, and just as He made its Prophet the best of the Prophets."

"Allaah, Exalted is He, said: 'You are the best nation brought forth for mankind' [Aal ʿImrān 3:110], so this too is the best of nations, and its Prophet is the best of the Prophets, whom Allaah chose from among His creation. He chose this Ummah from among His creation, guided it aright, granted it success, and ensured that it would not unite upon misguidance, as is authentically reported from the Prophet ﷺ: 'My Ummah will not unite upon misguidance.' He therefore chose for it Imams who would be followed."

"The Ummah unanimously agreed upon these four Imams through the grace of Allaah, Mighty and Exalted, and through His guidance, knowing what He knew of them. It has been narrated: 'The scholars of my Ummah are like the prophets of Bani Isra'eel,' and it is authentically reported from him that he said: 'The scholars are the heirs of the Prophets.' So how can it be lawful for anyone to speak against one of the pillars of the religion, one of the Imams who are to be followed, one upon whose statements the religion of Islam has been built, one who is among the heirs of the Prophets, and one who stands in the station of a prophet?"

He said later on:

"What I believe and worship Allaah upon is that this is forbidden, as is speaking against the scholars and the pillars of the religion. Whoever speaks against one of the Imams has fallen into a tremendous sin and committed a grave offense, and in most cases you find that he neither prospers nor succeeds in his affairs. Whoever does this, it is obligatory upon every ruler and authority to discipline him, punish him, and deter him from such conduct with every appropriate form of punishment and exemplary penalty. Rather, it is obligatory upon every Muslim to denounce him and take a stand against him."

As a benefit, the narration 'The scholars of my Ummah are like the prophets of Bani Isra'eel' is not authentic, and has no basis in the ahadeeth of the Prophet (peace be upon him). (Source)

• Final Remark

The Haddaadiyyah and those who follow them in their misguidance and deviant ways, as seen above, have no leg or foundation to stand on. All of their arguments on this specific matter are baseless, lacking in knowledge and understanding, devoid of scientific principles, and full of whims and desires. This is why it is not in their habit to talk to Ahlul-'Ilm and those who are aware of their misguidance. They treat themselves as the interpreters of the Salaf, presenting their own understanding as if this is what Ahlus-Sunnaha believes, and that whoever opposes them and refutes them is "refuting the Sunnah" or "does not follow the Salaf". Allaah is sought for help from the ignorance of these people.

2- He is a Murji'

• Meaning of al-Irjaa'

Al-Irjaa' linguistically means delay and postponement. It is said: أرجأتُ الشَّيءَ meaning "I delayed a thing." The root (رجأ) indicates delay. When it comes to the discussion in Eeman (faith), the Murji'ah were named as such because they deferred action, meaning that they delayed it. (Source)

Terminologically, the Salaf used the term al-Irjaa', for a number of groups. They used it to describe the extreme Murji'ah who said actions have no effect on Eeman, and that one remains a perfect believer, even if he leaves all action. The Salaf also used it for Murji'ah al-Fuqaha' who held that faith is affirmation in the heart and verbal iteration on the tongue, with actions being outside its definition, they also applied it to the Jahmiyyah, who held that faith is knowledge alone, and to the Karramiyyah, who held that faith is merely the statement of the tongue. What is well-known among the scholars is to use the term al-Irjaa' for one who says that faith is speech and affirmation without action, or says that a sin does not harm along with faith, just as an act of obedience does not benefit along with disbelief. Included in this are the positions that follow from this view, such as saying that faith neither increases nor decreases, that it is one single degree and that believers do not differ in rank regarding it and such. Also included is the view that the one who commits a major sin is a believer possessing complete faith. (Source)

Therefore, when scholars use the term al-Irjaa', it is important to remember not all those who were associated with it held one identical doctrine, and the term cannot be understood properly without identifying the particular form being discussed.

As for Ahlus-Sunnah wa'l Jama'ah, they held that eemaan is speech and action: the speech of the heart and tongue, and the actions of the heart and limbs. It increases through obedience and decreases through disobedience. The exclusion of actions from the definition of eemaan was therefore regarded as an error, even when their obligation and consequences were affirmed. (Source)

• Murji'ah al-Fuqaha' wa's-Sunnah

The Murji'ah al-Fuqaha' were one of the groups that emerged in Kufa in counter and opposition to the doctrine of the Khawaarij and Mu'tazilah. The Khawaarij claimed that whoever committed a major sin exited Islam, and became a disbeliever. The Mu'tazilah claimed that whoever committed a major sin was neither a believer nor a disbeliever, but rather in a place between belief and disbelief. Therefore, this group of jurists, scholars of Hadeeth, and others opposed both of these views, and held that actions were not included in the definition of faith. Most of the Murji'ah al-Fuqaha' emerged from Kufa, the companions of 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ood were not among the Murji'ah, nor was Ibraheem an-Nakhaa'i and those like him.

They were called Murji'ah al-Fuqaha' because they were among the jurists of Ahlus-Sunnah wa'l Jama'ah, and they were called Murji'ah because they fell into a degree of al-Irjaa', namely excluding deeds from the definition of faith. Their innovation is not major, but it was the starting point of the innovation of the Murji'ah, which is among the greatest of the reprehensible innovations. The deviation of al-Irjaa' subsequently developed until it reached the position that faith is merely knowledge, and al-Irjaa' became a broad gateway for escaping the rulings of the Sharee'ah, justifying wickedness and immorality, and making sins seem insignificant. Part of the understanding of the Salaf was that they recognized the danger of al-Irjaa' from the very beginning of its emergence, and their condemnation of the Murji'ah al-Fuqaha' became severe. (Source)

It is said that the first to speak with this kind of al-Irjaa' was Saalim ibn 'Ajlan al-Aftas. It was also said the first to do so was 'Umar ibn Qays al-Maasir al-Kufi, some said it was Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, the shaykh of Abu Haneefah, and it was also said Dharr ibn 'Abdullah al-Kufi. (Source)

Some of the famous men associated with this type of al-Irjaa' were:

1. Dharr ibn 'Abdullah al-Hamdani (d. around 100 AH)
2. Ibraheem ibn Yazeed ibn Shareek at-Taymi (d. 92/94 AH)
3. Talq ibn Habeeb al-Anzi (d. 90-100 AH)
4. Hammad ibn Abi Sulaymaan (d. 120 AH)
5. 'Umar ibn Qays al-Masir ibn Abi Muslim, client of Thaqeef (d. 120-130 AH)
6. Saalim ibn 'Ajlaan al-Aftas (d. 132 AH)
7. Shababah ibn Suwar al-Madaa'ini (d. close to 205 AH)
8. Ayyub ibn 'Aabid at-Taa'i (d. 141-150 AH)
9. Abu Yahya 'Abd al-Hameed ibn 'Abdur-Rahmaan al-Himmani (d. 202 AH)
10. Uthmaan ibn Ghiyaath al-Basri (d. 151-160 AH)
11. Ibraheem ibn Tahmaan al-Khurasani (d. 168 AH)
12. Abu Mu'awiyah adh-Dhareer (d. 194-195 AH)
13. 'Amr ibn Murrah al-Jamali (d. 118 AH or before)
14. Yahya ibn Saleh al-Himsi (d. 222 AH)
15. 'Abd al-'Azeez ibn Abi Rawwad al-Himsi (d. around 155 AH, or 159 AH)

(Source) (Source)

So what made the Murji'ah al-Fuqaha' different from the later forms of al-Irjaa' was they only differed by not including actions in the definition of Eeman. But fuqaha' agreed with the rest of Ahlus-Sunnah that obligatory actions are truly obligatory, that their abandonment deserves blame and punishment, and that those whom Allaah punishes from among the perpetrators of major sins will be removed from the Fire through intercession. So they agreed with Ahlus-Sunnah in the absolute meaning of eeman (faith). (Source)

This was why this was described as an innovation among the lightest of innovations and elaborated upon that much of the disagreement concerned terminology rather than the rulings attached to obedience and disobedience. Ibn Taymiyyah in [مجموع فتاوى] explained:

"A group who are regarded by the Ummah as people of knowledge and Deen entered into the Irjaa' of the fuqahaa'. For this reason, none of the Salaf declared any of the Murji'ah al-Fuqaha' to be disbelievers. Rather, they regarded this as an innovation in statements and actions, not an innovation in the foundations of belief. Much of the disagreement concerning it is verbal, although the wording that agrees with the Book and Sunnah is correct."

Imam adh-Dhahabi in [سير أعلام النبلاء] in the biography of Hammad ibn Abi Sulaymaan related:

"Ma'mar said: We used to go to Abu Ishaq, and he would say, 'Where have you come from?' We would say, 'From Hammad.' He would say, 'What did the brother of the Murji'ah say to you?' Whenever we entered upon Hammad, he would say, 'Where have you come from?' We would say, 'From Abu Ishaq.' He would say, 'Stay close to the shaykh, for he is about to pass away.' He said: Hammad died before him."

"Ma'mar said: I said to Hammad, 'You were a leader, and you were an imam among your companions, but you opposed them (i.e. by having al-irjaa'), and so you became a follower.' He said, 'For me to be a follower upon the truth is better than for me to be a leader upon falsehood.'"

I said (i.e. Adh-Dhahabi): Ma'mar is referring to the fact that he became a Murji', adopting the Irjaa' of the jurists. That is, they do not regard prayer and zakat as part of faith, and they say: 'Faith is affirmation with the tongue and certainty in the heart.' The disagreement over this is merely verbal, if Allaah wills. The extreme form of al-Irjaa' is only held by the one who says: 'Abandoning the obligatory duties does not harm along with Tawheed' We ask Allaah for well-being."

These explanations distinguish Irjaa' al-Fuqahaa' from the Irjaa' of the Jahmiyyah and the extremists. The error concerned whether actions enter into the definition of eemaan, not whether Allah commanded those actions, whether abandoning obligations is sinful, or whether obedience and disobedience have consequences. The position is therefore rejected as an error without treating its adherents as though they denied the obligations and punishments established by the Sharee'ah.

• View of Imam Abu Haneefah in Eeman

Many of the scholars have mentioned that Imam Abu Haneefah also held the view of Irjaa' of the Fuqaha', and it is soundly established from him. Abu Ja'far at-Tahaawi in his treatsie said, describing the views of Abu Haneefah, Abu Yoosuf and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan (may Allaah have mercy on them all):

"And faith consists of affirmation by the tongue and acceptance by the soul."

In [تلخيص شرح العقيدة الطحاوية], pages 134-135:

"Know that the disagreement between Abu Haneefah and the rest of the Imams of Ahlus-Sunnah is merely a difference in expression. For whether the actions of the limbs are necessary consequences of faith of the heart, or are a part of faith, while agreeing that the perpetrator of a major sin does not leave the realm of faith but is subject to the will of Allaah, Glorified and Exalted is He, if He wills, He punishes him, and if He wills, He pardons him, is a verbal disagreement that does not result in corruption of creed [1]. And if the disagreement in this matter among Ahlus-Sunnah is merely verbal, there is no harm in it [2] except what results from one of the two groups transgressing against the other, division because of that, and the need for the innovations of the blameworthy Ahl al-Kalaam (i.e. need of their rational interpretations) of the people of al-Irjaa' and others."

[1] This is quoted from ibn Taymiyyah as quoted above.

[2] Even though there is no harm outwardly, it is best to stick to the wording of the Quraan and Sunnah, as Ibn Taymiyyah said.

Moving on:

"Imam Abu Haneefah, may Allaah be pleased with him, considered the reality of faith in the linguistic sense, along with evidence from the statements of Allaah, ... while the rest of the Imams, may Allaah have mercy upon them, considered its reality according to the terminological usage of Allaah. For Allaah attached certain descriptions and conditions to affirmation, just as He did with Salaah, As-Sawm, Hajj, and the like."

Evidences of Abu Haneefah and his companions

Among the evidences of Abu Haneefah, may Allaah have mercy on him, and his companions that faith in Allaah is affirmation is the statement of Allaah, Most High, relating the words of the brothers of Yoosuf:

وَمَا أَنتَ بِمُؤْمِنٍ لَّنَا

"But you would not believe us."

"Meaning: 'you would not affirm us.' And His statement:

لَن نُّؤْمِنَ لَكَ حَتَّىٰ نَرَى ٱللَّهَ جَهْرَةًۭ

"We shall never believe in you until we see Allâh plainly."

"And His statement:

فَآمَنَ لَهُ لُوطٌ

"So Lût (Lot) believed in him"

"Meaning: he affirmed Ibraheem, peace be upon him. Otherwise, Lut was already a prophet and a believer before this."

إِلَّا مَنْ أُكْرِهَ وَقَلْبُهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالْإِيمَانِ

" except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with faith"

"He did not say: 'while his heart, tongue, and limbs are secure in faith.' And His statement:

وَلَمَّا يَدْخُلِ الْإِيمَانُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ

" for faith has not yet entered your hearts. "

"And His statement:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ

"Indeed, those who have believed and done righteous deeds"

"And similar verses in which deeds are joined to faith by conjunction. It has already been mentioned that if deeds were a real part of faith, then negating deeds would necessitate negating faith, because the absence of a part necessitates the absence of the whole."

This book is a summary of Sharh al-Aqeedah at-Tahaawiyyah of Ibn Abi al-'Izz, done by the Pakistani Hanafi scholar Muhammad Anwaar al-Badkhashani. This is in line with what is mentioned by scholars from other than the Hanafis as Ibn 'Abd al-Barr al-Maaliki, Adh-Dhahabi ash-Shaafi'i and Ibn Taymiyyah al-Hanbali, may Allaah have mercy on them all.

• Is Abu Haneefah considered a Murji'?

Quoting from [Concerning imam Abu Haneefah and the Hanafi Madhhab]:

"... However, no consensus can be claimed for the unrestricted conclusion that he belonged to the misguided and extreme Murji'ah, that he held the Irjaa' of the Jahmiyyah, or that the title erased his general standing among Ahlus-Sunnah.

"Imam al-Bukhaari did not explain in this entry precisely what he intended by the attribution. The description must therefore be considered in light of the well-known disagreement concerning the definition of eemaan and the explanations given by the scholars."

Ash-Shahrastaani (d. 548 H) explained why imam Abu Haneefah and his companions were counted among the Murji'ah by some writers on the sects:

"Indeed, Abu Haneefah and his companions were called the Murji'ah of the Sunnah, and many of the writers on the sects counted him among the Murji'ah. Perhaps the reason for this was that, because he said that eemaan is affirmation in the heart and that it neither increases nor decreases, they thought that he deferred actions from eemaan. Yet how could a man, with his great strictness concerning actions, issue verdicts permitting the abandonment of actions?

There is also another possible reason: he opposed the Qadariyyah and the Mu'tazilah who appeared during the earliest period. The Mu'tazilah used to describe everyone who opposed them concerning al-Qadar as a Murji', as did the Wa'eediyyah from among the Khawaarij. It is therefore not unlikely that this title became attached to him through these two groups. Allah knows best."

" Ash-Shahrastaani therefore mentioned two possible explanations. The first was imam Abu Haneefah's definition of eemaan and the exclusion of actions from what the term itself encompasses. The second was the broader use of the title "Murji'" by the Mu'tazilah and the Wa'eediyyah from among the Khawaarij against those who opposed them concerning al-Qadar and the ruling upon the perpetrators of major sins."

"He also called attention to the contradiction in portraying imam Abu Haneefah as one of the extreme Murji'ah. Imam Abu Haneefah was known for his strictness concerning actions, obligations, prohibitions, and the detailed rulings of the Shari'ah. Ash-Shahrastaani consequently placed the attribution within what was called Murji'at as-Sunnah, not among the Murji'ah of misguidance who regarded actions as having no meaningful consequence."

The questioner asked:

"Was Imam Abu Haneefah a Murji'? And did he recant that?"

It was answered:

"One of the principles of Ahlus-Sunnah is that faith is speech and action: the speech of the heart and tongue, and the action of the heart, tongue, and limbs."

There is no disagreement among Ahlus-Sunnah, including Abu Haneefah, may Allaah have mercy on him, that Allaah, Most High, intended from His servants both speech and action. What is meant by speech is affirmation with the heart and acknowledgment with the tongue. But this thing required from the servants: does the name 'faith' encompass it? Or is faith one of the two, namely speech alone, while action is distinct from it and is not included under the name 'faith' when it is mentioned independently, although when the term is applied to both of them, is it figurative? This is the point of contention."

"As for attributing the view of al-Irjaa' to Imam Abu Haneefah, more than one person mentioned this from him, such as Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari and other scholars. They called him and his followers upon this doctrine, the Murji'ah of the jurists. And alongside that, the scholars have explained the Imam's perspective on the issue, excusing him and narrowing the gap between his position and that of Ahlus-Sunnah, and at times defending him against this accusation.

...

"It is concluded from what has preceded that it is not correct to state categorically that Imam Abu Haneefah was one of the Murji'ah, because the Murji'ah are divided into numerous groups and their views regarding al-Irjaa' differ. Also, because he, may Allaah have mercy on him, agrees with Ahlus-Sunnah regarding the necessity and importance of deeds, that they are required from every Muslim, that major sins are prohibited and that the one who commits them incurs sin, and that he is subject to the will of Allaah."

(Source)

Thus, it is not correct to say "Abu Haneefah is a Murji'" generally as it oversimplifies a matter that requires elaboration as the Murji'ah held different doctrines and views, which we detailed above. If one says, Abu Haneefah had Irjaa' of the Murji'ah al-Fuqaha', this is accepted as it is soundly established. This position is described as a mistake. It is not to be concealed, minimized, or followed. At the same time, no scholar is free from every mistake, and a mistake does not permit the erasure of the scholar's knowledge, virtues, and service to the Deen.

Imam adh-Dhahabi stated:

"If we were to disregard and condemn every person who errs in their ijtihad, despite their sincere faith and effort to follow the truth, then few imams would remain with us. May Allaah have mercy on everyone by His grace and generosity."

(سير أعلام النبلاء)

And he also said:

" If we were to denounce and declare as an innovator every imam who errs in his ijtihaad on any issue with a forgivable mistake, then neither Ibn Nasr, nor Ibn Mandah, nor anyone greater than them would remain with us."

(سير أعلام النبلاء)

Regarding mistakes of the scholars, and what is the position regarding them, then see:

• المطلبُ الرَّابعُ: أن يُحفَظَ للعالِمِ قَدْرُه، ولا تُجحَدُ مَحاسِنُه
• الموقِفُ الصَّحيحُ مِن زَلَّةِ العالِمِ

To expose the hypocrisy of the Haddaadiyyah, I mentioned some of the men from the Salaf who were accused of and attributed to al-Irjaa' of this kind. It is said some of them recanted however most of them did not. Once their having al-Irjaa' is proven as is mentioned by countless authorities, especially the scholars of Hadeeth whose words they rely on to completely dismiss imam Abu Haneefah, do they also dismiss these men of the Salaf based on the scholars of Hadeeth also calling them and labelling them as Murji'ah? There are only two actions here.

Either they do, in which case they end up rejecting the narrators from al-Bukhaari and Muslim, as well as the Sunan (of At-Tirmidhi, Ibn Maajah, Abu Dawood and An-Nasaa'i). The scholars agreed on the trustworthiness, reliability and acceptance of these men among their ranks. Thus, the misguidance of this action is crystal clear. The Haddaadiyyah will end up rejecting much of the Sunnah if they take this action.

Or they do not, in which case it becomes apparent how they selectively cite and quote sources, relying on their words to push their own innovations, despite those authorities themselves, as well as the principles they followed being against and denouncing their innovations. Likewise, it becomes apparent they are not followers of the Salaf, nor do they care about them. They only care about the Salaf when it suits their desires and whims, but the moment the Salaf go against them, they seek wild interpretation and crazy theories to try and explain away their contradictory actions.

3- He is a Khaariji

• Who are Khawaarij?

The Khawaarij in the language are the plural of kharij (one who exits), and khaariji is a noun derived from khurooj (exiting/departing). The scholars of the Arabic language have included the word Khaawarij among the final definitions in their linguistic discussions under the root (خرج), referring it to this group of people, explaining this on account of their departure from the religion, or their rebellion against Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, or their departure against people in general. (Source)

As for their terminological meaning, the scholars have defined them differently as some did so based on their political views, some restricted them solely to those who rose up against 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allaah be pleased with him), and some did so based on whoever shared their way. A general, technical definition then would be everyone who rebels against the imam and the Muslim community with the sword, calling people to his belief, and whose rebellion arises from opposition of the fundamental principles of the Sharee'ah. As for if they arise for other than this, then it is called "general rebellion" , and they may be called Khawaarij as a legal classification. Some of the scholars define it as: "Those who declare people to be disbelievers on account of sins and rebel against the Muslim rulers and their community." This is a broad definition that encompasses most of the differing definitions. (Source)

• Ruling on rebelling against a tyrannical ruler near the Salaf

The majority of Ahlus-Sunnah wa al-Jamaah held that it is not permissible to rebel against oppressive and unjust rulers with the sword, unless their oppression and injustice reaches the point of manifest disbelief, abandoning the prayer and calling people to abandon it, or ruling the Muslim community by something other than the Book of Allaah. This position is attributed to the Companions who withdrew from the tribulation that occurred between 'Ali and Mua'wiyah, may Allaah be pleased with them both. They were Saad ibn Abi Waqqas, Usamah ibn Zayd, Ibn 'Umar, Muhammad ibn Maslamah, and Abu Bakrah, may Allaah be pleased with them all. It was also the position of al-Hasan al-Basri, and is the well-known position of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and the generality of the people of Hadeeth.

There was a group among the Salaf who held it was permissible to rebel against the oppressive and unjust ruler. For this claim, we will mention some examples that occured in our history. The first is the rebellion of 'Abdur-Rahmaan ibn al-Ash'ath in the year 81 AH. Ibn al-Ash'ath was one of the commander of the armies who hated al-Hajjaj ibn Yoosuf ath-Thaqafi. That sentiment was not one sided either, as al-Hajjaj hated ibn al-Ash'ath. The reason for the rebellion of Ibn al-Ash'ath was that al-Hajjaj appointed him to lead an army into the lands of Rutbil, a Turkic ruler. After conquering some territory, Ibn al-Ash'ath decided that his army should remain there until the following year so that they could strengthen themselves. He informed al-Hajjaj of this decision, but al-Hajjaj repeatedly wrote back criticizing his judgment, accusing him of cowardice, and ordering him to advance further into Rutbil's territory.

When al-Hajjaj's letters continued to arrive, Ibn al-Ash'ath gathered his troops and explained the situation to them. The soldiers refused to obey al-Hajjaj, declaring that they would no longer listen to him. Mutarrif ibn Aamir was reportedly the first to openly call for al-Hajjaj to be removed. He argued that victory would only increase al-Hajjaj's authority, while defeat would make them his enemies. The army therefore removed al-Hajjaj from authority and pledged allegiance to Ibn al-Ash'ath, initially without declaring themselves against Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan. Thus, Ibn al-Ash'ath marched with his army from Sijistaan toward Iraq to fight al-Hajjaj and take control of Iraq from him. During the journey, however, his supporters concluded that removing al-Hajjaj effectively meant removing Abd al-Malik as well. They therefore renounced both of them and renewed their allegiance to Ibn al-Ash'ath. Ibn al-Ash'ath accepted their allegiance on the basis of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, the removal of the leaders of misguidance, and fighting those who violated the law.

Al-Hajjaj went out with the Syrian troops against Ibn al-Ash'ath and the two sides fought at the dujayl river on the day of Eid al-Adha. Ibn al-Ash'ath defeated al-Hajjaj's advance guard which led to the latter retreating to Basrah. ibn al-Ash'ath continued his march until he reached Basrah. There, many of the Quraan reciters, jurists, elders and the young joined him.

Naming the reciters who went out with Ibn al-Ash'ath: Muslim ibn Yasaar al-Muzani, also said to be a client of Abu Bakr and some said client of 'Uthman ibn 'Affan, 'Uqbah ibn 'Abd al-Ghaafir al-Awadhi, 'Uqbah ibn Wassaj al-Barsani, 'Abdullah ibn Ghalib al-Jahdhami, An-Nadhr ibn Anas ibn Maalik, Abu al-Jawzah, 'Imraan ibn 'Isaam ad-Duba'i, Sayyar ibn Salamah Abu al-Minhaal al-Riyahi, Maalik ibn Dinaar, Murrah ibn Dabbab al-Harari, Abu Najid al-Jahdhami, Abu Shaykh al-Hina'i, and al-Hasan ibn Abi al-Hasan. Among the people of Kufa were: Sa'eed ibn Jubayr, 'Aamir ash-Sha'bi, 'Abdullah ibn Shaddad ibn al-Haad, 'Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Abi Layla. Also among the army was: Abu 'Ubaydah ibn 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ood, al-Ma'roor ibn Suwayd, Muhammad ibn Sa'd ibn Maalik, Talhah ibn Musarrif, Zubayd ibn al-Haarith, 'Ata ibn as-Sa'ib, and other prominent scholars who acted upon their knowledge.

This fitnah is long and has many details, none of which can be mentioned here due to brevity.

Khaleefah ibn Khayyat in [تاريخ خليفة بن خياط] reported from Maalik ibn Dinaar who said:

"Five hundred of the Quraan reciters went out with Ibn al-Ashʿath, all of them believing that fighting was justified. Tufayl ibn 'Aamir ibn Wa'ilah was among those who were killed."

Ibn Katheer in [البداية والنهاية] reported in the events of the year 83 AH about those who were killed by al-Hajjaj ibn Yoosuf:

"Among those killed were Muhammad ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas and groups of prominent leaders, until the last of them was Sa'eed ibn Jubayr, may Allaah have mercy on them and be pleased with them."

Another example is the rebellion of Ibraheem ibn 'Abdullah ibn Hasan ibn al-Hasan ibn 'Ali ibn Abi Talib in Basrah against Abu Ja'far al-Mansoor in the year 144 AH. Ibn al-'Imaad al-Hanbali in [شذرات الذهب في أخبار من ذهب] said:

"Many Quraan reciters and scholars went out with Ibraheem, among them Hushaym, Abu Khaalid al-Ahmar, 'Eesa ibn Yoonus, 'Abbaad ibn al-'Awwam, Yazeed ibn Haroon, [...]"

Likewise, Ibn al-'Imaad in [شذرات الذهب في أخبار من ذهب] said about the events of 63 AH:

"The Battle of al-Harrah took place. This happened because the people of Madeenah rebelled against Yazeed on account of his lack of religious commitment. He therefore dispatched Muslim ibn 'Uqbah against them. They went out to meet him on the outskirts of Madeenah, at the site known as Harrah Waqim. He killed 306 men from among the descendants of the Muhajireen and the Ansaar. Among the Companions who were killed were:

"Mi'qaal ibn Sinaan al-Ashja'i, 'Abdullah ibn Handhalah al-Ghaseel al-Ansari, ʿAbdullah ibn Zayd ibn 'Aasim al-Mazini, who reported on the Prophet's ablution, peace and blessings be upon him, Muhammad ibn Thaabit ibn Qays ibn Shammas, Muhammad ibn 'Amr ibn Hazm, Muhammad ibn Abi Jahm ibn Hudhayfah, Muhammad ibn Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Mu'adh ibn al-Haarith Abu Haleemah al-Ansaari, whom ʿUmar had appointed to lead the people in the Taraweeh, Waasiʿ ibn Habban al-Ansari, Ya'qoob, the son of Talhah ibn ʿUbaydullah at-Taymi and Katheer ibn Aflah, one of the scribes of the Quraan that ʿUthmaan had sent out, as well as his father Aflah, the client of Abu Ayyub."

Another example is that of Sulaymaan ibn Suraad al-Khuza'i who was a companion. Ibn al-'Imaad in [شذرات الذهب في أخبار من ذهب] said:

"In that year, Sulayman ibn Surad al-Khuza'i, a Companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and al-Musayyab ibn Najbah al-Fazari, a companion of Ali, went out with four thousand men, seeking vengeance for the blood of al-Husayn. They were known as Jaysh at-Tawwabeen, and also as the Army of as-Sarat. Marwan had already dispatched sixty thousand men under Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad to seize Iraq. The two forces met in al-Jazeera, where Sulayman and his companions were defeated. Sulayman, al-Musayyab, and a number of their men were killed."

May Allaah have mercy upon all the Muslims. All of this has been quoted so that the reader knows that men of the Salaf, including companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) held rebellion against oppressive and unjust rulers. So what are we to say about all of them? Were they mistaken, or were they correct? Nevertheless, the position that later became established among most of the jurists of Ahlus-Sunnah, particularly in the third century, was that one should not rebel against the ruler, even if he was unjust. But using this later development as evidence and dismissing the issue of rebellion on the basis of what developed afterward involves recklessness and disregards the views of a large number of the leading scholars of the Ummah who either rebelled themselves or encouraged people to rebel.

• View of Imam Abu Haneefah

There are two opinions that are narrated from Imam Abu Haneefah (may Allaah have mercy on him). The first was the opinion of the second group we mentioned. Although he himself never physically went out against unjust and oppressive rulers, he was vocal in support of the rebellions that happened against some of the rulers of the Umayyads and later 'Abbasids. In the rebellion of Ibraheem ibn 'Abdullah in 144 AH, I wrote, [...] towards the end. That is because that part is relevant now, Ibn al-'Imaad said:

"... and Abu Haneefah. Abu Haneefah openly expressed his support for Ibraheem’s cause and urged people to rise up with him, just as Maalik urged people to rise up with his brother Muhammad."

He also supported the rebellions of Muhammad ibn 'Abdullah, the brother of Ibraheem in Madeenah. Similarly, he also supported the rebellion of Zayd ibn 'Ali in the year 122 AH.

It is due to this that various reports exist, which are established authentically, that some of the Salaf denounced imam Abu Haneefah for his stance on this matter.

Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas in his [أحكام القرآن] said:

"Abu Haneefah's position regarding fighting oppressors and unjust rulers was well known. For this reason, al-Awzaa'i said: 'We tolerated Abu Haneefah in everything until he came to us with the sword', meaning fighting the oppressors, 'and then we could no longer tolerate him.'"

"Among his teachings was that commanding what is right and forbidding what is wrong is an obligation that must first be carried out through speech. If it is not obeyed, then it is to be carried out with the sword, based on what has been narrated from the Prophet ﷺ. Ibraheem as-Sa'igh, who was one of the jurists, narrators of reports, and ascetics of Khurasaan, asked him about commanding what is right and forbidding what is wrong. Abu Haneefah replied, 'It is an obligation. He then related to him a hadeeth from ʿIkrimah, from Ibn 'Abbas, that the Prophet ﷺ said: 'The best of martyrs is Hamzah ibn 'Abd al-Muttalib, and a man who stands before a tyrannical ruler, commands him to do what is right and forbids him from doing what is wrong, and is then killed.' Ibraheem then returned to Marw and confronted Abu Muslim, the leader of the state. He commanded him to do what was right, forbade him from what was wrong, and denounced his oppression and unjust shedding of blood. Abu Muslim tolerated him several times, but eventually killed him."

"The case of Abu Haneefah concerning Zayd ibn 'Ali is well known, as is his giving him money, and his secretly issuing rulings to the people that it was obligatory to support him and fight alongside him. The same was the case with Muhammad and Ibraheem, the two sons of ʿAbdullah ibn al-Hasan. When Abu Ishaaq al-Fazari said to him, 'Why did you advise my brother to go out with Ibraheem until he was killed?' Abu Haneefah replied: 'Your brother’s going forth is more beloved to me than your going forth.' And Abu Ishaaq had gone out to Basrah."

The second opinion which was his last opinion was the same as the rest of the Salaf on the matter, so he retracted his first opinion towards the end, as the latest rebellion in which we find his support was the rebellion of Ibraheem ibn Muhammad. Imam Abu Ja'far at-Tahaawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) stated in his treatsie:

"We do not see rebellion against our imams and rulers, even if they are unjust, nor do we pray against them, nor do we withdraw our allegiance from them. We consider obeying them to be an obligation from Allaah Almighty, as long as they do not command disobedience, and we pray for their righteousness and well-being."

This position is also reported by the scholars of the madhhab. Al-Bazdawi in [أصول الدين] said:

"If the Imam becomes unjust or sinful, he is not removed from office according to all the companions of Abu Haneefah, and this is the preferred position."

Therefore, similar to our conclusion to the issue of al-Irjaa' and imam Abu Haneefah being described as a Murji', the Haddaadiyyah are once again caught in between two impossible choices, along with a point that once again exposes their ignroance. As for the two choices, then they accuse Imam Abu Haneefah of being a Khaariji due to the first opinion he held. Would the Haddaadiyyah then accuse all of those whom we mentioend among the people of the second opinion including those companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) as being from Khawaarij? In fact, the matter is more bleak here. Imam Abu Haneefah retracted this opinion, as we saw above, however these men of the Salaf from the companions and their students did not. So they remain perpetually as Khawaarij in the eyes of the Haddaadiyyah! Whereas the second choice is to only accuse imam Abu Haneefah, while conveniently ignoring those who held this opinion other than him. It is my personal observation that this is the preferred choice of the Haddaadiyyah in all the claims. When you point out their hypocrisy and selective citations, they ignore it and try desperately to change the conversation to some other irrelevant point.

As for the point that we mentioned, then how ignorant and lack of understanding exists among the Haddaadiyyah. First they accuse him of being a Murji', and they do not accept the explanation we gave on his Irjaa', rather they ascribe him definitively to the misguided sect of the Murji'ah. At the same time, they accuse him of being a Khaariji, and of supporting rebellions against the rulers (as was his first opinion). Both of these sects have a fundamental contradiction in this matter! The Murji'ah say leaving actions wouldn't harm a person's faith, so if this is what Abu Haneefah held, then why did he obligate the rebellions that occurred, supporting them with wealth, and giving them vocal support?! Knowing the Haddaadiyyah and their lack of self-reflection, they'd rather accuse the Imam of being contradictory, rather than accepting their own blunders.

4- He is a Jahmi

• Who are the Jahmiyyah?

The Jahmiyyah are one of the theological sects that attribute themselves to Islam. The Jahmiyyah is an attribution to Jahm ibn Safwan, the founder of their doctrine. He was a student of al-Ja'd ibn Dirham, who studied under Aban ibn Sam'an, the Jew. This sect's misguided ideas expanded, and many people were influenced by them, concerning the concept of faith, the attributes and names of Allaah Most High, and divine decree. They also held influence within the state for a period of time, and when they gained power over their opponents, they persecuted those who opposed them. Al-Maqrizi said:

"After the era of the Companions, may Allaah be pleased with them, the doctrine of Jahm ibn Safwan arose in the eastern lands, and the tribulation caused by it became severe. He denied that Allaah Most High possesses any attribute and raised doubts against the Muslims that had harmful effects upon the religion, from which great affliction occurred. This occurred shortly before the completion of the first hundred years of the Hijrah. His followers became numerous upon views that ultimately led to negation of Allaah's attributes. Most of the people of Islam regarded his innovation as grave, united in denouncing it and declaring its adherents misguided. They warned against the Jahmiyyah, opposed them for the sake of Allaah, condemned those who sat with them, and wrote refutations against them that are well known among those familiar with the subject."

(Source)

A summary of the beliefs of the Jahmiyyah: believing that Allaah should not be described with attributes such as life, knowledge, power, speech, love, anger, or pleasure as qualities subsisting in Him, but considered these to be created things, and they also affirmed the createdness of the Quraan and claimed that Allaah's knowledge was originated (i.e. He did not have knowledge before He created knowledge.). Regarding faith, they held an extreme form of al-irjaa', defining faith merely as knowledge of Allaah and disbelief as ignorance of Him, meaning Firawn and all those with him were believers because they knew of Allaah, even though they did not believe in Him. They also consider human actions to be figuratively attributed to people, and that Allaah is the one who does everything, good or bad. They also believed that Paradise and Hell would eventually cease to exist. (Source)

• Accusations against Abu Haneefah

As we mentioned in [Considering the existence of fabrications attributed to Abu Haneefah], there were many groups and people who attributed false beliefs and statements to imam Abu Haneefah. This included the claim that he said the Quraan as created (as will be discussed later), and that he was a Jahmi and died upon their beliefs, or that he used to respect Jahm. The Haddaadiyyah in their lack of intellect and knowledge fail to realize that had this been true and well established regarding him, then no one would have spoken well of him, and more importantly the Ummah would not have accepted him as an Imam. So the reality of the Haddaadi claim is that the entire Ummah are disbelievers because they took imam Abu Haneefah as an Imam. One may ask how that is so? That is because the Haddaadiyyah takfeer the Jahmiyyah unrestrictedly. This, thus, necessarily implies that whoever takes imam Abu Haneefah as an imam is also a disbeliever, so in their corrupt statements, they end up takfeering the majority of the Salaf, and the entire Ummah! Allaah is sought for him.

The Haddaadiyyah rely on weak narrations in their claims, and we will discuss some instances to show how inconsistent the Haddaadiyyah are, and how in their blind following of al-Khulayfi and Muhammad as-Sulayman, they fail to uphold basic principles when it comes to al-Jarh wat Ta'deel, as well as 'Ilm ar-Rijaal.

→ Abu Haneefah viewed the opinion of Jahm and died a Jahmi

They mentioned what is narrated in As-Sunnah of 'Abdullah ibn al-Imam Ahmad (#231):

"Mahmood ibn Ghilaan narrated to me, Muhammad ibn Sa'eed ibn Salm narrated to us, from his father, I askesd Abu Yoosuf - and he was in Jurjaan - about Abu Haneefah, he said: 'What will you do with him? He died a Jahmi.'"

Muhammad ibn Sa'eed ibn Salm is unknown. As for his father, he is Sa'eed ibn Salm ibn Qutaybah al-Bahili, then al-'Abbas ibn Mus'ab said:

"He was knowledgeable in Hadeeth and Arabic, but he did not dedicate himself to serving the people."

This does not prove his truthfulness and integrity, but rather his knowledge of hadeeth. And how many narrators have knowledge of hadeeth science yet are considered unreliable? As support of that, he reported an odd report from 'Abdullah ibn 'Awn no one other than him reported, it was reported by al-Khateeb in [تاريخ بغداد] with his chain to Sa'eed ibn Salm:

"From Ibn 'Awn, he said, Al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad used to say in his prostration: 'O Allaah, forgive my father his sin against Uthman.'"

Ibn Katheer has said what is authentic is that Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr did not kill or harm 'Uthman ibn 'Affan. Rather that he tried to stop it but was unable to do so. (Source)

Thus there is no doubt that what he reports regarding imam Abu Haneefah from Abu Yoosuf is odd and baseless, it is against what the preferred students of Abu Yoosuf narrated from him regarding the Imam.

In [#232]:

"Isma'eel ibn Ishaaq al-Azdi al-Qaadhi narrated to me, Nasr ibn 'Ali narrated to me, al-Asma'i narrated to us from Sa'eed ibn Salm who said, I said to Abu Yoosuf, 'Did Abu Haneefah used to view the opinion of Jahm?' He said, 'Yes.'"

This has the same defect as the chain before.

Al-Khateeb in his [تاريخ بغداد]:

"Ya'qoob said: Abu Juza'i ibn 'Amr ibn Sa'eed ibn Salm narrated to us. He said: I heard my grandfather say: I asked Abu Yoosuf: 'Was Abu Haneefah a Murji'?' He said: 'Yes.' I asked: 'Was he a Jahmi?' He said: 'Yes.' I asked: 'Then where do you stand regarding him?' He said: 'Abu Haneefah was only a teacher. Whatever of his statements was good, we accepted, and whatever was bad, we left aside.'"

This chain has the same defect as all the previous ones. All of the narrations of this kind come from Sa'eed ibn Salm.

I say, this contradicts everything that has been reported authentically from Imam Abu Haneefah and what he held in the creed. The most authentic, reliable and trustworthy book on this matter is the one written by Imam at-Tahaawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) regarding what imam Abu Haneefah believed. All of the general beliefs mentioned in this treatsie is according to the belief of Ahlus-Sunnah, except for what we have mentioned in al-Irjaa'.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) mentioned imam Abu Haneefah from those who held the views of the Sahaabah, Tabi'een and those who followed them in goodness from the Ahl al-Bayt and others. (Source)

He also said in [مجموع الفتاوى]:

"It is from Allaah's mercy upon His Muslim servants that the Imams who have a good reputation among the Ummah, such as the four Imams and others like Maalik, ath-Thawri, al-Awzaa'i, al-Layth ibn Sa'd, as well as ash-Shaafi'i, Ahmad, Ishaaq, Abu 'Ubayd, Abu Haneefah, Abu Yoosuf, and Muhammad ... they were in agreement upon what the Salaf had followed."

He also said [مجموع الفتاوى]

"Praise be to Allaah. The creed of ash-Shaafi'i, may Allaah be pleased with him, is the creed of the Salaf of Islam, such as Maalik, ath-Thawri, al-'Awzaa'i, Ibn al-Mubarak, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, and it is the creed of the exemplary shaykhs, such as al-Fudayl ibn Iyyad, Abu Sulayman al-Darani, Sahl ibn 'Abdullah at-Tustari, and others. There was no disagreement between these Imams and those like them concerning the fundamentals of religion. Likewise, Abu Haneefah, may Allah have mercy upon him, the established belief transmitted from him in Tawheed, divine decree, and similar matters is in agreement with the creed of these scholars. The creed of these scholars is what the Companions and those who followed them with excellence were upon, and it is what the Quran and Sunnah have stated."

For the Haddaadiyyah know all of this, yet still make these attributions to Imam Abu Haneefah, which have been mentioned by the likes of Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Ibn Taymiyyah, and plenty of scholars as being false and fabricated. This is why if you ask the Haddaadiyyah what proof do they have that he was truly a Jahmi, they will not present any proof except accuse you of opposing the Salaf and not caring for their words. However this exactly proves their ignorance as was established in [Individual statements are not independent sources of the Sharee'ah]. They have made the statements of the scholars akin to revelation which cannot be questioned, and that there is no need for anything besides what they say. Since this is their way with Abu Haneefah, it is not incorrect to say this then also extends to all the words of the Salaf which they may have said against each other. Whether that is Ibn Abi Dhi'b against Maalik, Yahya ibn Ma'een against ash-Shaafi'i, al-Layth ibn Sa'd against Maalik, and plenty of other examples that do not need to be named. So it is they in truth who are against the Salaf, and their way will not cease to exist until they takfeer and tabdee' everyone from the Salaf, due to their ignorance, and destructive way.

→ Abu Haneefah respected the Jahmiyyah

'Abdullah ibn al-Imam Ahmad in As-Sunnah [#237]:

"Ahmad ibn Ibraheem narrated to me, Khaalid ibn Khidash narrated to us, from 'Abd al-Malik ibn Qareeb al-Asma'i, from Haazim at-Tafaawi who said - and he was from the people of Hadeeth -: 'Abu Haneefah used to act according to the books of Jahm that came to him from Khurasaan.'"

Haazim at-Tafaawi is unknown, there is no biography for him. No one other than this unknown narrator has reported this. Allaah is sought for him, this is a fabrication against the Imam.

Al-Khateeb in his [تاريخ بغداد]:

"Muhammad ibn Isma'eel ibn 'Umar al-Bajli informed us, Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn 'Abdullah al-Mutawwi' an-Naysaboori narrated to us, Abu Haamid ibn Bilaal narrated to us, Sakhtawayh ibn Maziyaar narrated to us, 'Ali ibn 'Uthman narrated to us, I heard Zunbur say, I heard Abu Haneefah say:'The wife of Jahm ibn Safwan came to us and taught our women.'"

"Its chain of transmission is weak. Zunbur is Muhammad ibn Ya'la as-Sulami. Al-Bukhaari said: 'His hadeeth are abandoned.' Abu Haatim ar-Razi and adh-Dhahabi said: 'He is abandoned.' Abu Zur'ah ar-Razi, an-Nasaa'i, as-Saaji, al-'Uqayli, Ibn Hibban, and ad-Daraqutni also declared him weak, as mentioned in Tahdheeb al-Kamal, 27/46–47."

Al-Khateeb also narrated:

"Al-Hasan ibn al-Husayn ibn al-'Abbas ibn Duma an-Na'ali informed us, Ahmad ibn Ja'far ibn Salm al-Khutali informed us, Ahmad ibn Ali al-Abbar narrated to us, Mansoor ibn Abi Muzahim narrated to me, Abu al-Akhnas al-Kinani narrated to me, I saw Abu Haneefah - or a trustworthy person told me that he had seen Abu Haneefah - holding the reins of a camel belonging to a female client of Jahm, who had come from Khurasaan, leading her camel along the back of Kufa."

The muhaqqiq said under its footnote:

"Its chain of transmission is weak because the person who saw Abu Haneefah is unknown, and the report is odd, signs of fabrication are apparent in it."

I say, if only al-Khateeb did not do this. After reporting such narrations which are all weak regarding imam Abu Haneefah, he then says "it is quoted from him", and then proceeds to report the only authentic reports on this matter, which is that Imam Abu Haneefah condemned Jahm and the Jahmiyyah, may Allaah forgive our shortcomings.

Al-Khateeb says himself:

"It has been quoted from Bishr ibn al-Waleed, from Abu Yoosuf, that Abu Haneefah used to criticize Jahm and condemn his position."

He then quoted with an authentic chain of narration to Bishr ibn al-Waleed:

"Bishr ibn al-Waleed: I heard Abu Yoosuf say, Abu Haneefah said, 'There are two groups among the worst of people in Khurasaan: the Jahmiyyah and the Mushabbihah.' He perhaps said: 'and the Muqatiliyyah.'"

And he narrated with a fair chain to 'Abd ar-Rahmaan al-Himmani who said:

"I heard Abu Haneefah say, 'Jahm ibn Safwan is a disbeliever.'"

Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi in [الأسماء والصفات] narrated from Muhammad ibn Saabiq who asked Abu Yoosuf about imam Abu Haneefah:

"'Did he hold the view of Jahm?' He replied, 'may Allaah forbid, no, and I do not say it either.'"

Al-Bayhaqi then said:

"Its narrators are trustworthy."

Imam at-Tahaawi at the end of his treatsie said:

"This is our religion and our creed, outwardly and inwardly. We disavow before Allaah, the Exalted, everyone who opposes what we have mentioned and explained. We ask Allaah, the Exalted, to keep us firm upon faith, to cause us to die upon it, and to protect us from the various desires, differing opinions, and reprehensible doctrines, such as the Mushabbihah, the Mu'tazilah, the Jahmiyyah, the Jabriyyah, the Qadariyyah, and others among those who opposed the community and allied themselves with misguidance. We disavow ourselves from them, and in our view they are misguided and reprehensible. From Allaah alone come protection and success."

Thus, there is no truth behind this claim, and imam Abu Haneefah is far above such accusations. It is impossible for this Ummah to gather upon the guidance and good of a man who if he was a Jahmi would be misguided and far from good. Once again, the Haddaadiyyah intend to takfeer and tabdee' everyone, this is implicit from their statements as the only reason to discard the ijmaa' of this ummah would be to say either: ijmaa' is not a proof, or that the ummah were all disbelievers.

5- He said the Quraan is created

• The narrations saying he said it is created.

Just like most of the previous claims, it should be no surprise that the vast majority of narrations on this topic, saying that either Abu Haneefah said the Quraan is created, or that he was ordered to repent because of it are weak and contain unknown, weak or rejected narrators. Thus, it would only be beneficial to address the ones that are more worthy of being addressed which are three.

However before that is addressed, we must address the words of al-Khateeb. He said, before he reported the narrations on this matter:

"As for the doctrine that the Quraan was created, it has been said that Abu Haneefah did not hold this view. However, the well-known position attributed to him is that he did hold it and was asked to repent from it..."

Al-Khateeb narrates 11 narrations that explicitly mention that either Abu Haneefah said the Quraan was created, that he was ordered to repent from it, or similar. All of them are defective, narrated by weak, unknown narrators, or by those who are criticized. Likewise, there are a number of narrations in as-Sunnah as well, and they share the same fate. So all help is sought from Allaah in understanding how the Haddaadiyyah even think this is a talking point, when the exact is well established, even from imams like Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allaah have mercy on him), as we will see.

→ Narration of Ahmad in As-Sunnah [#265]

'Abdullah ibn Ahmad said, I heard my father say:

"I think that he was told to repent in this Ayah (meaning): {Glorified be your Lord, the Lord of Honour and Power! (He is free) from what they attribute unto Him!} 37:180. Abu Haneefah said: 'This is created' so they said to him: 'This is disbelief' so they made him repent."

The muhaqqiq shaykh al-Qahtani said,

"A ruling is not established on an assumption."

In addition to this, in various narrations, it is clear that imam Ahmad took what was spread about imam Abu Haneefah, and he made statements such as these initially, such as the claim that he was told to repent twice or that he said the Quraan was created, so imam Ahmad initally deducded his conclusion based on whatever was around the matter. But once he himself looked into the matter and evidently found no authentic narration from Abu Haneefah directly, he concluded that it is not authentic that imam Abu Haneefah held the Quraan is created. Al-Khateeb narrated with his chain to Abu Bakr al-Maroodhi who said, Ahmad said:

"It is not authentic near us that Abu Haneefah said the Quraan is created."

Muhammad as-Sulaymaan in his bias against the Imam attempted very poorly to weaken this narration which we will answer. First, we will present the chain of narration:

وقال النخعي: حدثنا أبو بكر المروذي قال: سمعت أبا عبد الله أحمد بن حنبل يقول: ‌لم ‌يصح ‌عندنا ‌أن ‌أبا ‌حنيفة كان يقول القرآن مخلوق.

"And An-Nakhaa'i said, Abu Bakr al-Maroodhi said, I heard Abu 'Abdullah Ahmad ibn Hanbal say, 'It is not authentic near us that Abu Haneefah said the Quraan is createad.'"

"Al-Khateeb transmitted it from An-Nakha'i without mentioning the intermediary between them, so it is a disconnected narration."

This "defect" is in reality ignorance from him, and that is because al-Khateeb had already mentioned the chain before, and as is the habit of the scholars, they did not rewrite the same chain, and instead connected the chain with a 'waw', indicating the previous chain mentioned is the one intended here. This is a well-known practice in the science of Hadeeth, and scholars often shorten narrations to avoid repeating the chain of transmission. There are many examples of this in the books of scholars. It is a well-known, widespread, and common practice. However he is ready to lie to support his bias against the Imam.

As for the second "defect":

"This Nakha'i is 'Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan an-Nakha'i, known as Ibn Kas. Al-Khateeb considered him trustworthy, but he is a Hanafi who hates the people of Hadeeth, so he is not trustworthy in this matter. Among the things that indicate his hatred for the people of Hadeeth is what Adh-Dhahabi said: 'He has a book in which he disparages Ash-Shaafi'i, and Nasr Al-Maqdisi refuted him."

There are two deceptions here. First, he claims An-Nakhaa'i hates the Ahl al-Hadeeth, and he attempted to support that by an-Nakhaa'i writing about Imam ash-Shaafi'i, disparaging him. However, this is against his own words, for how does his bias against Ash-Shaafi'i mean he is biased against Ahl al-Hadeeth? Are Shaafi'is the only Ahl al-Hadeeth?! Secondly, he himself just mentioned how al-Khateeb considered him trustworthy. This is a rejection of an-Nakha'i in order to refute the report, on the grounds that he was a fanatical Hanafi. However, two scholars declared the man trustworthy. The first was al-Khateeb, who said: 'He was trustworthy, virtuous, knowledgeable in jurisprudence according to the Hanafi madhhab, and taught the Qur'an.' The second was al-Haafidh Abu al-Hasan, who said: 'He was among the foremost of the people of Kufa in jurisprudence and among the trustworthy.' Just because An-Nakhaa'i was biased against Ash-Shaafi'i, it does not mean he will lie, because his fairness and honesty in transmission are already established!

The rest of the so-called "defects" have to do with the text of the narration itself, which do not deserve to be quoted due to their flimsy and deceptive nature. The first, he claims that Ibn Ka's is alone in narrating this text so it must be rejected. However, this is once again Ibn Sham's deception creeping in, as we have already established that Ibn Ka's is trustworthy and reliable in transmission. As for the claim that the books of the Hanabilah are absent on this, he lies. In the biography of imam Abu Haneefah, we linked a PDF which consists of Hanbali scholars defending imam Abu Haneefah, and some of them relied on this exact narration to refute the doubt that imam Abu Haneefah held such a belief. From them Jamal ad-Deen ibn al-Mibrid and Mar'i al-Karmi, may Allaah have mercy on them both.

As for the second supposed "defect", he quotes the exact narration of imam Ahmad that we are addressing here. This makes no sense at all. Once it is authentically established that the narration itself in its chain is good, then how can imam Ahmad be certain before that Abu Haneefah did not say the Quraan is created, and then have no certainty when he mentions how he 'thinks' this is what he was told to repent in. Subhan Allaah, imam Ahmad is far above having a complete lack of knowledege in principles and matters of transmission than Muhammad as-Sulayman.

And the last "defect" being what we have come to expect from the Haddaadiyyah, and that is relying on narrations full of weak, unknown and rejected narrators to deny authentic, trustworthy and reliable ones, just because they go against his perverted understanding.

This is the end of the discussion on this narration.

→ Narration of Salamah ibn 'Amr al-Qaadhi

Al-Khateeb narrated authentically from Salamah ibn 'Amr al-Qaadhi who said:

"May Allaah have no mercy on Abu Haneefah, for he was the first to claim that the Quraan was created."

The muhaqqiq stated:

"Salamah ibn 'Amr, he is al-'Uqayli. He was a judge in Damascus during the time of the 'Abbasids. Ibn Asaakir mentioned him in his Tareekh Dimashq (its abridgment, 6/234) and cited this report from him. His entry does not indicate that he was trustworthy. Rather, as a narrator, his status is unknown."

I say, apart from Salamah ibn 'Amr himself not being known, this is a odd thing to say as no one other than him has said the the first to say the Quraan was created is Abu Haneefah. Rather it was al-Ja'd ibn Dirham, who was then followed by his student Jahm ibn Safwan. I've quoted relevant sources on this in the Jahmiyyah section.

Let us however assume that what Salamah al-Qaadhi meant is the first to say it in Kufa, then the simple question is who told Salamah al-Qaadhi this information? He was a judge in Damascus, and the very little information on him tells us he did not travel to 'Iraq, nor did anyone in 'Iraq travel to him and tell him. Likewise, it is not mentioned that imam Abu Haneefah ever went to Syria. The mind can only wonder, perhaps the Haddaadiyyah imply Salamah got inspired divinely (ilhaam), which is why they think his saying to be true.

→ Narration of Abu al-Qaasim al-Baghawi

The last narration to address is also from al-Khateeb who narrated with his chain to Abu al-Qaasim al-Baghawi, and he to al-Hasan ibn Abi Maalik who said:

"I said to Abu Yoosuf al-Qaadhi, 'What did Abu Haneefah used to say regarding the Quraan?' He replied: 'He used to say the Quraan is created.' I said: 'And you, O Abu Yoosuf?' He replied: 'No.'"

The muhaqqiq stated in the footnote:

"Abu al-Qaasim al-Baghawi was a trustworthy narrator and one of the narrators who lived long in Baghdad. However, he was foul-mouthed and would speak disparagingly about trustworthy narrators, as mentioned in his entry in al-Meezan, 2/493."

I say, this does not mean that Abu al-Qaasim al-Baghawi would lie. However, it is worth enough to note this is the only 'authentic' narration in its chain that explicitly says that Abu Haneefah used to hold this view. Al-Hasan ibn Abi Maalik is a trustworthy narrator who took knowledge from Abu Yoosuf specifically, however he is not followed in this narration from any of the students of Abu Haneefah, nor from the students of Muhammad ibn al-Hasan and Abu Yoosuf. Rather, the exact opposite is narrated from them so perhaps it is possible that he was mistaken in this specific report.

And if for the sake of argument, we say that Abu Haneefah did use to say the Quraan is created, then it is also clear he retracted this opinion. Is it then valid to use it as an argument? Then no. For every retraction of a righteous person is not an argument against them, but for them, wherein they display their sincerity in following the truth, their honesty in accepting mistakes, and humility in being corrected. This is unlike the Haddaadiyyah, of course, for they lack all these virtues.

• View of Imam Abu Haneefah

I have previously talked about this topic in [Are Hanafis and Matureedis the Same?], and I have quoted from the foremost students of Abu Haneefah, Abu Yoosuf, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan that Abu Haneefah believed the Quraan is the speech of Allaah, and that it is not created. This is reported from Mu'alla ibn Mansoor ar-Razi and Abu Sulaymaan al-Jawzajani, the most foremost students of Abu Yoosuf and Muhammad, Bishr ibn al-Waleed, the foremost student of Abu Yoosuf, Muhammad ibn Saabiq, one of the men of al-Bukhaari and Muslim, and the others also narrated from him. In reports which have weakness though mentioned for emphasis, it is also reported from Muhammad ibn Sama'ah, al-Hasan ibn Abi Maalik himself, al-Hasan ibn Ziyaad al-Lu'lu'i and others.

6- He was asked to repent from disbelief twice

This is one of the most used arguments made against the imam by the Haddaadiyyah. And their usage of it continously will expose who they truly base their views on.

• What do the narrations say?

There are a large number of narrations with this wording, and many are indeed authentic, that say that Imam Abu Haneefah was asked to repent twice. Some say, he was asked to repent from disbelief twice. And there are some that say he was asked to repent twice from heretical apostasy. Some even say the companions of Abu Haneefah are the ones who made him repent, and so on.

So one of the most important questions arises here, which is to ask exactly what was he asked to repent over? Of course, there are those narrations about this being related to him saying the Quraan is created, however as we explained in its proper place, those narrations are weak, and it is not authentically established that imam Abu Haneefah held that belief.

In As-Sunnah [#357] of 'Abdullah ibn al-Imam Ahmad, we see that those who reported and transmitted these sayings, they were also not sure as to what it was. 'Abdullah said, I heard my father say,

"I heard Sufyaan ibn 'Uyaynah say, 'I know that they made him repent more than once'" - meaning Abu Haneefah. Ibn Zayd - meaning Hammad - said, it was said to Sufyaan, 'Regarding what?' He said, ''He spoke with a statement, and they said: This is disbelief. So his companions considered that they should ask him to repent, and he said: I repent.'"

Likewise, we also went over a narration where imam Ahmad thought that there was a specific Ayah in which he was asked to repent, until he eventually established his opinion that imam Abu Haneefah did not used to say the Quraan is created. Thus, we see that the reason is never mentioned. This also begs the question, why then, was this statement transmitted? Then it all boils down to the point that many things surrounding imam Abu Haneefah was not clear, therefore what reached some place else, it was not possible to correct it immediately. So many people could narrate it forward, and never know the reason behind it. Before we present our reason, however. This duty in fact falls upon the Haddaadiyyah. If they are the ones who use this, rely on it, and spread it, then they should really explain what disbelief this esteemed and great imam fell into.

• The reality of the matter

As for us, then our 'Ulamah' (scholars), Fuqaha' (jurists) and Muhaqiqqeen (researchers) have already elaborated on this matter and explained the true nature of this "repentence". This was also mentioned by our brother student.faith in his article on the Hanafi madhhab. Copying from it:

" Among the recurring forms of propaganda directed against imam Abu Haneefah is the claim that he was made to repent from apostasy twice. The Haddaadiyyah repeat this wording in a manner that leaves the reader with the impression that recognized scholars or judicial authorities formally established his apostasy on two separate occasions."

"However, the mere statement that someone was told to repent from kufr does not establish that he had actually committed kufr, particularly when those demanding his repentance were themselves Khawaarij who declared Muslims disbelievers according to their own deviant principles."

"Al-Faqeeh al-Muhaqqiq 'Ali ibn Sultaan al-Qaari stated in Manaaqib al-Imaam Abi Haneefah:"

"Abu al-Fadl al-Karmaani said:

When the Khawaarij entered Koofah, their position was that everyone who committed a sin was a disbeliever and that anyone who did not declare the sinner a disbeliever was also a disbeliever. It was said to them: 'This man is the shaykh of these people.'

They seized imam Abu Haneefah, may Allah have mercy upon him, and said to him: 'Repent from disbelief.'

He replied: 'I repent from every form of disbelief.'

It was then said to them: 'He meant that he repents from your disbelief.'

So they seized him again. He said to them: 'Did you say this based upon knowledge or conjecture?'

They replied: 'Based upon conjecture.'

He said: 'Indeed, some conjecture is sin, and sin is a transgression, so repent from disbelief.'

They said: 'You must also repent from disbelief.'

He replied: 'I repent from every form of disbelief.'

This is the basis of what the opponents say, namely that the imam was made to repent from disbelief."

(Source)

"This account does not describe recognized scholars or judicial authorities formally declaring imam Abu Haneefah an apostate. It describes the Khawaarij demanding that he repent from a disbelief they had attributed to him according to their own false principles of takfeer."

"Imam Abu Haneefah then turned their argument against them by showing that their accusation rested upon conjecture. It is therefore misleading to repeat that he was "made to repent from apostasy twice" while concealing who made the demand, why they made it, and that no recognized scholarly judgment of apostasy is established by this report."

The Haddaadiyyah when they see this claim oftene reject this, saying it lacks any chain of narration so there is no truth to it. So I say, Ibn Abi al-'Awwam in [فضائل أبي حنيفة وأخباره ومناقبه] reported:

"[Abu al-Qaasim ibn Abi al-'Awwam] I found in my book a narration from al-Hasan ibn Hammad Sajjadah [ثقة], which I had narrated from him. He said: Abu Qatan, Amr ibn al-Haytham [ثقة صاحب سنة], narrated to us:

I intended to depart for Kufa, so I said to Shu'bah: "With whom do you correspond in Kufa?" He replied: "Abu Haneefah and Sufyaan ath-Thawri." I said: "Write a letter for me to both of them." So he wrote, and I proceeded to Kufa.

I asked: "Which of the two men is older in age?" It was said: "Abu Haneefah." So I handed the letter to him, and he asked: "How is my brother, Abu Bistam [Shu'bah]?" I replied: "He is well." When he read the letter, he said: "Whatever we have is at your disposal, and regarding whatever others have, ask for our assistance and we will help you."

Then I went to Ath-Thawri and handed him his letter, and he said to me the same as what Abu Haneefah had said. So I said to him: "Something is reported from you where you say that Abu Haneefah was asked to repent from disbelief twice. Is it the disbelief that is the opposite of faith?"

He lowered his head and then said: "No one has asked me about this matter other than you since I spoke of it." He bowed his head and then said: "No. Rather, Wasil al-Shari (one of the Khawaarij) entered Kufa, and a group came to him and said: 'There is a man here who does not declare the people of sin to be disbelievers'- meaning Abu Haneefah. So he sent for him and brought him forward, saying: 'O Shaykh, it has reached me that you do not declare the people of sin to be disbelievers?' He replied: 'That is my view.' He said: 'This is disbelief. If you repent, we will accept you, but if you refuse, we will execute you.' He asked: 'From what should I repent?' He replied: 'From this.' He said: 'I repent from disbelief,' and then he left.

Afterward, a group of Al-Mansoor's companions came and expelled Wasil from Kufa. After some time had passed, Wasil found a time when Al-Mansoor was absent, so he entered [Kufa] again. That same group came and said: 'The man who had repented has returned to his original view.' So he sent for him, brought him forward, and said: 'O Shaykh, it has reached me that you have returned to what you used to say.' He asked: 'And what is that?' He replied: 'That you do not declare the people of sin to be disbelievers.' He said: 'That is my view.' He replied: 'In our view, this is disbelief. If you repent from it, we will accept you, but if you refuse, we will execute you.' He said: 'And the Khawaarij do not execute anyone until they are asked to repent three times.' He asked: 'From what should I repent?' He replied: 'From disbelief.' He said: 'Then I repent from disbelief.'

So this is the disbelief from which he was asked to repent."

One may refer to the introduction, description of the book, who authored it, and its reliability at the beginning pages. Once again, it comes up how the Haddaadiyyah misuses and miscontextualize narrations for their views. With their extremism in Takfeer and Tabdee', it makes sense that they would rely on the Khawaarij as they too were extreme in Takfeer, as was proven in the narration.

7- He prefers his own opinions over the Sunnah

An article regarding this already exists in which it is proven that Imam Abu Haneefah, and the Hanafis in general do not prefer opinions, qiyaas (analogical reasoning) or such over the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him), namely the solitary and singular narration.

• Do the Hanafis prefer Qiyas over Hadeeth?

In brief, it is not correct absolutely to attribute this claim to the Imam, may Allaah have mercy on him. As for what is reported in some of the narrations that he would do such, or that he left a Hadeeth for another, then the the scholars of this Ummah are agreed upon that no scholar leaves the Hadeeth of the Prophet (peace be upon him) for something other unless he has an evidence for it.

Imam Abu 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-Barr (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in [جامع بيان العلم وفضله]:

"And I know of no scholar except that he had an interpretation in a verse, or a view in the Sunnah, because of which he set aside another Sunnah, based on an acceptable interpretation or a claim of abrogation."

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) also addressed this issue in [مجموع الفتاوى] and said:

"Abu Yoosuf (may Allaah have mercy on him), who was the foremost of Abu Haneefah's companions and the first to be given the title Qadhi al-Qudha' (Chief Judge), when he met Maalik and asked him about these issues, Maalik answered him by citing the mass-transmitted practice of the people of Madeenah. Thereupon, Abu Yoosuf adopted Maalik's view and said: "Had my teacher seen what I have seen, he would have retracted just as I have retracted."

"Thus, Abu Yoosuf conveyed that this kind of transmission constituted a valid proof in the view of his teacher, Abu Haneefah, just as it was a valid proof in the view of others. The only reason was that this transmission had not reached Abu Haneefah, just as many hadeeths did not reach him or the other Imams. Therefore, they are not to be blamed for leaving what they had no knowledge of."

"Abu Yoosuf's acceptance of this transmission was like his acceptance of many hadeeths which both he and his companion Muhammad followed, abandoning the opinion of their teacher, because they knew that their teacher used to say: 'These hadeeths too are authoritative if they are authentic; they simply did not reach me.'"

"Whoever thinks that Abu Haneefah, or any other of the Imams of the Muslims, deliberately opposed an authentic hadeeth in favor of analogy (qiyaas) or anything else has erred concerning them. Such a person has spoken either on the basis of conjecture or desire."

Likewise, in his valuable work [رفع الملام عن الأئمة الأعلام] he said:

"It is obligatory upon the Muslims, after showing loyalty to Allaah, the Exalted, and His Messenger ﷺ, to show loyalty to the believers, as the Quraan has declared. This applies especially to the scholars, who are the heirs of the Prophets, whom Allaah has placed in the position of stars by which people are guided through the darkness of land and sea. The Muslims have unanimously agreed upon their guidance and their knowledge."

"For every nation before the mission of our Prophet Muhammad ﷺ had scholars who were its worst people, except for the Muslims, whose scholars are their best people. They are the successors of the Messenger ﷺ in his Ummah and those who revive what has died of his Sunnah. Through them the Book has been upheld, and by the Book they themselves have stood firm. Through them the Book has spoken, and through the Book they have spoken."

"It should also be known that none of the Imams whom the Ummah has unanimously accepted ever deliberately intended to oppose the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ in any aspect of his Sunnah, whether great or small."

"They were unanimously and with certainty agreed upon the obligation of following the Messenger ﷺ, and upon the principle that every person's statements may be accepted or rejected except those of the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ."

"However, if one of them held an opinion while an authentic hadith exists that contradicts it, then he must have had an excuse for not acting upon that hadith. All such excuses fall into three categories:

1- He did not believe that the Prophet ﷺ had actually said it.

2- He did not believe that the hadeeth was intended to address that particular legal issue.

3- He believed that the ruling contained in the hadeeth had been abrogated.

He then went on to explain these reasons further. One who can read Arabic must give this work a read. It has also been translated into English, however the translation does have its errors. See:

• Removing the Blame from the Eminent Scholars

A fitting end to this section would be to transmit what was reported by Ibn Abi al-'Awwam in his [فضائل أبي حنيفة وأخباره ومناقبه] reported from 'Ali ibn Mashar who said:

"We were with Abu Haneefah when 'Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak came to him, dressed in the attire of the people of Khurasan. He asked him: 'A pot of meat was on the fire, and a bird came and fell into it and died. What is the ruling?' Abu Haneefah turned to his companions and said: 'What reports do you have concerning this?' They related to him the narration from Ibn 'Abbas, who said: 'The broth should be poured away, and the meat should be washed.' Abu Haneefah replied: 'This is also our opinion, but with one condition. If the bird fell into the pot while it was still (not boiling), then that ruling applies. However, if it fell into it while it was boiling, then neither the meat nor the broth should be eaten.' Ibn al-Mubarak asked: 'And why is that, O Abu Haneefah?' He replied: 'Because if it fell into it while it was boiling, the dead bird's substance permeated the meat. But if it fell in while the pot was still, it merely soiled the surface of the meat.' Thereupon, Ibn al-Mubarak gestured with his hand, making the sign for thirty, and said: 'This is Zireen.', that is, words of gold."

So we see that imam Abu Haneefah was asked about a matter, and his first action was to ask about what had been reported from the traditions on it, before he gave an answer. Such was his way, and anything other than this is a lie and fabrication on him, may Allaah have mercy on him.

8- He is the imam of the people of opinion [أصحاب الرأي]

This claim is linked to the previous one. When the opponents claim that imam Abu Haneefah (may Allaah have mercy on him) prefers his own opinions over the Sunnah, they go further by saying this is the reason he was called the "imam of the opinion holders", meaning the imam of those people who oppose the Sunnah, intentionally, and prefer their own opinions over the Sunnah due to whims and desires.

To address this claim, there are several points to consider:

• The meaning of Ra'y and its different types

→ Meaning of ar-Ra'y linguistically

Its root [راي] signifies seeing and perception, from which the meaning of belief or opinion is derived. Ibn Faris said in Maqayis al-Lughah (2/472):

"The letters ra and hamzah form a root indicating seeing and perceiving, whether with the eye or with insight. Ra'y is what a person perceives or forms regarding a matter, and its plural is araa (opinions)."

It also comes with the meanings of belief, intellect, planning, reflection, and contemplation. It is said, "I have this opinion (ra'yan)," and the term may also refer to seeing with the physical eyes.

→ Types of ar-Ra'y, and reports regarding them

There are two main types of ar-Ra'y: praiseworthy opinion and blameworthy opinion.

Blameworthy opinion refers to false opinion in its various forms. It is the kind of opinion that contradicts an explicit textual proof, it is speaking about religion on the basis of conjecture and speculation without careful examination and proper understanding of the revealed texts in order to derive rulings from them, opinions that negate Allaah's Names, Attributes, and Actions through invalid analogies opinions that follow personal desires in promoting innovations, issuing verdicts on the basis of mere preference while deriving one subsidiary ruling from another by analogy without referring them back to their foundational principles and considering their underlying causes, or occupying oneself with perplexing hypotheticals and sophistical questions. The Prophet ﷺ said:

"Indeed, Allaah dislikes for you idle talk, excessive questioning..."

This was narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.

Imam Ibn 'Abd al-Barr in his [جامع بيان العلم وفضله] has transmitted the chapter [ما جاء في ذم القول في دين الله تعالى بالراي والظن والقياس على غير اصل وعيب الإكثار من المسائل دون اعتبار], "What has been reported concerning the condemnation of speaking About Allaah's religion on the basis of opinion, conjecture, and analogy without a valid foundation, and the censure of excessively raising hypothetical questions without need". Some of the reports regarding this are:

'Urwah ibn az-Zubayr (may Allaah have mercy on him) said, Abdullah ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿAas came to us during the pilgrimage, and I sat with him. I heard him say: I heard the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ say:

"Indeed, Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, does not remove knowledge from the people after He has granted it to them by snatching it away. Rather, He removes it by taking away the scholars along with their knowledge. Then there remain ignorant people who are asked for legal rulings, and they issue fatwas according to their own opinion, thereby going astray and leading others astray."

'Awf ibn Maalik al-Ashjaa'i (may Allaah be pleased with him) said that the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ said:

"My nation will split into more than seventy sects. The greatest trial for my nation will be a people who measure matters according to their own opinion, thereby making the unlawful lawful and the lawful unlawful"

Abu 'Umar (i.e. ibn 'Abd al-Barr) said:

"It is related that Yahya ibn Maʿeen said: 'The hadith of ʿAwf ibn Maalik narrated by ʿEesa ibn Yoonus has no basis.'" A similar statement has been transmitted from Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

Then he said:

"This is what is meant by qiyaas without a valid foundation and speaking about religion on the basis of conjecture and speculation. Do you not see that the hadeeth says, 'They make the unlawful lawful and the lawful unlawful'? It is well known that the lawful is that which Allaah has declared lawful in His Book or through the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ, and the unlawful is that which Allaah has declared unlawful in His Book or through the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ."

"Therefore, whoever is ignorant of this and answers questions without knowledge, making analogies according to his own opinion, prohibiting what Allaah has made lawful and permitting what Allaah has made unlawful without realizing it. Such a person is the one who has analogized matters according to his own opinion, thereby going astray and leading others astray."

"As for the one who refers the subsidiary rulings back to their established foundational principles on the basis of knowledge, he is not speaking merely according to his own opinion."

Ibn Shihab from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allaah be pleased with him) that he was on the pulpit and said:

"O people! opinion on the part of the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ was always correct, because Allaah would show him the truth. As for our opinion, it is nothing but conjecture and speculation."

And from Ibraheem at-Taymi from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab that he said:

"The people of opinion have become the enemies of the Sunnahs. The hadeeths proved too difficult for them to comprehend and escaped them before they could preserve and transmit them, so they substituted opinion in their place."

And plenty of others. The countless narrations that have come regarding the condemnation of opinion in religion, or to speak with opinion, then they all refer to the blameworthy opinion.

As for praiseworthy opinion, then it involves examining the evidences and exercising ijtihad in understanding them upon established principles and foundations. This is the kind practiced by the Companions and their students. The opinion that is free from personal desire, it is the praiseworthy type. It consists of deriving rulings for newly arising cases from the revealed texts according to the methodology of the jurists among the Companions, the Successors, and those who followed them, by referring each new case to its counterpart in the Quraan and the Sunnah. Therefore, Ra'y in this sense is not a term of criticism. Rather, it is a commendatory description applied to a jurist, indicating the precision of his understanding and the depth of his legal insight.

Imam Ibn 'Abd al-Barr al-Maaliki (may Allaah have mercy on him) in his book [جامع بيان العلم وفضله] under chapter [اجتهاد الراي على الاصول عند عدم النصوص في حين نزول النازلة], i.e. "Striving to form an opinion upon principles near absence of the textual proofs when a new matter arises", mentions the praiseworthy type of opinion upon which the companions and their successors, the early and late scholars were upon.

He narrated from Ash-Sha'bi (may Allaah have mercy on him) from Shurayh (al-Qaadhi) that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allaah be pleased with him) wrote to him when he was appointed:

"When a case comes before you, judge according to what is in the Book of Allaah. If there comes to you a matter that is not in the Book of Allaah, then judge according to what the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ established regarding it. If there comes to you a matter that is neither in the Book of Allaah nor established by the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ, then judge according to that upon which the people have reached consensus. If there comes to you a matter that is neither in the Book of Allaah, nor established by the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ, and concerning which no one has spoken before you, then you may choose whichever of the two courses you wish."

Regarding what "two courses" refers to, then Ash-Sha'bi from Shurayh that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab wrote to him:

"If you find something in the Book of Allaah, then judge by it and pay no attention to anything else. If there comes to you a matter that is not in the Book of Allaah, nor in the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ, and concerning which no one before you has spoken, then if you wish, strive to form your opinion [تجتهد رايك] and proceed; and if you wish, refrain. But I consider refraining to be better for you."

Likewise, he narrated from 'Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Yazeed that many people gathered around 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ood (may Allaah be pleased with him), asking him questions. So he said to them:

"O people! There was a time when we were not called upon to judge, nor were we in such a position. But whoever is tested with the responsibility of judging from this day onward should judge according to what is in the Book of Allaah. If there comes to him a matter that is not in the Book of Allaah, but concerning which His Prophet ﷺ has given a ruling, then he should judge according to that. If there comes to him a matter that the righteous have ruled upon [people who came before], then he should judge according to their ruling. But if there comes to him a matter that the righteous have not ruled upon, and it is not found in the Book of Allaah, nor has His Prophet ﷺ ruled concerning it, then let him exercise and strive to form his opinion. He should not say, 'I think,' or 'I fear,' for the lawful is clear and the unlawful is clear, and between them are matters that are doubtful. Therefore, leave what causes you doubt for what does not cause you doubt

Imam Ibn 'Abd al-Barr said after narrating this:

"This clarifies for you that ijtihad is only undertaken on the basis of established legal principles from which rulings of permissibility and prohibition are derived. Only one who possesses knowledge of those principles may exercise ijtihaad. Whoever finds a matter unclear is obliged to refrain and is not permitted to attribute to Allaah, regarding His religion, a ruling that has no counterpart in an established principle or that does not fall under the meaning of such a principle. This is a matter over which there has been no disagreement among the leading scholars of the major centers of learning, both in earlier and later times. Reflect upon it carefully."

Narrations regarding this kind of praiseworthy opinion have been narrated from 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, Abu Hurayrah, 'Ali ibn Abi Taalib, 'Umar, Ibn Mas'ood and others (may Allaah be pleased with them all). He also narrates and reports from Ibn Shihab az-Zuhri, Al-Hasan al-Basri, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ash-Shaybaani, and Muhammad ibn Idrees ash-Shaafi'i (may Allaah have mercy upon them all) on the praiseworthy opinion. After transmitting the words of Ash-Shaafi'i, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr says:

"Numerous reports have come from the Companions (may Allaah be pleased with them all) demonstrating their ijtihaad to form an opinion and analogical reasoning (qiyaas) based upon established legal principles when no explicit textual evidence was available..."

"Among those from the Successors (Tabi'een) who are known to have exercised ijtihaad and issued verdicts based on analogy with established legal principles in matters for which they found no explicit text are:..."

"And from among the people of Kufa: .... Abu Haneefah and his companions..."

Likewise, following Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Adh-Dhahabi in his biography of the Imam said:

"As for Fiqh, precision in opinion (i.e. ijtihaad), and its subtleties, he was the ultimate authority, and the people were dependent upon him in that."

He quoted from Imam Ash-Shaafi'i:

"People are dependent upon Abu Haneefah in Fiqh."

Then Adh-Dhahabi said:

"Leadership in Fiqh and its intricacies are conceded to this Imam, and this is a matter there is no doubt in."

Thus it is clear that imam Abu Haneefah and his companions were among those people who possessed knowledge of the principle and foundations of the Sharee'ah. They exercised Ijtihaad, just as many others did, upon these principles, and they did not rely on their whims and desires instead of the texts.

• Why they were described as Ahl ar-Ra'y (the People of Opinion) and is it Negative?

The title "Ahl ar-Ra'y" (the people of opinion) was applied to the scholars and jurists of Kufa by some of the hadeeth scholars before them. This was because most of their learning was not confined to the apparent wording of the hadeeths. Rather, they sought to understand what lay beyond the literal text, uncovering the subtleties of its meanings and engaging in legal deduction.

These scholars devoted themselves to deeply understanding the texts, identifying their causes (ʿilal) and the basis of rulings, and investigating matters for which they found no direct textual counterpart. In the view of those narrators, anyone who went beyond the apparent wording of a hadeeth and turned to reasoning (ra'y) had departed from the proper path and abandoned hadeeth in favor of opinion. Thus in their estimation, such an approach was blameworthy and rejected. This was because, in their understanding, the designation Ahl ar-Ra'y in the books of hadeeth referred to those who combined expertise in hadeeth, jurisprudence, and ijtihaad. The differences between the two approaches (The Ahl al-Hadeeth in Hejaz, and Ahl ar-Ray in Kufa) will be discussed in [History of the (Hanafi) Madhhab], In sha Allaah.

This is the reason why Ibn Qutaybah ad-Dinawari in his [المعارف] among the "People of Opinion" [اصحاب الراي], he mentions Imam Abu Haneefah and his three companions: Abu Yoosuf al-Qaadhi, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Faqeeh and Zufar ar-Ray. However, he also includes among them: Al-Awzaa'i, Rabee'ah ar-Ray, Sufyaan ath-Thawri, Maalik ibn Anas, and Ibn Abi Layla.

Then after mentioning them, he mentions "The people of Hadeeth" [اصحاب الحديث]. The inclusion of the likes of imam Maalik who was the champion of the school of Ahl al-Hadeeth among Ahl ar-Ra'y and not Ahl al-Hadeeth is therefore, something to consider.

Similarly, Al-Haafidh al-Khushani in his [قضاة قرطبة] when mentioning the Maalikis mentions them as "people of opinion" [اصحاب الراي]. So did Al-Haafidh Abu al-Waleed ibn al-Fardhi in [تاريخ علماء الأندلس].

Therefore, it is incorrect to restrict this designation (Ahl ar-Raʾy) exclusively to the Hanafis. Rather, it refers to those who excelled in legal deduction and ijtihaad in jurisprudence. A jurist could be described as one of the people of opinion whether he was in Madeenah or in Iraq. Indeed, all the jurists belonged to different groups and schools, differing only regarding the conditions and methodology of ijtihaad and the evidences they considered authoritative. They were all agreed upon deriving rulings from the Quraan, the Sunnah, consensus (ijmaa'), and analogical reasoning (qiyaas), and none of them confined themselves to only one of these sources.

Imam Najm ad-Deen at-Toofi al-Hanbali (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in [شرح مختصر الروضة]:

"Know that the term As-hab ar-Ra'y (the people of opinion), in its literal attribution, refers to everyone who employs opinion in legal rulings. Thus, it includes all the scholars of Islam, because every mujtahid, in his ijtihaad, cannot do without consideration and opinion, even if only in verifying the effective cause and refining it, the validity of which is undisputed."

"As for its usage as a technical designation, then according to the early generations, it refers specifically to the people of Iraq, namely the people of Kufa: Abu Haneefah and those among them who followed him. They were only called As-hab ar-Raʾy because they left many narrations in favor of opinion and analogical reasoning: either because those hadeeths had not reached them, or because they considered them contrary to the Book (the Quraan), or because they were narrated by a non-jurist, or because the original narrator rejected them, or because they were solitary reports in matters of widespread public matter, or because they concerned punishments and expiations according to their established principles in that regard."

Imam at-Toofi then said:

"The sum of the matter regarding him (i.e. Abu Haneefah) is that he certainly did not oppose the Sunnah out of obstinacy. Rather, whatever he differed regarding from it, he differed through ijtihaad, based on clear proofs and sound, clear evidences. His proofs are available among the people, and it is rare for his opponents to deal with them fairly. If he is assumed to have erred, then he has one reward; and if he is assumed to have been correct, then he has two rewards."

"Those who criticize him are either envious or ignorant of the proper places of ijtihaad. The last authentically reported position of Imam Ahmad, may Allaah be pleased with him, was to speak well of him and praise him. This was mentioned by Abu al-Ward, one of our companions, in the book Usool ad-Deen. And Allaah, Glorified and Exalted, knows best what is correct."

To use the term, "Ahl ar-Ra'y" or 'As-hab ar-Ra'y' as an insult is not something new, and as seen, scholars have continously refuted this using it as such. Mullah 'Ali ibn Sultan al-Qari in [مرقاة المفاتيح شرح مشكاة المصابيح] said:

"One can detect in at-Tibi's words a hint of indirect disparagement on the Hanafi scholars, based on his assumption that they give precedence to opinion over hadeeth, and that this is why they are called 'the people of opinion'. But he did not realize that they were only given this name because of the precision of their legal reasoning and the refinement of their knowledge. Hence ash-Shaafiʿi said: 'The people are dependent upon Abu Haneefah in Fiqh'."

Ash-Shihab ibn Hajar al-Makki ash-Shaafi'i stated in [الخيرات الحسان]:

"You should not understand from the statements of the scholars, namely the later scholars of the madhhab, regarding Abu Haneefah and his companions being 'the people of opinion' that they intended thereby to disparage them, or to attribute to them the view that they gave precedence to their own opinions over the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah ﷺ or over the statements of his Companions. Indeed, they are free of such an accusation."

Imam Mar'i al-Karmi al-Hanbali, may Allaah have mercy on him, stated in [مجموع رسائل العلامة مرعي الکرمي الحنبلي], defending imam Abu Haneefah:

"The point of their argument is that attributing opinion and analogical reasoning to Abu Haneefah does not mean that these were unique or exclusive to him. Indeed, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr narrated from Salamah ibn Shabeeb, who said: I heard Ahmad ibn Hanbal say: 'The opinion of al-Awzaa'i, the opinion of Maalik, the opinion of Abu Haneefah, and the opinion of Sufyaan are all opinions. Verily the proof is in the narrations.' If they were all equal in employing opinion, then why did they speak against Abu Haneefah in particular, while not criticizing the others in the same manner? Rather, why did those who harbored hostility toward Abu Haneefah go so far as to author numerous books attacking him on this very issue? Fairness and justice require that if one condemns Abu Haneefah for relying on opinion, then one should likewise criticize everyone else who also employed opinion in the same way."

Afterwards, he copied from Ibn 'Abd al-Barr who answered the claim against Abu Haneefah, and said:

"If you reflect upon this, may Allaah grant you success, you will realize that the Imam was not alone in employing analogy based upon the legal principles. Rather, the jurists of the various regions all did likewise. Thus, the criticism directed specifically at Imam Abu Haneefah on this account collapses. In reality, the criticism of Imam Abu Haneefah in this matter arose from partisanship and bias, despite the fact that all the qualified mujtahids practiced analogical reasoning. Their followers continue to do so to this very day whenever they encounter an issue for which they find no explicit text in the Quraan or the Sunnah. Indeed, they have counted qiyaas as one of the four legal proofs, saying: the Quraan, the Sunnah, consensus (Ijmaa'), and analogical reasoning (qiyaas)."

Therefore, it is apparent that the term 'Ahl ar-Ra'y' in truth refers to those who held a great deal of knowledge and understanding in matters of ijtihaad, qiyaas, and deduction, such that even scholars of the other madhhaib routinely used it as a way to mention their jurists and scholars. With that established, it also becomes known that the reason this term stuck definitively to imam Abu Haneefah and his companions is due to what they considered that they engaged more in ijtihaad and opinion than the other scholars.

To conclude this section, we say in brief that the description of imam Abu Haneefah as "Imam Ahl ar-Ra'y" and by extension of the Hanafis as "As-hab ar-Ra'y" is not negative, nor did most scholars use these terms as attacks against them. Instead, this term referred to a specific approach which was inherited originally from the great and noble companions who settled in Kufa, such as 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ood, 'Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with them) and others.

والله أعلم بالصواب