How Hanafi and Hanbali fiqhs differ in principle?

[gulshan]

I was really interested about the differences among different Madhab or Schools of Fiqh. But almost everywhere, differences described among different Madhabs are difference of procedures of various amaals, not difference of principle. I would like to know the basic differences of principles between Hanafi and Hanbali fiqh. But no problem to discuss methodologies of other Madhabs.

[mohtashims]

I was really interested about the differences among different Madhab or Schools of Fiqh. But almost everywhere, differences described among different Madhabs are difference of procedures of various amaals, not difference of principle. I would like to know the basic differences of principles between Hanafi and Hanbali fiqh. But no problem to discuss methodologies of other Madhabs.

Brother, Are you talking about the differences in "Usool" between Hanafi and Hamble Mazhab ? "Usool" is more commonly used here if you meant the same.

[Caliph]

What do you mean? Like wudhu diffrences, eating diffrences, beard size diffrences, prayer diffrences, Asr time diffrences? You know, there is plenty of diffrence, but all the fundamental things are equal. I recommend you study the madhab itself instead of diffrences.

[gulshan]

Yes, I am talking about the difference in "usool" of these madhabs.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

Yes, I am talking about the difference in "usool" of these madhabs.


Yes to who? You said yes, to Caliph when he was talking about Furoo'...

Are you talking about issues related to worship, like prayer, zakat, hajj..

Are you talking about issues related to Usool al fiqh, in how they both extract rulings from Islamic sources?

Or what are you talking about?

[mohtashims]

Yes to who? You said yes, to Caliph when he was talking about Furoo'...

Are you talking about issues related to worship, like prayer, zakat, hajj..

Are you talking about issues related to Usool al fiqh, in how they both extract rulings from Islamic sources?

Or what are you talking about?

I think he and me are looking for this

---> Are you talking about issues related to Usool al fiqh, in how they both extract rulings from Islamic sources?

However, I guess gulshan can confirm.

[gulshan]

---> Are you talking about issues related to Usool al fiqh, in how they both extract rulings from Islamic sources?

You are right brother. I wanted to know- "How the methodology of extracting sharii rulings differs between the two madhabs?"

[gulshan]

Anyone with an answer?

[haseeb ahmad hanbali]

you should study "Musnad Imam ahmad bin hanbal (r.h)"

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

you should study "Musnad Imam ahmad bin hanbal (r.h)"

That has nothing to do with Hanbali Usool Al-Fiqh.

If anything he should read an introduction to the Hanbali Madhab, or one explaining it's usool, there is one by ِAbdullah bin Abdul Muhsin bin Turki, Ibn Badraan, or Bakr Abu Zaid just to name a few.

If I have time I'll write something short.

[mohtashims]

That has nothing to do with Hanbali Usool Al-Fiqh.

If anything he should read an introduction to the Hanbali Madhab, or one explaining it's usool, there is one by ِAbdullah bin Abdul Muhsin bin Turki, Ibn Badraan, or Bakr Abu Zaid just to name a few.

If I have time I'll write something short.

Jazak.. brother... What will be better is if you could quote some obvious differences between them rather than quoting just the Hambli usool.

[Abu Zakariya Yahya]

Jazak.. brother... What will be better is if you could quote some obvious differences between them rather than quoting just the Hambli usool.

Sorry I haven't studied the Usool of any other Madhab, so I can't say what is the difference. Perhaps someone who knows the Hanafi Madhabs Usool can post it, and then the differences will be known.

In any regard the Usool in order are:

1) Quran and Sunnah, which includes reasons for revelation, that which over-writes what, explanation, etc.

2) Al-Ijma': The majority, and it has levels including.

General: all of the Muslims agreeing on something being obligatory, like prayer for example.

Specific: A statement of a Sahabi of Ijma' that no one negated from among the other Sahaba.

3) Statements of the Companions or fatawa of them: If in the case that none of the previous things exist, the statement of the companion is accepted.

4) Weak ahadeeth: That in actuality with Imam Ahmad are:

1) Hadith Hasan li Ghayri
2) Having SOME weakness, but not being competely Dhaeef. In this category Imam Ahmad would look at the statements of the Ulama, Sahaba, and other ahadith to see if they come together.

5) If none of those 4 are possible, he would rely upon Qiyaas or Raa'i.

There are more after that, that may also be different like:

Istihsaan, Istihaab, Istilaah, Urf, Shar' min Qabilnaa, and Sadd ad-Dharaa'ii

And Allah knows best.

[gulshan]

Jazakallhu khairan brother. I think this is almost same as the Hanafi rulings, except the "weak ahadith" part. Probably difference begin in more sophisticated level of fiqh.

[mohtashims]

Jazakallhu khairan brother. I think this is almost same as the Hanafi rulings, except the "weak ahadith" part. Probably difference begin in more sophisticated level of fiqh.

Can you please elaborate the difference between them? I am still clueless.

[gulshan]

Articles like this one about all the Madhabs are the things I am looking for-
The Fundamental Principles of Imam Malik's Fiqh (http://bewley.virtualave.net/usul.html (http://bewley.virtualave.net/usul.html))
It discusses the principles of Maliki Madhab.

[al-boriqi]

asalamu alaykum

I think what gulshan is looking for is the difference in their approach fundamentally.

1. from what I have studied, the difference is not understood on the basis of the madhaahib (like hanafi, shafi'ee, maliki, hanbali), rather the difference is understood in reference to the two divergent approaches, those being ahlul-ra'i as was embodied by the Hanafis and the ahlul-hadeeth as was embodied by the maaliki, Shafi'ees, and hanaabilah. This is not excluding the hanafis from the ahlul-hadeeth in terms of orthodoxy, rather this divergence is with regards to usooli approaches.

2. The Ahlul-hadeeth approach was marked by certain distinguishing characteristics from its counterpart among the ahlul-ra'i and vice versa.

3. one major distinction is in the derivation of rulings. The ahlul-hadeeth approach was to derive a ruling from the "nusoos" (textual reports and scripture) directly. The ahlu-ra'i approach was to form the ruling first, and then to find support for it within the nusoos. The reason for this, from what I know, and Im sure others can expand more accurately than me, is that the followers of Abu Hanifah they only had the judgments of Abu Hanifah to work with. And so from these rulings they formatted stances (judgments) surrounding these ahkaam and sought to find proofs for them in the Sunnah. This was not a faulty situation since Abu Hanifah was not considered from the muhaditheen whereas Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ash-Shaybaani were, which coincidentally would express why both of them departed from Abu Hanifah's verdicts in I believe it was 2/3 of his madhaab.

3. Another difference is in how they understood "qiyaas". This was a major polemic of that time and there is no need to go into it since we all accept qiyaas. The only people who reject qiyaas are extreme dhaahiris.

4. Another difference is that for the ahlul-hadeeth, the report that is classified as khabrul-waahid amount to ilm qata'i (definitive conclusive knowledge) whereas the ahlul-ra'i considered that khabrul-waahid was ilm dhanni (speculative). This was later exacerbated by the M'utazili ideologues who entered into the Hanafi madhaab and further imported their ideas into their usool, some of which was good and adopted by the rest, some of which are not so good. This is not connected on absolute terms towards the application of this concept in aqeedah, but this stems as an issue or a result of it.

on this note, Shahrastani wrote in his “Milal wa Nihal”:
“Then the Mujtahid among the Imams of the community are restrained into two categories and there is no third: Ashabul Hadith and Ashabur-Ray. Ashabul Hadith are the people of Hijaz, the companions of Malik ibn Anas, the companions of Muhammad ibn Idris Ash-Shafi’i, the companions of Sufyan Ath-Thawri, the companions of Ahmad ibn Hambal, the companions of Dawud ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad Al-Asbahani, and they were only named Ashabul Hadith because of their care to obtain Ahadith and transmit the narrations and build the Ahkam on the clear texts and they do not turn to Qiyaas Al-Jali or Khafi when they find a narration…As for the Ashabur-Ray, they are the people of ‘Iraq, and they are the companions of Abu Hanifah An-Nu’man ibn Thabit and among his companions are Muhammad ibn Al-Hassan, Abu Yussuf Ya’qub ibn Muhammad Al-Qadhi, Zufar ibn Huzayl, Al-Hassan ibn Zyad Al-Lului, ibn Sama’ah, ‘Afiyah Al-Qadhi, Abu Muti’ Al-Balkhi and Bishr Al-Marisi. And they were only named Ashabur-Ray because of their care to obtain a form of Qiyaas and the meaning extracted from rulings and basing their formulations on them, and sometimes they will favour the Qiyaas Al-Jali over the Ahad narrations”

Usually in fiqh discussions, they would usually identify the polemic between the two by saying ashaabul-hadeeth and ashaabu-ra'i.

These are the two basic approaches, and this is why there is virtually no difference in the usool of the Maalikis, Shafi'ees and Hanbalis. most of the hanaabilah benefitied from the usool outlines of the shafi'ees like al-waraqaat of Ibnul-Juwaynee or other prominent shafi'ees

there are some other differences but they leave my mind right now.

asalamu alaykum

[mohtashims]

JazakAllahuKhair Brother Boriqi,

This is exactly what we were looking for.

However, I am not sure if the students / scholars of Hanafi Madhab would agree to your understanding or correct you if they have a different understanding.

The few obvious queries poping up my head brother is...


those being ahlul-ra'i as was embodied by the Hanafis and the ahlul-hadeeth as was embodied by the maaliki, Shafi'ees, and hanaabilah.

If so then why maaliki, Shafi'ees, and hanaabilah gave differing rulings and became three schools of thought of Ahle Sunnah ? Why did they judge from the "nusoos" (textual reports and scripture) directly differently ?


asalamu alaykum

I think what gulshan is looking for is the difference in their approach fundamentally.

1. from what I have studied, the difference is not understood on the basis of the madhaahib (like hanafi, shafi'ee, maliki, hanbali), rather the difference is understood in reference to the two divergent approaches, those being ahlul-ra'i as was embodied by the Hanafis and the ahlul-hadeeth as was embodied by the maaliki, Shafi'ees, and hanaabilah. This is not excluding the hanafis from the ahlul-hadeeth in terms of orthodoxy, rather this divergence is with regards to usooli approaches.

2. The Ahlul-hadeeth approach was marked by certain distinguishing characteristics from its counterpart among the ahlul-ra'i and vice versa.

3. one major distinction is in the derivation of rulings. The ahlul-hadeeth approach was to derive a ruling from the "nusoos" (textual reports and scripture) directly. The ahlu-ra'i approach was to form the ruling first, and then to find support for it within the nusoos. The reason for this, from what I know, and Im sure others can expand more accurately than me, is that the followers of Abu Hanifah they only had the judgments of Abu Hanifah to work with. And so from these rulings they formatted stances (judgments) surrounding these ahkaam and sought to find proofs for them in the Sunnah. This was not a faulty situation since Abu Hanifah was not considered from the muhaditheen whereas Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ash-Shaybaani were, which coincidentally would express why both of them departed from Abu Hanifah's verdicts in I believe it was 2/3 of his madhaab.

3. Another difference is in how they understood "qiyaas". This was a major polemic of that time and there is no need to go into it since we all accept qiyaas. The only people who reject qiyaas are extreme dhaahiris.

4. Another difference is that for the ahlul-hadeeth, the report that is classified as khabrul-waahid amount to ilm qata'i (definitive conclusive knowledge) whereas the ahlul-ra'i considered that khabrul-waahid was ilm dhanni (speculative). This was later exacerbated by the M'utazili ideologues who entered into the Hanafi madhaab and further imported their ideas into their usool, some of which was good and adopted by the rest, some of which are not so good. This is not connected on absolute terms towards the application of this concept in aqeedah, but this stems as an issue or a result of it.

on this note, Shahrastani wrote in his “Milal wa Nihal”:
“Then the Mujtahid among the Imams of the community are restrained into two categories and there is no third: Ashabul Hadith and Ashabur-Ray. Ashabul Hadith are the people of Hijaz, the companions of Malik ibn Anas, the companions of Muhammad ibn Idris Ash-Shafi’i, the companions of Sufyan Ath-Thawri, the companions of Ahmad ibn Hambal, the companions of Dawud ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad Al-Asbahani, and they were only named Ashabul Hadith because of their care to obtain Ahadith and transmit the narrations and build the Ahkam on the clear texts and they do not turn to Qiyaas Al-Jali or Khafi when they find a narration…As for the Ashabur-Ray, they are the people of ‘Iraq, and they are the companions of Abu Hanifah An-Nu’man ibn Thabit and among his companions are Muhammad ibn Al-Hassan, Abu Yussuf Ya’qub ibn Muhammad Al-Qadhi, Zufar ibn Huzayl, Al-Hassan ibn Zyad Al-Lului, ibn Sama’ah, ‘Afiyah Al-Qadhi, Abu Muti’ Al-Balkhi and Bishr Al-Marisi. And they were only named Ashabur-Ray because of their care to obtain a form of Qiyaas and the meaning extracted from rulings and basing their formulations on them, and sometimes they will favour the Qiyaas Al-Jali over the Ahad narrations”

Usually in fiqh discussions, they would usually identify the polemic between the two by saying ashaabul-hadeeth and ashaabu-ra'i.

These are the two basic approaches, and this is why there is virtually no difference in the usool of the Maalikis, Shafi'ees and Hanbalis. most of the hanaabilah benefitied from the usool outlines of the shafi'ees like al-waraqaat of Ibnul-Juwaynee or other prominent shafi'ees

there are some other differences but they leave my mind right now.

asalamu alaykum

[al-boriqi]

JazakAllahuKhair Brother Boriqi,

This is exactly what we were looking for.

However, I am not sure if the students / scholars of Hanafi Madhab would agree to your understanding or correct you if they have a different understanding.

walaykum salam. they may disagree on certain characterizations I have made. Part of differing includes the semantics, particularly the choice of words used. Thus opn that basis, there is bound to be some ikhtilaaf, but the general overview will most likely be agreed with wallahul-alim.



The few obvious queries poping up my head brother is...

If so then why maaliki, Shafi'ees, and hanaabilah gave differing rulings and became three schools of thought of Ahle Sunnah ? Why did they judge from the "nusoos" (textual reports and scripture) directly differently ?

Because each had their own angle of approach in extracting what was the intent of a particular hadeeth our aayah. Remember, during their time, there was not 3 madhaabs,. there was close to a hundred madhaabs. For example, during their tim, they considered madhaab of Layth (bin S'ad) above that of Maalik. ath-Thawri was likewise a madhaab, so was the madhaab of al-Awzaa'i and Ibn Uyaina. Even Abu Thawr was considered a madhaab. One of the main reasons why four emerged from the rest was due to their students who made their opinions blossom among all others. So why they were all ahlul-hadeeth in the fundamental aspect of extraction in their legal theory, each arrived at different conclusions on scriptural texts that had more than one angle of approach.

One m,ust remember that each text is also configured in its understanding through the rest of the revealed texts on the same subject., So when they look at a single hadeeth, they were not simply extracting the intent of Allah on the meaning of that hadeeth based on that hadeeth alone, they were also factoring in all other narrations that they had under their belt to help determine HOW that hadeeth was applied and when, whether it was general or specific, etc. So all of these multi-farious aspects to the shariah will undoubtedly make the realm of opinions richer in terms of the amount of opinions available despit the usool being the same.

The same applies to members of the same madhaab. There are members of each school who differed with their other co-madhaabists, both of which are equally hanafi, shafi'ee, maaliki, or hanbali.

So differences are bound to happen which is why there is no issue in the shariah in terms of putting to question someone's orthodoxy when their is ikhtilaaf in fiqh. That is why they used the term "ikhtilaaf" rather than "khilaaf" since khilaaf implies a more heterodox tone to differing whereby orthodoxy is put into question.

To make it easier to understand, think of the ahlul-hadeeth movement of the past in terms of driving to New York. Each Imaam had his own way of driving to New York. Then, in the wake of their methodology of driving to New York, the ahlul-Kufa (in those days they referred the ahlul-ra'i or the ahnaaf as ahlul-kufa) say forget driving, where going by plane.

Note this example

1. both groups intend to land in New York (in this case New York is simply a metaphor for the pleasure of Allah and jannah)
2. each method of travel has its pros and cons
3. yet both are different methods.

I hope this helps inshallah

asalamu alaykum

[gulshan]

Brother Al-Boriqi, I want to know I thing regarding usul-al-fiqh of the Hanbaliya. Imam Shafii was first to standardize the principles of usul or usul-al-fiqh. And he was strict with those usul. In the contrary, in Hanafi and Maliki the principles was standardized in later period, deriving from the styles and informal principles followed by Imam Malik, Imam Abu Hanifa and other faqihs of those madhabs. What was the case for Hanbali madhab? Was the principles standardized before compiling the madhab like Shafii or it was like Maliki and Hanafi?