Malik's Madhab

[a_muslim_bro]

Sheikh Nuh in his article Hadiths Imams Lacked says the following:

"To be sure, Imam Malik was greater than contemporary scholars in knowledge of the Qur’an and sunna, not the least because of his proximity to the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and personal observation of the ‘amal or “invariable sunna practice” of earliest Muslims—as opposed to the merely verbal channels of transmission of hadiths relied upon by those after him."

Is it accurate to say that Imam Malik's (rh) knowledge in the Quran, and Sunnah was greater than Imam Abu Hanifa's (rh) as Nuh Keller has opinionated; this is supported by Abu Hanifa's own top student. Imam Shafi'i (rh) debated Imam Muhammad (rh) about this when he traveled to Iraq and Imam Muhammad agreed but said that Abu Hanifa's fiqh was stronger. Of course both imams were giants in scholarship and corresponded frequently on issues but doesn't the Quran and Sunnah take precedence over fiqh.

Wasalaam.

[Ma'ruf]

Sheikh Nuh in his article Hadiths Imams Lacked says the following:

"To be sure, Imam Malik was greater than contemporary scholars in knowledge of the Qur’an and sunna, not the least because of his proximity to the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and personal observation of the ‘amal or “invariable sunna practice” of earliest Muslims—as opposed to the merely verbal channels of transmission of hadiths relied upon by those after him."

Is it accurate to say that Imam Malik's (rh) knowledge in the Quran, and Sunnah was greater than Imam Abu Hanifa's (rh) as Nuh Keller has opinionated; this is supported by Abu Hanifa's own top student. Imam Shafi'i (rh) debated Imam Muhammad (rh) about this when he traveled to Iraq and Imam Muhammad agreed but said that Abu Hanifa's fiqh was stronger. Of course both imams were giants in scholarship and corresponded frequently on issues but doesn't the Quran and Sunnah take precedence over fiqh.

Wasalaam.

Well, I suspect that you may get partisan answers either way, both quoting the the many statements of praise and respect awarded to their Imam (and the praise that the two gave to each other!). Hopefully we can avoid that as the last thing they would have wanted was people dividing and arguing out of love for their persons.

What I would point out is that Shaykh Keller made specific reference to the Madinan background that enabled Imam Malik (ra) to reach his position. That background might be more important than the individual genius. We don't know what conclusions Abu Hanifa (ra) might have come to if he was a Medinan, or vice versa for Imam Malik had he been a Kufan. When I read about Imam Malik I love him for his piety and brilliance and his remarkable judgment (and the same for all the great scholars including those of the Ahnaf) - but it is because of the tradition that he transmitted that I follow him, not his own additional gifts as a scholar. I think Shakyh Keller may have been implying that in his statement.

By the way, regarding Abu Hanifa's fiqh being stronger, I think that's a faulty description of the report - or at least the narration I'm familiar with. It actually has Abu Hanifa's student concede the superiority of Malik in Qur'an and Sunnah, but claim his master's superiority in making qiyas - with Imam Shafi'i then pointing out that qiyas is made on the basis of Qur'an and Sunnah, thus Malik was superior there too. There may be multiple versions of the report though.

[a_muslim_bro]

We don't know what conclusions Abu Hanifa (ra) might have come to if he was a Medinan, or vice versa for Imam Malik had he been a Kufan.

Indeed, I would venture to say that a large part of Imam Abu Hanifa's (rh) conclusions were based on the environment in which he lived, Iraq was a much different place than Medina, socio politically and geographically that may have influenced his ijtihad, Malik had the luxury of having the traditions of the amal.

:

By the way, regarding Abu Hanifa's fiqh being stronger, I think that's a faulty description of the report - or at least the narration I'm familiar with. It actually has Abu Hanifa's student concede the superiority of Malik in Qur'an and Sunnah, but claim his master's superiority in making qiyas - with Imam Shafi'i then pointing out that qiyas is made on the basis of Qur'an and Sunnah, thus Malik was superior there too. There may be multiple versions of the report though.

I stand corrected, that is indeed the version that I am referring too.

JazakAllah Khair.

[Yahya]

Why does this even matter???

None of us is knowledgeable enough to distinguish between the big imams. Even Sh. Nuh is not. You would have to be a mujtahid al-mutlaq to be able to evaluate other mujtahids al-mutlaq.

If the goal here is to promote more love, respect, and admiration for the scholars, then by all means, continue. But if the goal is to compare and contrast the imams, in an attempt to say who is stronger in what, then this is just idle talk and of little (if any) benefit.

[a_muslim_bro]

Of course one would have to be a scholar to delve into the ijtihads of the imams but that is not the case here. As far as my limited knowledge goes each of the mujtahid imams had their specific strengths and weakness, don`t have to be a scholar! Abu Hanifa`s own student Muhammad al Shaybani conversation with as Shafi`i is a testament enough for me.

[Nawawi619]

As Salamu Alaykum


I don't think we need to put up threads to justify the merits of the Maliki madhhab or other madhahib (Hanafi, Shafi'i, and Hanbali). It's been established by consensus that the four madhahib are valid and within the parameters of ahl sunnah wa'l jamah.

I think that is important for people who are studying about a particular madhhab to seek a teacher who is learned from the madhhab and begin one's study through a well defined curriculum (i.e. studying from the well known matun of that particular school).

If one cannot find a teacher or a means to study that madhhab, then one should study under madhhab in which resources and teachers/classes are available.