Review of Abu Hanifa: His Life, Legal Method and Legacy by Sheikh Akram Nadwi

[Mansy]

Reproduced here with kind permission from Muslim World Book Review (MWBR)

Review: Abu Hanifa: His Life, Legal Method and Legacy
Mohammad Akram Nadwi, (Markfield: Kube Publishing Ltd., 2010)
Reviewed by: Dr M Mansur Ali
Cardiff University
Muslim World Book Review (MWBR) vol. 31, no. 4, Summer 2011, pp. 29-31.

This very short, albeit highly erudite work of hagiography has been written by a scholar who has engaged with Abu Hanifa and his legacy for a very long time. By using only the most authentic reports found in the classical Islamic prosopographical collections, original Arabic and Urdu sources and core Hanafi legal texts, the author endeavours to understand ‘why’ and ‘how’ Abu Hanifa came to inherit the appellation ‘Al-Imam al-A’zam’ (the greatest one worthy to be followed), an epithet which is worthy of him today as it was in his days.

The book is written in the typical format of a classical Islamic biography work. He discusses, Abu Hanifa’s life, his life style, his erudition and probity, his piety and propriety, his scholarship, his teachers and his students. He talks about him as a jurist, a lawyer, a theologian and a Hadith scholar. The impact of Abu Hanifa’s fiqh and its status in the modern age is discussed in details. All of these discussions take place within the framework of the overall development of Islamic law in general. The quality of the book is further enhanced by the use of diagrams and an annotated reading list. At this juncture, given the plethora of sources found on Abu Hanifa’s life in English in the form of monographs, articles, introductory sections to translated classical texts, translations of Arabic and Urdu books, audio and visual recordings and the internet, the question that looms on this reviewer’s mind is ‘what is the need for yet another biography of Abu Hanifa?’

The reviewer believes that it is what the author wants to do with the biography of Abu Hanifa that justifies the writing of this book. The author deems it pertinent to write this book because of three reasons. Firstly, he takes issues with the many voices from within and outwith Islam shouting for an Islamic reformation. He argues that Islam’s contribution to the modern world especially in trade and commerce has been advanced by people like Abu Hanifa and his ilk. It’s only through understanding and emulating the lives of these pious savants that some of the ethical and moral principles that have been lost can be restored. Secondly, information readily available through high-speed medium is not ‘ilm but short lived, bereft of any substance and missing the personal touch of a wise master. Through this book, the author wants to remind us that true ‘ilm can only be sought through slow and painstaking study where the knowledge is passed from heart to heart.

For this reviewer, the most unique contribution of this book is the author’s third reason for writing the book. The author draws a distinction between Abu Hanifa and later Hanafi scholars. That Abu Hanifa is someone who understood the context as well as the text, that he made a distinction between the spirit of the law and its word and that his understanding of the law is not partial but holistic. He urges Muslim scholars to recover both their intellectual ability as well as their moral authority to understand the Qur,an and Sunna in its entirety and not just in parts. The scholars will find a precedent for this in Abu Hanifa, who paradoxically, was neither a Hanafi nor a professional Hanafi Mufti. This is a streak that one can implicitly see throughout the work (pp. 115-120). The author very subtly tries to rescue Abu Hanifa from Hanafi scholars who are engaged in ‘self-contained discourse’, where the fiqh is presented ‘with reference to itself rather than its sources’, a partial and anachronistic understanding of fiqh that is severed from reality.

Equally unique is the author’s discussion on the development of the sciences of Hadith. One of the major drawbacks, that this reviewer has noticed, in some traditional Islamic circles is that people tend to treat the works of the scholars in a way as if they were all written in the same era; working with the same hermeneutical devices and employing terminologies that are ossified in time. This kind of attitude towards the sources leads to misunderstanding and unfounded criticism as the author has shown. Abu Hanifa cannot be blamed for following a hadith deemed to be weak by later standards if those standards were not available in his day and age. If the Hanafi School is founded upon those standards used by Abu Hanifa, then it is not fair to judge the actions of its followers through later developments. This is a very important subject as it will put a lot of minds at ease as to why seemingly Abu Hanifa does not follow sound Hadith.

A few personal observations. One does not get an inkling of the author’s opinion regarding the authorship of Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar. Abu Zahra opines that some of the topics discussed in the work seem to have developed after Abu Hanifa. It would have been interesting to see how the author reacts to this assertion. The author very brilliantly sheds light on Abu Hanifa as a Hadith scholar. However, this discussion would have been further enhanced if the author addressed the common cliché that Abu Hanifa knew only 17 Hadiths. An assumption that stems from a comment made by Ibn Khaldun in his Prolegomena (although Ibn Khaldun does indicate it to be a weak claim by using the passive perfective verb ‘qeela’). A section on the Hadith works of the school would have nicely complimented the legacy of Abu Hanifa. Finally, ‘Radd al-Mukhtar’ should read ‘Radd al-Muhtar’ (p. 111).
The author has successfully delivered his promise to understand as to ‘why’ and ‘how’ Abu Hanifa came to deserve the title ‘Al-Imam al-A’zam’; it now remains the duty of the scholars to imbibe Abu Hanifa’s teachings in trying to understand the Qur’an and Sunna holistically in both letter and spirit.

[faqir]

A few personal observations. One does not get an inkling of the author’s opinion regarding the authorship of Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar. Abu Zahra opines that some of the topics discussed in the work seem to have developed after Abu Hanifa. It would have been interesting to see how the author reacts to this assertion.

Some scans related to this issue were posted by khanbaba on another thread:

[maneatinglizard]

for the review.

How is the Muslim World Book Review, by the way?

Is it worth subscribing to?

[akabirofdeoband]

Thank you

Just one point. From your review it seems the author felt later hanafi ulema lost the spirit of
True understanding.

This point sits slightly uncomfortably with me, a person who believes the hanafi school
Is one of the channels for ijma and hence a manifestation of God's providence.
Does the author comment on the deobandi revival of the madhab?

[Mansy]

for the review.

How is the Muslim World Book Review, by the way?

Is it worth subscribing to?

Assalamulaiakum it's a good journal published by Kube publishing (Islamic foundation), I think the general editor of it is Mokrane Gezzoue and Parvez Manzoor. If you want to keep up with the latest academic and semi academic books then this is a good way of finding out about them. Wait for my next review to come out in the October volume on Sheikh Tahirul Qadiris Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombing.
wassalam
Mansur

[Mansy]

Thank you

Just one point. From your review it seems the author felt later hanafi ulema lost the spirit of
True understanding.

Assalamulaiakum brother good points you have raised. I think what the author means by this is that ulama have gone into hair splitting issues and sometimes it does not have it's source in the Quran and Sunna but qiyas upon qiyas upon qiyas to the extent that the original source becomes diluted. Is this a bad thing? No. However, with such diluted issues, it becomes problematic if you start imposing things on people and start making things fard. This is what I understood from the book, maybe you will be able to derive a better understanding.

This point sits slightly uncomfortably with me, a person who believes the hanafi school
Is one of the channels for ijma and hence a manifestation of God's providence.

This statement is confusing to me as I don't understand what it means

Does the author comment on the deobandi revival of the madhab?

He actually does not touch upon the deobandi revival of the madhab maybe for a number of reasons (and this is only my own speculations, I will get one of the sheikhs students to give a more informed answer), (a), maybe the sheikh wanted the book to be accepted by all and therefore did not wanted to go into the deobandi issue, (b) wallahua'lam, maybe the sheikh did not see it as a deobandi revival at all. The only deobandi scholar that fares in his bibliography is Maulana Zafar Ahmad Uthmani. Talking about Ibn Abidin's Hashiya he writes ' ... This Hashiya became the principal reference for later jurists in Syria and India, and by saving them intellectual labour encouraged indolence' (p. 111). Indolence is anything but revival. Like I said this is only my reading of the book and not necessarily what the author had in mind.
take care
wassalam
Mansur

[akabirofdeoband]

Perhaps this has something to do with Nadwas stance as a forward thinking body
That sees the other more traditional institutes as stagnant?

A return to the primary sources as opposed to the fiqh texts is
More in line with how they might view the way forward?


This is rather different to the way if deoband I guess?

I read once that someone brought a dream of Nadwas founders to mawlana gangohi(ra)
Where they had seen the prophet (saw) sitting side by side with them in a majlis and they said look Nadwa us indeed Mubarak

So mawlana gangohi(ra) said indeed the dream is true
But the ta'wil is wrong
They are sitting side by side with Muhammad(saw)
In other words they put their opinions on the same rank as his..., this is the essence of modernism!

[True Life]

I read once that someone brought a dream of Nadwas founders to mawlana gangohi(ra)
Where they had seen the prophet (saw) sitting side by side with them in a majlis and they said look Nadwa us indeed Mubarak

So mawlana gangohi(ra) said indeed the dream is true
But the ta'wil is wrong
They are sitting side by side with Muhammad(saw)
In other words they put their opinions on the same rank as his..., this is the essence of modernism!

I really dislike anecdotes like this being narrated unnecessarily, because it creates a distance between two camps of Ahlul Haqq.

[maneatinglizard]

Assalamulaiakum it's a good journal published by Kube publishing (Islamic foundation), I think the general editor of it is Mokrane Gezzoue and Parvez Manzoor. If you want to keep up with the latest academic and semi academic books then this is a good way of finding out about them. Wait for my next review to come out in the October volume on Sheikh Tahirul Qadiris Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombing.
wassalam
Mansur

I will subscribe to the journal (does it cover publications in the English language only, or books in other languages as well?).

How's the review for the Fatwa on Terrorism looking (positive or negative?)?

[maneatinglizard]

He actually does not touch upon the deobandi revival of the madhab maybe for a number of reasons (and this is only my own speculations, I will get one of the sheikhs students to give a more informed answer), (a), maybe the sheikh wanted the book to be accepted by all and therefore did not wanted to go into the deobandi issue, (b) wallahua'lam, maybe the sheikh did not see it as a deobandi revival at all. The only deobandi scholar that fares in his bibliography is Maulana Zafar Ahmad Uthmani. Talking about Ibn Abidin's Hashiya he writes ' ... This Hashiya became the principal reference for later jurists in Syria and India, and by saving them intellectual labour encouraged indolence' (p. 111). Indolence is anything but revival. Like I said this is only my reading of the book and not necessarily what the author had in mind.
take care
wassalam
Mansur

As much respect as I have for the Nadwi scholars and Shaikh Akram Nadwi in particular, I dislike that they seem to look down upon Deobandis and other non-modernists with accusations of academic stagnation, simply because they don't emphasize ijtihad (in matters where it has already been made and perhaps even exhausted) in their revival efforts. Maybe that is just my flawed perspective, but they can seem quite elitist at times.