Hanafi Fiqh needing revision?
Assalamalaikum everyone !
I was discussing things with a friend(salafi) of mine who ironically loves to debate. We touched on the topic of Imam Abu Hanifa RU ofcourse, and he stated the following
1. Fiqh-e-Hanafia is not the same as it was earlier, it changed from Imam Abu Hanifa RU's real teachings
2. All Fiqh changed and developed
3. Fiqh Hanafia's usools are strange plus Fiqh Hanafia got hijacked by the Mutazila ( This if any one sheds light on in a different thread would be great )
And then he pasted this extract from most probably a Salafi forum
Let show some intresting comment Harris Hammam. A non-deobandi/bralwi arab Hanafi student of fiqh:
http://forums.*********************/...53/#post397156
Shukran for your comments. There are a number of issues here:
Quote Originally Posted by Ibn malik View Post
/I can't imagine this man to speak about any other imam the way he did about Abu Hanifa./
That's probably because Imam Abu Hanifah is different from the others in the sense that he has attracted more discreditation in terms of Hadith than others. But I agree that the issue is so much more wider that it was unwise for Abu Usamah to talk about the issue. But there was nothing malicious about his lecture. He praised him and made Duas for him.
The lecture was not geared to disparage Imam Abu Hanifah, although an 'Abu Hanifah'-fanatic may think so.
Quote Originally Posted by Ibn malik View Post
/He for instance considers the opinion that Abu Hanifa is a Tabi'i as ghuluu', giving no credence to the difference of opinion on how to define what a tabi'i is./
I don't recollect what Abu Usamah exactly said. But I did think he said that this is an academic issue.
Quote Originally Posted by Ibn malik View Post
/He also says that the reports of Abu Hanifa praying isha and fajr with one wudhu are ghuluu'/
Well that's his opinion. It's not really a Jarh, is it? But for him or anyone else to get stuck on this issue is petit.
Quote Originally Posted by Ibn malik View Post
/he feels the need to emphasise the weaknesses of Abu Hanifa in order to 'balance' the sheets. He mentions negative opinions about Abu Hanifa from his contemporaries, even though he knows that these reservations are overridden by the ittifaq of the latter generations on the imamah of Abu Hanifa... He quite clearly states 'He was da'eef in hadith' as if this is qat'i knowledge from Allah, as he then goes on to say that those who think him to be thiqa are guilty of ta'assub./
1. The issue of Imam Abu Hanifah being weak or not deserves an academic discussion (if it is required), not emotional outbursts. Unfortunately, there is so much fanaticism these days that if any non-Hanafi touches upon this issue, he would be immediately lambasted by most Hanafis, Deobandi or non-Deobandi.
2. Realise that Imam Abu Hanifah was no doubt sound in his Taqwa and Deen, evidenced by the consensus on the legitimacy of the Madhhab that is in his name; one cannot take any Deen (including fatwas) from a transgressor.
3. Imam's status in Hadith doesn't really matter. He was a Mujtahid in Fiqh, and Ijtihad in Fiqh does not have the prerequisite of being an Imam in Hadith sciences as is well documented in the Shuroot of Ijtihad. Therefore, there is no negative consequence on his Fiqh or his Madhhab if he indeed turned out to be weak in Hadith. Also, at what point of history does the idea of encompassing thousands of Hadith become a condition for Ijtihad? This is an astronomical prerequisite placed by Deobandis (and others) in an effort to falsely raise the status of Imam Abu Hanifah (by making a false calculation that he was a Mujtahid and therefore he must have known thousands of Hadith), and also strengthen the concept of Taqleed (the Shakhsi type, which is the only type of Taqleed they consider to be legitimate)
4. Being weak in one thing does not mean weakness in everything. Many report the weakness of Muhammad bin 'l-Hasan, yet he is Hujjah in narrating the Hanafi Madhhab. Hafs, the famous narrator of the Quran, was also considered to be weak in Hadith. Some authors in Seerah were weak but were Imams in their respective specialities. See this for more elaboration on the important topic of Tad`eef Nisbi:
حفص القارئ متروك الحديث ؟ - ملتقى أهل الحديث
5. I have learned that, in Imam's defence, even if it is proven that he was weak in terms of Hadith precision, it can be said that he never intended to put himself forward as a narrator. Therefore his citations of Hadith were likely for the purpose of Fiqh discussions rather than for sessions of narrating Hadith. The Ahl 'l-Hadith were much more relaxed about how they quoted Hadith in revision, and that is why they disallowed the writing of Hadith heard in revision.
6. A fellow Hanafi told us (paraphrased):
Abu Hanifa's career should not been seen in isolation from the fact that he was from Kufa, so it must be investigated what Ahl 'l-Hadith said about Hadith from Kufa. Secondly, when we talk about Hadith, we already have a very developed understanding of it. Imam Abu Hanifah comes well before the era of Hadith compilation and this should be accounted for. Any discussion we have must be contextualised in chronological terms. Also, just because his Ijtihad is in line with many Hadith does not mean the Imam was precise in transmission, which is the job of the critics to decide.
6. If we honestly look at all the Jarh made on Imam Abu Hanifah, one would be forgiven for accepting what they said. For any other narrator, I would have gladly taken their Jarh on board. Being the true Hanafi I am (whatever that means), I would make an exception for Imam Abu Hanifah and wait until someone does a total Istiqraa' of what he narrated, and then come up with the desired result.
Then again, apart from such a research being questionable in terms of the fruits it would bear, it would be impossible to complete this research as not all the Hadith that Imam Abu Hanifah narrated have reached us. That leaves us with the Jarh Mufassar made by the critics in addition to the many statements of Tawtheeq Mubham.
I don't see anyone in their right mind being able to criticise our contemporaries (like Abu Usamah or Sheikh Muqbil or anyone else) who would like to honestly take the verdict of those critics have stated that the Imam was weak in the field of Hadith.
As for me, I am slightly biased in favour of a new revision rather than going along with what the Jarh scholars said, and since a new revision is not going to happen any time soon, I religiously sit on the fence in this issue. Ironically, and probably, this was the reason why Ibn Hajar said in his Taqreeb 'l-Tahdheeb regarding Abu Hanifah that he was فقيه مشهور, a famous jurist. In a book of Jarh and Ta`deel, the non-technical term of فقيه مشهور does not mean anything substantial.
7. There is a strong argument that for us to try to determine Imam Abu Hanifah's status as a narrator has little practical academic value in Hadith criticism. Nobody on either side of the fence - or on the fence - can prove that he was of the calibre of say al-Thawri or Malik in precise transmission (otherwise this would have been known). A judgement on a narrator's overall status only comes after studying his individual narrations and comparing them with other reporters. The question needs to be asked, "Have the books passed down to us a significant number of Hadith?" If the answer is no, then there is not much benefit to be had from reopening this scab on the Ummah's body.
8. In addition, there are clearly many scholars of the Salaf who lavished great praised on the Imam, and others who criticised him severely (such as al-Bukhari, Abdullah bin Ahmed etc.). There remains a third group from whom contradictory narrations have been passed down, and only an objective investigation can determine which views are correctly attributed to them.
Quote Originally Posted by Ibn malik View Post
He mentions the weakness of the madhab's opinions and falsely and falsely attributes this to the dearth of ahadith among Hanafi imams, making no mention of the usool that probably made them discount ahadith which other imams acted upon.
This particular point of the Hanafi Madhhab requiring revision has two angles. If it means that we discard the fatwas from the Imams, then no doubt that is wrong. But if it means that we revise the Madhhab from within to make a good representation of what the Imams of the Madhhab intended for it to be, no doubt the Hanafi Madhhab requires revision in this regard. I personally don't like to view the Madhhab through the lens of the later Hanafi scholars. I have made many comments before on this. Take for example the Taqleed Shakhsi issue. Mufti Husain claimed that TS is the fatwa of the Hanafi Madhhab for one millenium. I ask: How was this determined? Who determined it? What are the principles that made TS 'muftaa bihi'? And what about all the Hanafi scholars who said the opposed to the obligation of Taqleed Shakhsi?
As a Hanafi, I can confirm the profound ignorance on the part of Hanafis regarding how the Hanafi Madhhab evolved into. See:
Did Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah Believe That Ahaad Hadeeth Could Not Be Used As Evidence? - Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth
خبر الاحاد اذا تلقته الامة بالقبول فهو بمعنى المتواتر عند الحنفية - ملتقى المذاهب الفقهية، والدراسات العلمية
Quote Originally Posted by Ibn malik View Post
I want to know what the brothers here will say if a sufi when mentioning Imam Ahmad and his madhab mentioning that he was da'eef in fiqh and whoever considers him a faqeeh is muta'assib. I may be wrong but I can't imagine a talk like this being done for Imam Ahmad, Ibn Taymiyyah etc.
The case of Imam Abu Hanifah is quite distinct due to the above reasons. The comparison just cannot be made in my estimation.
Quote Originally Posted by Ibn malik View Post
I
compare this talk to the silliness that I heard from Abdur Raheem Limbada.
Golden's speech was unwise; but Mufti Limbada was on another planet in terms of bigotry and misrepresentation.
By the way, about the Legacy of Imam Abu Hanifah conference in Birmingham:
If they really wanted to respond to the comments made by Abu Usamah, they should have responded to the comments made directly against Imam's authenticity, rather than confusing the issue with side issues such as Taqleed, Imam's Seerah, Aqeedah, legacy etc. Unfortunately, this what Deobandis are good at - make people emotional and unite people against 'Salafis'. The tactic is simply pathetic, and only those who are ignorant or want to be brainwashed can be duped by such idiotic conferences, from which Imam Abu Hanifah is completely free.
Allah knows best.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks