النص المفهرس

of them.
It appears that Abu Hanifa studied some intellectual matters with him,
although he believed that his creed was deviant and that he was following a
sect. He used to say about him, "Jabir al-Ju'fi is corrupted by the erroneous
view which he espoused. But in his subject I found no one greater than him in
Kufa." He did not specify what area of knowledge Jabir was expert in: it may
have been deduction or logical matters.
He used to discuss with him, but he forbade his companions to sit with him. It
seems that he feared that Jabir's intellect might seduce them and lead to them
into deviation and following his false views and beliefs. He stated that he was
a liar. We read in Mizan al-I'tidal, "Abu Yahya al-Hammani claimed to have
heard Abu Hanifa remark, "Among those I have seen, I have not seen any
better than 'Ata' nor a greater liar than Jabir al-Ju'fi."""
There were two types of scholars in his time: those who confined themselves
only to the fi q h of Islam and did not deal with anything else, even if they
had more understanding of extrapolation and opinion, and those who studied
creeds and philosophy which involved them in sciences outside the deen and
sometimes led them to deviate from its aims and meanings. None of them
combined profound exact legal studies and philosophical studies and
proceeded in a manner neither excessive nor aberrant except Abu Hanifa. He
was the only one to follow this middle path. He achieved a high level in all
areas by the force of his sound intellect, firm d e e n and inquiring soul. He
feared that his students would not be up to that and so he forbade them to
deal with anything other than fiqh.
His private studies and experiences
A person's private life, circumstances and affairs, and his undirected studies
in which he does not rely on a teacher, and other experiences have an effect
on his knowledge and direction and the honing of his intellect or its
weakness. This was, of course, also the case with Abu Hanifa.
As we said, he was from a wealthy merchant family and continued to be
involved in commerce throughout his life. Therefore he knew first-hand

about market transactions and commercial customs. His market experience
enabled him to discuss commercial transactions, rules of behaviour and the
judgements pertaining to them with familiarity and understanding. Thus
custom had a place in his legal deduction when there was no elucidating
example from the Book or Sunna, as we will explain, Allah willing.
It may be these experiences which made him prefer deduction through
istihsan, when analogy resulted in something contrary to benefit, natural
justice or custom. His student, ash-Shaybani, said, "Abu Hanifa debated with
his companions about analogies and they appealed and argued with him until
he said, 'I have used i s t i h s a n.' whereupon none of them said anything
because of the great amount of i s t i h s a n he used in solving problems.
They all submitted to it."
Abu Hanifa travelled a lot and went on h a j j many times. His hajj did not
keep him from studying, discussing, transmitting and giving f a t w a. In
Makka when he first met 'Ata' ibn Abi Rabah, 'Ata' asked him, "Who are
you?" "One of the people of Kufa," he replied. He said, "From the people of
a city who have divided their deen into parties?" "Yes," he replied. 'Ata'
inquired, "From which are you?" He replied, "From those who do not curse
the Salaf or hold Qadarite views and do not consider a person an unbeliever
on account of a wrong action." 'Ata' said, "You are correct, so stay." He also
went to Malik and discussed figh with him, and he met alAwza'i and had
discussions with him. That is how he acted when he travelled. He would
present his fatwas and listen to criticism of them and analyse them to see
where they were weak.
He was an observant man and, from the time of his youth, was fond of debate
and argument in the quest of knowledge. He used to go to Basra, the home of
Islamic sects, and debate with their leaders and argue with them about their
views. It is reported that he debated with twenty-two sects, arguing in
defence of Islam. It is related that once he debated with the Dahrites
[materialist atheists] and in order to call their attention to the necessity of a
Creator of the universe, he asked them, "What do you say about someone
who tells you, 'I saw a laden ship full of goods and cargo which it bore across
the deep seas through crashing waves and veering winds, travelling straight
through them without any sailor to direct and guide it or helmsman to move
it'? Would that be logically possible?" "No," they said, "this is not logically

possible and cannot be imagined." Abu Hanifa said, "Glory be to Allah! If
the existence of a ship on an even keel without a mariner or helmsman is not
conceivable, how can it be possible for this world with all its d i fferent
circumstances, changing matters and actions, and vast expanse to be without
a Maker, Preserver and Originator?"
His arguments on dogma refined his thought and honed his perception. His
thought was further refined by the debates he had about fiqh in every place he
travelled - Makka, Madina and all the areas of the Hijaz where there were
debates about fiqh. He learned hadiths which he did not know before, aspects
of analogy which perhaps he had not thought of, and the fatwas of the
Companions.
Abu Hanifa's method in teaching was like that of his studying; it was not
simply giving lessons to students. So a question would be presented and he
would give it to his students and argue with them about its ruling. Each
would give his opinions and mention the analogies relevant to it, as
Muhammad ash-Shaybani reports, and dispute his ijtihad. They might shout
at one another until there was a veritable uproar, as was mentioned by Mis'ar
ibn Kidam. After they had examined the matter from all sides, he would
indicate the opinion arrived at by this study and its distillation and all would
affirm it and be pleased with it. Studying in this fashion instructs both the
teacher and student. Its benefit for the teacher does not lessen its benefit for
the student. Abu Hanifa continued to teach like this which made him a seeker
of knowledge until he died. His knowledge was continually growing and his
thinking ever moving.
When a ha dith was presented to him, he would point out the chief
judgements which it contained and elucidate them. Then he would ramify the
questions which concurred with the principles involved. That is what he
considered fiqh to be. He said, "The like of the one who seeks h a d i t h and
does not learn fi q h is like the apothecary who has the tools but does not
know what medicine to prepare. So the seeker of h a d i t h does not know the
value of his hadith until the faqih comes."
To summarise, he debated with his students and cared for them in three
separate ways. Firstly, he supported them with his wealth, helping them in
their difficulties such as when someone needed to marry but did not have the

necessary funds. He would send money to each student according to his need.
Sharik said about him, "He was wealthy as well as having knowledge and
spent his wealth on himself and his dependants. When he taught, he stated, 'I
have achieved the greatest wealth by knowing the lawful and unlawful.""
Secondly, he paid attention to his students and carefully observed them.
When he found an aptitude for knowledge mixed with delusion in one of
them, he removed the delusion from him by tests which showed him that he
was still in need of more knowledge which others had.
It is related that Abu Yusuf, his student and companion, felt that he should
have his own place to teach. Abu Hanifa told one of those with him, "Go to
the assembly of Ya'qub (Abu Yusuf) and ask him, 'What do you do about the
case of a man who gives a fuller a garment to bleach for two dirhams and
then asks for his garment back and the fuller says he has no knowledge of it?
Then he returns again and asks for it and is given it bleached. Is the fuller
paid?' If he says he is, tell him, he is wrong. If he says he is not, tell him he is
wrong." The man went to him and asked him and he said, "Yes, he has a
wage." He said, "You are wrong." He waited a time and then said "No, he
does not." He said, "You are wrong." He went immediately to Abu Hanifa
and said, "The question of the fuller must have come from you, so tell me
about it." He replied, "If the bleaching took place after the misappropriation,
he has no wage because he did it for himself. If it was before that he has the
wage because he bleached it for its owner."
Thirdly, he always had good words for his students, especially for those of
them who were about to leave or embark on something important. He used to
say to them, "You are the joy of my heart and the removal of my sorrow."
Chapter Three The Age of Abu Hanifa
Abu Hanifa was born in 80 AH when 'Abdu'l-Malik ibn Marwan was khalif.
He lived until 150, thus, as we said, experienced both the strength and
weakness of the Umayyads and the rise and consolidation of the Abbasids.
He lived longer under the rule of the Umayyads than the Abbasids, passing
fifty-two years of his life under Umayyad rule, which was the time of his
education and when he reached the peak of his knowledge and full

intellectual maturity. He only lived through twelve years of Abbasid rule. At
such a mature age, this would not involve a reversal of his intellectual
methods and customs. At that point, his output was great and input only a
little. We cannot say that he absorbed nothing because the human intellect is
always seeking knowledge and is constantly learning and scholars are always
seeking increase in knowledge.
In fact, the difference between the end of the Umayyad era and the beginning
of the Abbasid era was not great in respect of scholarly spirit, especially on
the religious side, because the Abbasid period grew out of what existed under
the Umayyads. In the fields of scholarship and social development, one was
the result of the other, like a continuous river in which various waters clash,
differing slightly in taste and colour but deviating little from the main fl o w.
The scholarly and social spirit which dominated the Umayyads came from
the larger community, not from the government.
As well as the legacy of the knowledge of the Companions, there was also the
legacy of the civilisations and sciences of the conquered nations. They
amplified the Arabic tradition with some of the inherited knowledge of those
nations which was translated from Persian and other languages. The process
of translation began in the Umayyad era. It is enough to remark that the
author of Kalila wa Dimna, and other writers lived most of their lives in the
Umayyad era. We find religious knowledge growing in Abbasid times and
translation spreading and being supported. That was a natural and continuing
development.
We will begin our survey with the political scene. The first phenomenon can
be found in the rise of the Umayyad state which was established after the
governance of the first four khalifs. Until then, the khalif had been chosen
from amongst prominent Qurayshi Muslims, either upon the indication of the
preceding khalif, as happened with 'Umar, or without such indication, as was
the case with Abu Bakr and 'Ali, or by consultation, as was the case with
'Uthman. When the Umayyads were established, the khalifate became an
hereditary monarchy.
Its founder of the dynasty enjoined the support of a large group of Muslims
whereas the rest of the Umayyads assumed the title through inheritance,
maintaining that they alone had the right to it without the rest of the Muslims

having any choice in the matter. This opinion led to disturbances and
rebellions throughout the Umayyad period. Even at times when people were
outwardly quiescent, their hearts were still seething with resentment.
The Ansar rebelled against Yazid I, and Madina was plundered by an army
which devastated it and did not observe its sanctity. Al-Husayn ibn 'Ali
refused to give allegiance, cosidering that to do so was contrary to the
principles of Islamic law, and he rebelled against the Umayyad ruler. He was
slain by Yazid's men, and his sisters, the daughters of Fatima, were taken as
captives to Yazid. Zayd ibn 'Ali was killed as was his son Yahya. 'Abdullah
ibn Yahya was also killed. That did not engender love for the Umayyads in
people's hearts.
The Umayyads had a strong Arab bias. They revived a lot of the pre-Islamic
Arab tradition, some of which was praiseworthy in itself, but they were
excessive in doing it to the point that it became outright racism and prejudice
against non-Arabs and sanctioned violation of their rights, even though, in the
Shari' a, all Muslims are equal and Arab has no superiority over non-
Arab. Muslim lands suffered waves of unrest and waves of evil because of
what happened. Even when things were outwardly calm, the fire still
simmered there under the surface and movements continued to operate
covertly.
Abu Hanifa witnessed the harshest aspects of Umayyad rule which were
epitomised by the governorship of al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf ath-Thaqafi, who died
when Abu Hanifa was about fifteen, an age at which people are capable of
discernment and understanding. So he had first-hand experience of the
harshest manifestation of Umayyad rule and that must have had an effect on
him as a young man and coloured his appraisal of the government. His
discontent could only have increased when he saw the oppression,
imprisonment and torture to which the family of the Prophet was subjected.
When the Abbasid state was established, Abu Hanifa hoped that it would be
more merciful because of their kinship to the family of 'Ali and because it
came to power after much severity and tribulation. Therefore he offered his
allegiance to as-Saffah willingly and was the spokesman for the f u q a h a '
as we have mentioned. When, however, al-Mansur came to power and began
to consolidate the state with force and ruthless determination, not gentleness

and clemency, and he began to persecute the family of the Prophet, throwing
their old men into the dungeons and shedding the blood of the 'Alawites
without the pretext of war, he saw the rule of al-Mansur as an extension of
the oppression experienced under the Umayyads, even though the names had
changed.
Abu Hanifa was born in Iraq, and there he grew up, lived and studied. At the
end of the Umayyad and beginning of the Abbasid periods, the cities of Iraq
were teeming with different races: Persians, Greeks, Indians and Arabs. Such
a society is full of social upheaval since the various elements interact and
each incident demands a ruling in the S h a r i ' a. Thus the milieu provided
many issues which expanded the mind of the faqih in the extrapolation of
questions, theory, conception and analogy. In addition to this mixed social
environment, Iraq had another intellectual characteristic: it was the home of
many different religions and sects. It contained the moderate and extreme
Shi'ites, the Mu'tazilites, the Jahmites, the Qadariya, the Murji'ites and
others.
From ancient times, Iraq had been the locus of conflicting intellectual trends.
Ibn Abi'l-Hadid said in his commentary on the Nahj al-Balagha when
discussing why the extreme Shi'ite sects appeared in Iraq: "Part of what
produced such sects (the Rafidites) after the time of the Messenger of Allah
was that they were from Iraq and lived in Kufa. Iraq continued to produce
schismatics and people with extraordinary religions and schools ... They
existed in the time of Khusrau in the form of those founded by Mani, Daysan,
Mazdak and others. The Hijaz was not like this and the minds of the people
of the Hijaz were not like their minds."
Added to that intellectual diversity, there was another intellectual movement
which began under the Umayyads and continued and bore fruit under the
Abbasids: the movement connected to Greek philosophy. Ibn Khallikan said,
"Khalid ibn Yazid ibn Mu'awiya was one of the most knowledgeable men of
Quraysh in the sciences and discussed chemistry and medicine and knew
these two sciences well. He had treatises which indicate his knowledge and
skill. He learned the craft from a monk called Maryanus the Greek and wrote
three treatises on it."
This connection grew with the increase in translation of Greek, Persian and

Hindi manuscripts in the Abbasid era. All of this had an effect on Islamic
thought and the effect varied according to the strength of intellect and
religion of the one who learned this phil o s o p h y. Some people had proper
thoughts and true faith and so they controlled these ideas and benefited from
them in their thinking and perceptions and intellectual discipline. Others were
not strong enough for it and so their minds became confused by it and hence
they deviated intellectually.
As well as that, there were z i n d i q s who openly espoused distorted views
designed to corrupt the Muslim Community and destroy Islam and undermine
its people. Some of them wanted to oust Muslim rule and revive ancient
Persian rule as is seen in the case of al-Muqanna' who rebelled against the
Abbasids in the reign of al-Mahdi.
This intellectual upheaval took place in the religious sciences as well. It was
also the period when scholars began to rely more heavily on recording their
knowledge in writing so that individual areas of knowledge within the deen
and Arabic began to take on a distinct form and scholars began to specialise
in particular fields. The Shi'ite fugaha' also recorded their views and, by the
time of Abu Hanifa, the Shi'ites and Zaydites had known views.
It was also a time of argumentation and debate. The debates between the
various groups tended to become very heated and boisterous. Scholars also
travelled to take part in these debates, as we see when Abu Hanifa travelled
to Basra to debate with the sects there. The people of Basra also travelled to
Kufa for the same purpose. The debates which took place in the Hijaz during
the hajj enabled scholars to meet and exchange views.
Debates also involved a sort of partisanship for one's own land. The people
of Basra fanatically supported their scholars and the people of Kufa
supported theirs with equal fervour. This may be a contributory factor for the
intensity of argument between the people of the Hijaz and the people of Iraq.
The disagreement between scholars was intense and their criticism of one
another sharp at times. Even with the Ta bi ' u n, when their methods
differed, their criticism of each other could sometimes become bitter. There
was also great disagreement regarding complicated problems which led to
each person impugning his opponent's integrity. Abu Hanifa had a deep
grasp of the spirit of his time and the reasoning of its scholars and he

understood the direction of their thinking while maintaining his own
individual thought.
One of the issues that the fuqaha' of the time debated and over which they
had disputes about methodology was the fatwas of the Companions and Ta b
i ' un. We will briefly mention the religious and political sects because Abu
Hanifa had to deal with them throughout the course of his life.
The Sunna and Opinion
From the death of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,
until the time of ash-Shafi'i there were basically two groups of fuqaha', one
of which was famous for opinion and the other for transmission. Among the
Companions some were famous for opinion and some for h a d i t h and
transmission. Such was the case with the Tabi'un and the generation after
them and then the mujtahid Imams: Abu Hanifa, Malik and the fuqaha' of the
various cities. Some were famous for opinion and some for hadith. We will
now briefly explain this.
Ash-Shahrastani said in al-Milal wa'n-Nihal, "The situations which arise out
of acts of worship and daily life are endless and we know absolutely that
there is not a text for every situation, nor is that conceivable. Because the
texts are limited and situations are not, ijtihad and analogy must be
considered in order that every situation may be brought within the compass
of the Shar i' a. After the death of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and
grant him peace, the Companions were faced with innumerable new
situations. They had the Book of Allah Almighty and the Sunna of the
Messenger of Allah.
"So in regard to the events which befell them they had recourse to the Book,
and, if they found a clear ruling, they carried it out. If there was no judgement
in the Book, they resorted to the Sunna of the Messenger of Allah, and
consulted the memories of his Companions to ascertain the ruling of the
Prophet in similar cases. If there was no one who knew anything they
exercised ijtihad in their opinions. So they proceeded to examine the case in
the light of the Book, then the Sunna, and then opinion. 'Umar stated in a
letter to Abu Musa al-Ash'ari: 'Understanding is something which

reverberates in your breast which is not in the Book or S u n n a. Learn
similarities and likenesses, and form analogies on that basis.'
"The Companions used opinion but disagreed as to how much it should be
used. Some used it more often than others and some hesitated if there were no
text from the Book or a followed sunna.
"They were in agreeement about relying on the Book and a known sunna if
one existed but if they did not find a known sunna, the famous fu q a ha '
used opinion. If any of them were unsure about their recollection of a hadith
of the Messenger of Allah or of his fatwa about a matter, they preferred not to
relate it but to give a decision by opinion, fearing that relating it might
involve lies against the Messenger of Allah. It is reported that 'Imran ibn
Husayn used to say, 'By Allah, I think that if I had wished, I could have
related from the Messenger of Allah for two consecutive days; but I was
deterred from doing so by men of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah
who had heard what I heard and had seen what I saw, and who relate hadiths
which are not exactly as they tell them. I fear that I might be confused like
them."""
Abu 'Umar ash-Shaybani said, "I sat with Ibn Mas'ud and a year would go
by without him saying, 'The Messenger of Allah said.' When he did say,
'The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said,' he
trembled and said, 'like that, or close to it."" 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud thus
preferred to give a decision according to his own opinion and to bear the
responsibility for it if he was wrong, rather than possibly lie about something
the Messenger of Allah said or did. He said, after deciding a problem
according to his opinion, "I say this from my own opinion. If it is right, it is
from Allah. If it is wrong, it is from me and from Shaytan." He used to be
elated when his opinion accorded with a hadith which one of the Companions
transmitted. A second group criticised those who gave fatwa based on their
opinion, saying that they gave fatwa in the Deen of Allah without authority
from the Book or the Sunna.
The truth is that the Companions found themselves in an impossible quandary
resulting from the strength of their religious feelings. On the one hand, they
might memorise a lot of hadiths from the Messenger of Allah in order to
learn the judgements from them, but then they feared that they might be

inaccurate about what he said. As we read in Hujjatullah al-Baligha by Shah
Waliyullah ad-Dihlawi: "When 'Umar sent a group to Kufa, he told them:
'You are going to a people who are confused about the Qur'an, so they will
ask you about hadith. Do not give them too m a n y."" On the other hand,
they could give f a t w a by their own opinions and be in danger of making
things lawful and unlawful without proper justification. Some of them
preferred hadiths from the Messenger of Allah and some of them chose
opinion when there was no clear precedent. If they subsequently learned of a
clear sunna, they retracted their opinion. That was related of many of the
Companions, including 'Umar.
After the Companions came their students, the Ta b i ' u n, and two problems
arose in their time. One was that the Muslims divided into parties and groups.
The level of disagreement became intense and impassioned. They were
severe with one another and started to accuse one another of disbelief,
iniquity and rebellion, and to threaten one another and to unsheathe the
sword. The Community divided into the Kharijites, Shi'ites, Umayyads and
those who were quiescent in the face of the afflictions which occurred and
remained far from sedition, refusing to become involved in it.
The Kharijites formed different sects: the Azraqites, Ibadites, Najdites and
others. The Shi'a formed into disparate groups, some of whom had bizarre
opinions which took them outside of Islam, even though they pretended to
follow Islam in order to corrupt people. They were not concerned with
establishing the Deen, but rather with destroying its basis to restore their old
religion and its power and authority - or at least to shatter Muslim cohesion
or to make the Muslims live with intense seditions, and to extinguish the
Light of Allah.
The second problem was that Madina lost the unique authority which it
enjoyed in the time of the Companions, especially in the time of 'Umar
which is considered the Golden Age of legal ijtihad. It was the home of the
scholars and fuqaha' of the Companions. They did not leave it without
maintaining a scholarly connection with it. They corresponded regarding
problems which arose, because the s u n n a of 'Umar was to ensure that the
Companions of Quraysh were kept within the confines of the Hijaz. The great
Muhajirun and A n s a r never left the boundaries of Madina without his
permission and he watched over them.

When 'Umar died, they left for outlying regions. Each group of them became
the source of a legal school which was connected to them and which the
people of the places to which they emigrated followed. In the time of the
Tabi'un, there were students of those fu q a h a ' who lived in Madina or
other places. Each city had its fu q a h a ' and their views grew apart as the
cities were far apart, each adapting to the customs of his region and having to
deal with the particular problems which troubled it. So people followed the
path of those Companions who were in that region and transmitted the
hadiths which they reported and which therefore became current among
them. In this way various methods of legal thought appeared in different
places, all derived from the Qur'an and the Sunna of the Prophet.
As we have seen, in the time of the Companions there were basically two
schools. In one of them, opinion dominated and transmission played a lesser
role, though, if a clear sunna emerged, opinion would be abandoned in favour
of it. The other relied almost totally on transmission and preferred not to give
a fat w a when there was no transmission, rather than risk contravening the
De e n of Allah by opinion. In the time of the Ta b i ' u n, the gap between
the two widened and those who preferred transmission increased their
adherence to this path, considering it to be a protection from the seditions
which had now become severe. They found safety only in holding to the
Sunna.
The others normally had much less recourse to the S u n n a, which had in
any case become subject to falsification in outlying areas, and because of the
new situations that arose and required rulings, they tended to rely far more on
opinion. In addition, new ideas assailed them through contact with new
cultures in lands conquered by Islam and many of the Ta b i ' u n were non-
Arabs, heirs to the ancient civilisations of their ancestors.
So the gap widened between the schools and they grew further apart than
they had been before when it had been difficult to distinguish between them.
The basis of the disagreement was not about whether the authority of the S u
n n a should be accepted or not. It lay in two matters: the extent of the use of
opinion, and secondary questions deduced through its use. The adherents of
tradition only used opinion when absolutely necessary, rather in the way that
a Muslim may eat pork if no other possibility exists.

They did not look into secondary questions or extrapolate judgements for
speculative situations which had not arisen. They only gave f a t w a s for
problems which had actually occurred and did not look into hypothetical
situations, whereas the people of opinion gave many fatwas based on opinion
whenever they had no sound h a d i t h on the subject. They did not confine
themselves in their studies to the deduction of rulings on actual problems but
also posed hypothetical questions and gave judgement on them on the basis
of their opinions.
Most of the adherents of hadith were in the Hijaz, even though there was
some fiqh of opinion there. This was because it was the home of the first
Companions and the place of Revelation and because many of the Tabi'un
who resided there were trained by the Companions who made little use of
opinion - although a few were students of a Companion who used opinion a
lot and transmitted his opinions.
Most of the adherents of opinion were in Iraq because they trained with
'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, who refrained from transmitting from the Prophet out
of fear of making a mistake but did not refrain from exercising his opinion. If
there was a sound hadith on the subject, he referred to the hadith. There were
also old philosophies and sciences in Iraq as well as the classical texts of
Greece and Rome. Those who were influenced by this were comfortable with
ijtihad by opinion, especially when there were not many hadiths among
them to be consulted.
This process continued and in the time of the Ta bi 'i't - Tabi 'in and the
mujtahids with madh ha bs, the gap became very wide indeed and
disagreements became intense. When the two groups met, each borrowed
from the other. The people of h a d i t h a b a ndoned their former hesitation
and were compelled to use opinion in some cases; and when the people of
opinion saw the Sunna and traditions, some wrote them down and began to
examine them, supporting their opinions with hadiths or leaving opinion
aside if they had a sound hadith which they had not known about previously.
This was the period in which fiqh developed.
Lies about the Prophet proliferated in this period because various groups
defended their positions unscrupulously with words which led to the spread
of forged hadiths which they espoused and which then spread among the

Muslims. This upsurge in lies led to two things. H a d i t h scholars started to
devote themselves to the investigation of truthful transmission and to the
method of distinguishing the true from the false. To this end they studied the
transmitters of hadiths, investigated their circumstances, learned those who
were truthful and ranked them according to their truthfulness. They then
studied the hadiths and compared them with unquestioned elements of the
Deen. Eventually, some scholars began to record the sound h a d i t h s.
Among them were Malik with his M u w a t t a ', al-Jawami' of Sufyan ibn
'Uyayna, and al-Jami' alKabir of Sufyan ath-Thawri. The second
consequence was that people gave fatwa more and more frequently according
to opinion, out of fear of lying against the Prophet or depending on
something that might well have been forged. This occurred mostly in Iraq
because the fuqaha' there who transmitted from the Tabi'un a n d the next
generation were known for opinion and often gave fatwa by it.
Shah Waliyullah ad-Dihlawi says in his book, after discussing the adherents
of hadith:
"Over and against them, in the time of Malik and Sufyan and after them,
were people who did not dislike questions and were not afraid to give f a t w
a, saying that fiqh must be spread on the basis of the Deen but fearing to
transmit the h a d i t h s of the Prophet and attribute them to him wrongly.
Ash-Sha'bi said, 'We prefer anyone to the Prophet (as authority for fiqh).'
Ibrahim said, 'I prefer to say "'Abdullah said" and " 'Alqama said".'
"They did not have the hadiths and traditions to deduce the fiqh on the
principles which the people of h a d i t h chose, nor were they inspired to look
into the words of the scholars of other lands, collect them and investigate
them. They believed that their Imams had the highest level of precision and
their hearts were the closest to the Companions.
" 'Alqama said, 'Is there anyone more solid than 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud?'
Abu Hanifa said, 'Ibrahim has more figh than Salim. If it had not been for the
virtue of being a Companion, I would have said that 'Alqama had more fi qh
than Ibn 'Umar.' They possessed intelligence and intuition, and their minds
swiftly moved from one thing to another, enabling them to derive the answer
to problems from statements of the Companions.

"Everyone is given ease in that for which he was created and 'every party
rejoices in what it has'. So they formulated fi q h on the rule of
extrapolation. The people of Iraq gave fatwa because they felt that it was
their duty and the basis of the Deen; but at the same time they were afraid to
report from the Messenger of Allah. They did not accept the statements of the
people of other lands, and were partisan towards their shaykhs."
Whatever the reasons, the Iraqis made much use of opinion but the Hijazis
and Syrians used it less. As we indicated before, the adherents of opinion and
those of ha dith agreed that judgement must be by the Book and sound
Sunna but they differed after that. The people of hadith were afraid of
opinion but not of transmission from the Messenger, and did not adopt
opinion except when forced to do so by the fact that they did not know of any
hadith, whereas the people of opinion were afraid of relating h a d i t h but
not of giving fatwa on questions which they could later retract if they later
came across a hadith. The people of opinion also refused to accept weak h a d
it hs, whereas some of the people of h a d i t h accepted them. Imam Malik,
the Imam of the people of Madina, used m u n q a ti ', murs al and ma w
qufhadiths, and the transmitted practice of the people of Madina before
resorting to analogy.
By the end of Abu Hanifa's life, the schools began to come closer together
again because they influenced one another in their discussions and debates.
Their motive was the same: to elevate the Shari'a. To this end, the one group
had to study the knowledge of the other. Certainly, Abu Yusuf, one of the
companions of Abu Hanifa and the fuqaha' of opinion, accepted the study
and memorisation of hadiths and their use as evidence. If he found that an
opinion he had previously held was contrary to the S u n n a, he abandoned it
for an opinion which agreed with the hadith.
We have briefly explained the difference between the fuqaha' of opinion and
those of the Sunna. But was the 'opinion' in question merely legal analogy -
which is to relate a matter on which there is no specific ruling to another
prescribed matter with a ruling since the same legal reasoning applies to both
- or was it more general than that? Anyone who studies the meaning of the
word 'opinion' (r a ' y) in the way it was used during the time of the
Companions and the Tabi'un will find that it is general and did not refer to
analogy alone. It included analogy and much more besides. When we deal

with the formation of the schools, we also find this general use of the term.
When we focus on the time of the schools, we find that each school differs in
the explanation of the type of opinion which it is permitted to adopt.
Ibn al-Qayyim explains that the opinion which was transmitted from the
Companions and Tabi'un was what the heart felt was correct after reflection,
consideration, and seeking to identify what was correct when there were
conflicting indications. The fatwas of the Companions and Ta b i ' u n and
those who followed their path show that the idea of 'opinion' includes
everything about which a faqih gives a fatwa for which there is no text,
relying in his fatwa on what he knows of the deen in a general way, what
agrees with its rulings in general, or what resembles another matter for which
there is a text when he connects like to like. The word 'opinion' in that
context includes analogy, istihsan, masalih mursala and custom.
Abu Hanifa and his adherents used analogy, istihsan, and custom, and Malik
used istihsan, masalih mursala (considerations of welfare) and custom. He
was famous for the use of considerations of welfare. That is why there was
flexibility and receptivity for all the affairs of people in different times
although it was a school in which analogy was not frequent. Malik said that
istihsan was ninetenths of knowledge but that was only when there was no
text or fatwa from a Companion and no precedent practice of the people of
Madina.
Ash-Shafi'i came and founded a systematic method of legal reasoning which
ensured that there could be reliable judgements in the event that no
appropriate text was available and did not accept the previous latitude in the
derivation of judgements. He thought that opinion should only be exercised
in the Shari'a on the basis of strict analogy, only permitting a matter without
a text to be connected to the ruling on another matter for which a suitable text
existed. In such cases, opinion had to be traced back to a text so that there
was no possibility of innovation in the Shari'a. As for general deduction and
justification for judgements without a basis in a text, he considered that to be
innovation in the Shari'a.
That is why ash-Shafi'i said, "Anyone who uses i s t i h s a n h a s legislated
for himself." He set out rules and criteria for analogy and defended and
supported it so precisely that he, in fact, went further than the Hanafis in its

formulation and affirmation. Ar-Razi commented, "The extraordinary thing is
that Abu Hanifa is accused of relying on analogy, and his opponents used to
criticise him for over-reliance on it, when it is not transmitted from him or
any of his companions that he wrote at all affirming the principle of analogy
or that he responded to the proofs of his opponents in denying analogy. The
first to speak on this question and report proofs in it was Imam ash-Shafi'i."
The fat was of the Companions and Ta bi 'unand
the practice of the people of Madina
Both the people of h a d i t h and the people of opinion were inclined to
accept the fatwas of the Companions, because following is better than
innovating and because the Companions had been present with the Prophet
and so their position was more likely to be correct. They are the Imams who
are followed. Most of the f u q a h a ' preferred their opinions. It is reported
that Abu Hanifa used to say, "When I do not find a ruling in the Book of
Allah or the Sunna of the Messenger of Allah then I can take the statement of
his Companions if I wish and leave those of other people. But I do not
disregard their words for the words of anyone else. But when it is a question
of Ibrahim an-Nakha'i, ash-Sha'bi, al-Hasan, Ibn Sirin, or Sa'id ibn al-
Musayyab, then I can exercise ijtihad in the same way that they did." Since
this was the position of Abu Hanifa, the Imam of the people of Iraq, on the
opinions and positions of the Companions, others must have been still more
inclined to accept their fatwas and what is reported from them.
Many fatwas of the Companions were transmitted at that time. The minds of
the fuqaha' were focused on these fatwas and they used them as a model
when exercising their ijtihad. They followed the same path as the
Companions, respected their opinions and relied on them when there was
nothing in the Book or S u n n a. When the Companions agreed on an
opinion, the mujtahids after them were obliged to accept it. If one of them
stated an opinion not known to be opposed, the majority of the fuqaha'
accepted it. If there was a disagreement between them, many of the mujtahids
chose from their opinions that which agreed with their own inclination, and
they did not leave the framework of those opinions for any others.
The fuqaha' in the time of the Tabi'un and mujtahids acted in the same way,

even if they did not consider those fatwas to be an independent principle or a
legal rule in the Deen. Perhaps they did so because they saw that the
Companions had witnessed the descent of Revelation of the Qur'an to the
Messenger and must have derived their opinions from their knowledge of the
actions of the Messenger of Allah, and no one is permitted to exercise ijtihad
about a matter ascribed to the Messenger. So they did not consider the
Companions' opinion to be mere legal ijtihad: it was closer to the Sunna than
to ijtihad. The Companions are followed because they were the first teachers
who spread Islamic fi q h in all directions. They were stars shining with the
primal light of Islam.
In this period, Abu Hanifa studied with the shaykhs of opinion and some of
the people of tradition. He preferred them and put them ahead of his own
opinion. Ash-Shafi'i reported that he used to say about their opinions, "Their
opinions are better for us than our opinion for ourselves." We read in I'lam
al-Muwaqqi'in, "Ash-Shafi'i said in the first version of the R i s a l a, 'They
are above us in every science, ijtihad, scrupulousness and intellect.""
The Sects
Abu Hanifa met people from various Islamic sects and studied with some of
them and examined their opinions as has been mentioned. Hence, it is
appropriate to give a brief summary of the sects that existed in his time, in
view of the fact that he was aware of their opinions.
The Shi'ites
The Shi'a were the oldest of the Islamic sects. They appeared with their
political position at the end of the reign of 'Uthman and grew and flourished
in the time of 'Ali, since, when he mixed with people, that increased their
admiration for his gifts, the strength of his deen and knowledge. Shi'ite
agents exploited that admiration and began to disseminate their sect. In the
Umayyad period, when injustices were perpetrated against the descendants of
'Ali and the Umayyads injured them, people's love and compassion for them
increased and they saw 'Ali and his sons as martyrs to that injustice. So the
Shi'ite school expanded and its supporters increased.

The origin of the sect
The separation of the Shi'a from the body of the Muslims was political in
origin and turned on the matter of how the khalif of the Muslims should have
been decided upon. Their difference with the majority was based on two
things. Firstly, the khalifate was a matter to be decided, not by the
community as a whole, but by specific appointment. The khaliphate is the
pillar of the Deen and the rule of Islam and, in their view, it was
inconceivable that the Prophet would have ignored it and left it up to the
community to decide. The khalifa must have been specified for them and was
protected from major and minor wrong actions. Secondly, and following on
from that, they maintained that 'Ali was the khalifa chosen by the Prophet,
may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and was the best of the
Companions.
Although this was the basis of their position, the Shi'a were not all the same.
Some were excessive in their esteem for 'Ali and his descendants and some
were more balanced. The balanced ones were content to prefer 'Ali to the
other Companions without declaring anyone an unbeliever, whereas the
excessive sects of the Shi'a elevated 'Ali to the rank of prophethood and
some of them even went so far as to deify him. Some of them claimed that
God was incarnate in the Imams, 'Ali and his sons, espousing a doctrine
similar to Christian incarnation. Some of them believed that every Imam had
divinity incarnate in him which then transmigrated to the next Imam.
Most of the Imami Shi'ites agree that the last Imam did not die but is still
alive and will return and fill the earth with justice as it is now filled with
injustice. One group, the Seveners, claimed that 'Ali ibn Abi Talib is alive
and will not die and another group said that Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyya1 is
alive and being nourished by honey and water. Various groups claimed that
certain prominent people were not dead or killed but were still alive.
The Twelvers say that the twelfth Imam, Muhammad ibn alHasan al-'Askari,
called al-Mahdi, entered the cellar of his house and disappeared when he was
arrested with his mother. They believe that he is the Mahdi and will emerge
at the end of time and fill the earth with justice, and they are still waiting for
him. Every night they stand after the Maghrib prayer at the door of this cellar
and they bring a mount, call his name, and call on him to come out until the

stars appear. For evidence, they adduce the story of the People of the Cave in
the Qur'an.
Some extreme Shi'a combined these views with social ideas in a very
corruptive manner. They allowed the consumption of wine and carrion,
permitted incestuous marriage, and interpreted the words of Allah, "Those
who believe and do right actions are not to blame for what they have eaten
provided they are godfearing and believe and do right actions, and then are
godfearing and believe, and then are godfearing and do good," (5:93) to mean
that the prohibitions, like carrion, blood and pork, are allusions to people who
must be hated, like Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman and Mu'awiya, and that all
the obligations and prohibitions of the Qur'an bear metaphorical meanings.
So we see that the Shi'ites were an amalgam of opinions and confused ideas
into which a great number of false concepts from ancient religions crept
wearing Islamic guise. European orientalists have posited numerous theories
about their origin: Judaism (through the Yemeni Jew, 'Abdullah ibn Saba'),
ancient Persia with its entrenched concept of dynastic succession, or various
eastern creeds like Buddhism, Manichaeanism and others.
1. A son of 'Ali by a wife other than Fatima.
There is no doubt that Shi'ism, with its sanctification of the family of the
House, draws from many ancient Asiatic religions, including the Hindu belief
of reincarnation in which the soul moves from one person to another. The
concept of divine incarnation comes from the Christians and Brahmanism. Va
rio u s Messianic concepts are taken from Judaism.
After this brief glance at the basic forms of Shi'ism, we will mention some of
their branches which were active at this time.
The Saba'ites
They were the followers of 'Abdullah ibn Saba', a Jew from the people of
Hira who made a display of Islam. His mother was a black slave, which is
why he is sometimes referred to in sources as Ibn as-Sawda'. He was one of
the strongest agitators against 'Uthman. He was energetic in spreading his
ideas and corruption among the Muslims, including many false things about