النص المفهرس

confirmation." He said that Islam is submission and obedience to Allah's
command. Linguistically, there is a difference between faith and Islam, but
there is no faith without Islam and no Islam without faith. They are like the
outward is to the inward. The de e n is the name given to faith, Islam and the
laws of the Shari'a. (al-Fiqh al-Akbar, p. 11)
So we see that Abu Hanifa did not consider faith to be pure affirmation by the
heart alone. He thought that its reality was confirmation by the heart and
affirmation by the tongue. He made his views on that clear in a debate
between himself and Jahm ibn Safwan.
Al-Makki states in The Virtues:
"Jahm ibn Safwan went to Abu Hanifa to debate with him about kalam.
When he met him, he said, 'Abu Hanifa, I have come to discuss with you
some questions which I have prepared.' Abu Hanifa said, 'Speaking with you
is shame and delving into what you are in is a blazing fire.' He asked, 'How
can you judge me as you do when you have not heard what I say nor learned
it from me?' Abu Hanifa replied, ' Words have been transmitted to me from
you which the people of prayer do not utter.' He said, 'Then you judge me in
absentia!' He replied, 'You are well-known for that. It is known among both
the common and elite and so I am permitted to assert that about you.' He
said, 'Abu Hanifa, I will not ask you about anything except faith.' He asked
him, 'Do you not recognise faith until the Final Hour so that you have to ask
me about it?' 'Yes,' he replied, 'but I am uncertain about it in one area.' Abu
Hanifa retorted, 'Doubt in faith is disbelief.' He said, 'It is only lawful for
you to clarify how you attach disbelief to me.'
"He said, 'Ask.' Jahm said, 'Tell me about someone who recognises Allah in
his heart and knows that He is One with no partner or like and acknowledges
Allah with His attributes and that there is nothing like Him and then dies
before articulating it on his tongue: does he die a believer or unbeliever?' He
replied, 'An unbeliever and one of the people of the Fire unless he articulates
it with his tongue along with what he knows in his heart.' Jahm asked, 'How
can he not be a believer when he acknowledges Allah with His attributes?'
Abu Hanifa said, 'If you believe in the Qur'an and accept it as evidence, I
will speak to you using it. If you believe in it and but do not accept it as
evidence, I will speak to you as one speaks to someone who opposes the

religion of Islam.' He replied, 'As someone who believes in the Qur'an and
accepts it as evidence.' Abu Hanifa said, 'In His Book, Allah Almighty
makes belief involve two limbs: the heart and the tongue.
"The Almighty says: 'When they listen to what has been sent down to the
Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they
recognise of the truth. They say, "Our Lord, we believe! So write us down
with the wit nesses. How could we not believe in Allah, and the tr u t h that
has come to us, when we long for our Lord to include us among the people of
righteousness?" Allah will reward them for what they say with Gardens with
rivers flowing under them, remaining in them timelessly, fore v e r. That is
the recompense of all good-doers.' (5:83-85) So He connected the Garden to
both recognition and word and made the believer someone with two limbs:
the heart and tongue.
"Allah also says: ' S a y, "We believe in Allah and what has been sent down
to us and what was sent down to Ibrahim and Isma'il and Ishaq and Ya'qub
and the Tribes, and what Musa and 'Isa were given, and what all the Prophets
were given by their Lord. We do not differentiate between any of them. We
are Muslims submitting to Him." If they believe the same as you believe then
they are guid ed.' (2:136-137)
"Abu Hanifa continued to quote ayats and hadiths to this effect. Then he
stated, 'If words had not been necessary and mere recognition adequate,
Allah would not have mentioned verbal articulation. Iblis would have been a
believer because he recognised his Lord and knew that he disobeyed Him.""
Al-Makki added to what Abu Hanifa said, regarding someone who dies with
faith but without affirming it dying an unbeliever, that it means that when he
is suspect since he has neither affirmed or openly declared his faith, then he
dies an unbeliever. When there is no suspicion, as when he is on an island or
in a desert, then he is not an unbeliever. So Abu Hanifa affirms that faith has
two parts: firm belief and outward verbal acknowledgement of it. The verbal
declaration is necessary.
Thus it is reported from Abu Hanifa that he divided faith into three, and that
someone who believes with his heart, affirming it in himself, is a believer
with Allah, even if he is not a believer with people. Al-Intiqa' clarifies what

Abu Hanifa thought of faith and its categories: "Faith is recognition,
affirmation and declaration of Islam. People are in three stages in respect of
affirmation: some affirm Allah with heart and tongue; some affirm with the
tongue and deny with the heart; and some affirm with the heart and deny wih
the tongue. As for the person who affirms Allah and what has come from the
Messenger of Allah with his heart and tongue, he is a believer with Allah and
with people. If someone affirms with his tongue and denies with his heart, he
is an unbeliever with Allah and a believer with people because people do not
know what is in a person's heart and they call him a believer because of his
public declaration of the s h a h a d a. They do not speak of the heart. The
other is a believer with Allah and an unbeliever with people. This is the one
who displays disbelief on his tongue through taqiyya." (p. 368)
As we see, the school of Abu Hanifa affirms that action is not part of faith.
He was opposed in this by two groups; by the Mu'tazilites and Kharijites who
considered action to be part of belief so that someone who does not act is not
a believer; and by a group of the fuqaha' and hadith scholars who thought
that action was an integral part of belief and affected it so that it can increase
and decrease, without that affecting its basic existence. In that view someone
who does not carry out the rulings of the Shari'a is considered a believer if
the principle of affirmation exists, but his faith is not considered complete.
Hence faith increases and decreases.
Abu Hanifa did not believe that faith increases and decreases. He considered
the faith of the people of Heaven and the people of earth to be the same. He
said, "The faith of the people of earth and the people of the heavens is the
same; and the faith of the first and the last and the Prophets is the same
because we all believe in Allah alone and affirm Him, even if there are many
different obligations. Disbelief is one and the attributes of the unbeliever are
many. All of us believe in what the Messengers believe, but they have a
better reward than we do for faith and all acts of obedience; since they are
better in actions, they are better in all matters: reward and otherwise. This
does not wrong us because it does not diminish our due. It increases our
esteem for them because they are the models for people and the trustees of
Allah. No one has the same rank as they do and people only reach excellence
by them; all who enter the Garden enter by their call." (al-Bazzazi, pt. 2, p.
141) Many later scholars disagreed with Abu Hanifa's view on this.

Abu Hanifa's position was that belief is confirmation and it does not increase
or decrease, and so he did not consider those who disobey the Shari'a to be
unbelievers since they have their basis of faith. The disobedient are believers
who have a mixture of righteous and evil action. Perhaps Allah will turn to
them.
These assertions of Abu Hanifa are based on sound logic in conformity with
the principle of promise and threat contained by the Qur'an. Scholars and fu
qa ha ' accept it. Imam Malik agreed with Abu Hanifa on this matter. 'Umar
ibn Hammad ibn Abi Hanifa said, "I met Malik ibn Anas and stayed with him
and listened to his knowledge. When I had got what I wanted and desired to
depart, I told him, 'I fear that you will have hostile and envious people telling
you things about Abu Hanifa which do not tally with his true position. I want
to make his position clear to you. If you are pleased with it, that is it. If you
have something better, I will learn it.' 'Go ahead,' he replied. I said, 'He does
not consider a believer to be an unbeliever on account of committing a sin.'
He said, 'He did well,' or 'He was correct.' I said, 'He said more than that.
He used to say, "Even if he commits atrocious actions, I do not consider him
an unbeliever." He said, 'He was correct.' I went on, 'He says more.' 'What
is that?' he asked, 'He said, "Even if he kills a man deliberately, I do not
consider him an unbeliever." He said, 'He was correct.' I said, 'This is his
position. If someone tells you otherwise, do not believe him."" (al-Makki, pt.
2, p. 77)
Some people misconstrued his position and he explained this in al-Fiqh al-
Akbar: "We do not say that sins do not harm the believer nor do we say that
he will not enter the Fire. We do say that he will not be in it for eternity, even
if he is a deviant, provided he leaves this world a believer. We do not say that
his good deeds are accepted and his evil ones forgiven as the Murji'ites say ...
He is subject to the will of Him who will punish him in the Fire if He wills
and forgive him if He wills."
We can state that the disagreement regarding people who commit major sins
has three branches. One are those groups who do not consider them believers
at all - the Kharijites and Mu'tazilites. The second are those who say that
disobedience is not harmful when there is belief and that Allah forgives all
sins - the blameworthy Murji'ites. The third are the majority of scholars who
say that a rebel is not an unbeliever and that a good action is multiplied ten

times and that an evil deed is only counted as one, and that the pardon of
Allah is not limited or confined. Abu Hanifa was one of these; and it is the
opinion of the majority of Muslims, which would make the majority of
Muslims Murji'ites by this definition. The term Murji'ites, however, is
normally confined to the second group.
Qadar and a man's actions
Abu Hanifa was very perceptive and that is why he refused to become
involved with the topic of qadar and encouraged his companions to follow
the same course. When Yusuf ibn Khalid asSamti came to him from Basra,
Abu Hanifa said to him about the question of qadar, "This is a question which
is difficult for people. How should they be capable of understanding it? It is a
lock whose key is lost. If the key is found, what is in it will be known. It is
only opened when someone is informed by Allah."
When the Qadarites came to argue with him about q a d a r, he said, "Do you
not know that someone who looks into qadar is like someone who looks into
the rays of the sun: the more he looks, the more his confusion increases. But
you do not stop at this point. You carry on until you equate the decree and
justice. How is it that Allah decrees all things and they happen according to
His decree and yet people reckon that what happens is by their own actions."
They said to him, "Can any of the creatures bring about in the kingdom of
Allah something he did not decree?" "No," he replied, "but there are two
aspects to the decree (q a d a '): command and power. He decided for them
and decreed unbelievers but did not command it, and indeed forbade it. There
are two commands: the existential, which is when he commands a thing to be,
and the command of Relevation."
This is an excellent, precise distinction by Abu Hanifa. He separated the
decree from qadar and made the decree what Allah had ruled which is
brought by Divine Revelation and qadar what His power makes occur. He
decreed what would be from before time. Responsibility is according to
Revelation while actions occur according to the decree before time. The
command has two categories: bringing into existence and imposing
obligation. The second category has a reward in the Next World.

The History of Baghdad reports that Abu Yusuf said: "I heard Abu Hanifa
say, 'When you speak to the Qadarite, there are two possibilities: either he is
silent or he disbelieves.' He was asked, 'Did Allah know in His prior
knowledge that these things would be as they are?' He said, 'Someone who
responds to such a quetion has disbelieved. If he says, "Yes," is it that He
wills that it be as He knows or did He will it to be different from what He
knows?' If he says, "He wants it to be as He knows," then he avers that He
desires belief from the believer and disbelief from the unbeliever. If he says,
"He wants it to be different from what He knows," he makes the Lord unable
to achieve what He wants because He desires the existence of that which He
knows will not be. A person who affirms that is an unbeliever.""
In summary, Abu Hanifa used to deal with this question in a restrained way.
He believed in the decree of good and evil and the comprehensiveness of
Allah's knowledge, will and power in created beings. None of a person's
actions are independent of Allah's will even though man's acts of obedience
and disobedience are ascribed to him and he has choice and will in respect of
them. He will be questioned and accountable for them. He will not be
wronged the weight of an atom. This is the Qur'anic dogma which is derived
from Book. He debated with the Qadarites to cut them off.
Abu Hanifa did not accept the opinion of the Jahmites who espoused the
theory of predetermination and said that a man's actions involve no will, even
if he feels and senses will. Furthermore, we find that those who tried to attack
him constantly claimed that he was a Jahmite. They forged lies and claimed
that he venerated al-Jahm and followed him even though Abu Yu s u f related
that he said, "Two types of evil people are in Khorasan: the Jahmites and the
anthropomorphists."
The Createdness of the Qur'an
In the time of Abu Hanifa, people began to spread among the Muslims the
idea that the Qur'an was created. They claimed that it was created even
though it was the greatest miracle of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and
grant him peace. The first person to state this was al-Ja'd ibn Dirham who
was executed by Khalid ibn 'Abdullah, the governor of Khorasan. This
opinion was also held by al-Jahm ibn Safwan. Abu Hanifa's opponents

claimed that he too held this opinion and that he was twice asked to repent of
it, first by Yusuf ibn 'Umar, the Umayyad governor of Iraq, and then by Ibn
Abi Layla.
It is not our habit to set aside a well-founded suspicion or an opinion based
on evidence, but the transmissions which are related in support of this
opinion make us hesitate to accept it because they originate with his
opponents and because there are other contradictory reports related by
reliable transmitters which are more likely to be correct because they are in
keeping with what is known about his positions on dogma. In this respect, we
will mention two sources.
We read in the History of Baghdad: "As for the assertion that the Qur'an was
created, Abu Hanifa did not espouse it." It also states, "Neither Abu Hanifa,
Abu Yusuf, Zafar, or Ahmad spoke about the Qur'an. Those who spoke about
it were Bishr al-Marishi and Ibn Abi Du'ad. They vilified the followers of
Abu Hanifa."
According to al-Intiqa', Abu Yusuf said, "A man came to the Kufa mosque
one Friday to ask them about the Qur'an while Abu Hanifa was away in
Makka. People disagreed about it. By Allah, I think he must have been a
shaytan in human guise who came to our circle just to ask us about it. We
questioned one another and could not answer. We said, 'Our shaykh is not
present and we dislike to speak out before he does so. When Abu Hanifa
returned, we asked him about this question and what was the answer
regarding it .... His reply about it was, 'We do not say anything about it. We
fear to say anything.' He later said to us, 'Do not discuss it and do not ever
ask about it.""
The opinions of Abu Hanifa on thought, ethics and
society
Abu Hanifa's intellect was remarkable for his profound thinking, analysis,
and ferreting out the motives and reasons for all actions and matters which he
examined. He went to markets, traded, dealt with people and studied life as
he studied fiqh and hadith. He debated dogma and political methods. For that
reason, he had exact views regarding thought, ethics and behaviour and on

how a person should behave.
Abu Hanifa thought that righteous actions must be based on sound
knowledge. In his view, a good person is not just someone who does good,
but someone who can differentiate between good and evil, and who aims for
good, out of knowledge, and avoids evil, understanding its evil. A just person
is not someone who is just without understanding injustice; a just person
must recognise injustice and its consequences and justice and its results, and
act with justice because of the nobility and good consequences it entails.
He took this position in The Scholar and Student: "Know that action follows
knowledge as the limbs follow the eyes. A little action with knowledge is far
more beneficial than a lot of action with ignorance. In the desert a little
provision with guidance is more useful than a lot of provision without it. That
is like what Allah Almighty says, 'Say: "Are they the same - those who
know and do not know?" It is only people of intelligence who pay heed.'
(39:9)"
A student asked Abu Hanifa, "What is your opinion about a man described as
just who does not recognise the injustice of those who oppose him and is not
capable of doing so." The answer was, "When the scholar is described as just
but does not recognise the injustice of those opposed to him, he is ignorant of
both injustice and justice. Know, my brother, that the most ignorant and base
of all classes in my view are people like that. They are like four people who
are given white garments and then are asked about their colour. One says it is
red, one says it is yellow, one says it is black and the fourth says that it is
white. He is asked, 'What do you say about these three: are they right or
wrong?' He replies, 'I know that the garment is white, but perhaps they are
speaking the truth.' That is how such people are."
Two points are evident from this. One is that righteous actions must be based
on proper thought and firm knowledge. The second is that knowledge must
be firm and absolute and unhesitating regarding matters of belief.
Abu Hanifa's views about people, society and the connection of the scholar
to the society in which he lives are those of someone who knows the states of
souls and studies them deeply, tasting both the sweet and bitter. It includes
the advice which he gave to his student Yusuf ibn Khalid as-Samit:

Know that if you harm ten people, you will have enemies, even if they are
your mothers and fathers, but if you do good to ten people who are not your
relatives, they will become like mothers and fathers to you. If you enter Basra
and oppose its people, elevate yourself over them, vaunt your knowledge
among them, and hold yourself aloof from their company, you will shun them
and they will shun you; you will curse them and they will curse you; you will
consider them misguided and they will think you misguided and an
innovator. Ignominy will attach itself to you and us, and you will have to flee
from them. This is not an option. It is not an intelligent person who is
unsociable to the one who is unsociable until Allah shows him a way out.
When you go to Basra, the people will receive you, visit you and
acknowledge your due, so put each person in his proper position. Honour the
people of honour, esteem the people of knowledge and respect the shaykhs.
Be kind to the young and draw near to the common people. Be courteous to
the impious but keep the company of the good. Do not disregard the
authorities or demean anyone. Do not fall short in your chivalry and do not
disclose your secrets to anyone or trust them until you have tested them. Do
not socialise with the base or the weak. Do not accustom yourself to what you
disapprove of outwardly. Beware of speaking freely with fools.
You must have courtesy, patience, endurance, good character and
forbearance. Renew your clothing regularly, have a good mount and use a lot
of what is good. ... Offer your food to people: a miser never prevails. You
should have as your confidants those you know to be the best of people.
When you discern corruption, you should immediately rectify it. When you
discern righteousness, you should increase your attention to it.
Act on behalf of those who visit you and those who do not. Be good to those
who are good to you and those who are bad to you. Adopt pardon and
command the correct. Ignore what does not concern you. Leave all that will
harm you. Hasten to establish people's rights. If any of your brethren is ill,
visit him yourself and send your messengers. Inquire after those who are
absent. If any of them holds back from you do not hold back from him.
Show affection to people as much as possible and greet even blameworthy
people ... When you meet others in a gathering or join them in a mosque and
questions are discussed in a way different to your position, do not rush to

disagree. If you are asked, tell the people what you know and then say,
"There is another position on it which is such-and-such, and the evidence is
such-and-such." If they listen to you, they will recognise your worth and the
worth of what you have. If they ask, "Whose position is that?" reply, "One of
the fuqaha" ....
Give everyone who frequents you some of the knowledge they are expecting.
Be friendly with them and joke with them sometimes and chat with them.
Love encourages people to persevere in knowledge. Feed them sometimes
and fulfil their needs. Acknowledge their worth and overlook their faults. Be
kind to them and tolerant of them. Do not show them annoyance or vexation.
Be like one of them. ... Do not burden people with what they cannot do.
This was Abu Hanifa's advice to one of his students who went to Basra to
teach people there the fiqh of Kufa and the opinions of its shaykhs. It reveals
three aspects of that venerable imam.
. It shows his character and his clinging to virtue and good
character so that it became like second nature to him.
. It makes it clear that he was aware of the concerns of society and people's
character and how to deal with them in a manner designed to bring out the
best in them.
. It also shows the manner in which he instructed his students and that he
knew how to disseminate his knowledge and views and make them
acceptable to the learner.
Chapter Five The Fiqh of Abu Hanifa
This final chapter is the core of our study since Abu Hanifa's fi qh is the
field for which he is famous. To apply oneself to the study of his fiqh,
however, is not an easy task because Abu Hanifa did not write a book on it,
and the only surviving books ascribed to him are about dogma. There is no
text written by him to examine so as to ascertain exactly what his position
was.

The transmission of Hanafi fiqh
The fact that Abu Hanifa did not write a book on fi qh is in keeping with the
spirit of his age. Writing books only became widespread after the death of
Abu Hanifa or at the end of his life when he was old. There were m u j ta h i
d s in the time of the Companions who forbade their fatwas to be recorded
and even forbade the Sunna to be written down, so that there would be no
confusion between it and the Book of Allah. As time went on, however,
scholars found it necessary to record the Sunna in order to preserve it, and so
they did so and collected fatwas and fiqh as well. The Iraqis collected the
fatwas of the Companions and the Tabi'un. Abu Hanifa's son, Hammad,
made such a collection.
It is clear, though, that these collections were not books organised into
chapters. They were more akin to private notes to which the m u j t a h i d
would refer and not a book for the general public. The mujtahid would write
them down to avoid forgetting them.
Abu Hanifa's students, however, did write down his views and record them.
Sometimes that would be by his dictation but they were still in the form of
individual notes. Sometimes he would ask them to read what they had written
and he would confirm or alter it. Most of what we have from ash-Shaybani
must have come via Abu Yusuf since ash-Shaybani and other students had
not been with Abu Hanifa long enough to gain such comprehensive
knowledge. We read in Ibn al-Bazzazi, "From Abu 'Abdullah: I used to read
Abu Hanifa's statements to him and Abu Yusuf would also insert his own
statements in it. I used to try not to mention the position of Abu Yusuf along
with Abu Hanifa's. One day I made a slip of the tongue and muddled them."
We read in al-Makki, "Abu Hanifa was the first to record the knowledge of
this Shar i' a which no one had done before him because the Companions
and Ta bi ' un did not set down their knowledge of the S h a r i ' a into
topics or structured books. They relied on their strong memories and made
their hearts the repositories of their knowledge. Abu Hanifa grew up after
them. He saw that knowledge had become scattered and feared there would
be unfortunate consequences if it were lost. The Prophet said, 'Allah
Almighty will not take away knowledge by stripping it from the hearts of

people. It will be taken away by the death of scholars. Ignorant leaders will
remain and give f a t w a s without knowledge and be misguided and
misguide.' Therefore Abu Hanifa recorded it and arranged it into topics."
By this he means the recording done by his students which may have been
suggested by him. Indeed, this is probable.
The Musnad of Abu Hanifa
Although Abu Hanifa does not have a book on fi q h, scholars mention a
musnad of hadiths and traditions ascribed to him. It is arranged in the order of
fiqh and its rulings. So is this musnad part of what he did and did he arrange
it himself or was it transmitted by his companions who received it in the way
his fi qh w a s received? Did they write down what he told them in his
lessons and then collect it together in chapters and publish it? It is certain that
Abu Yusuf collected many of those transmissions which he called al-Athar
and that Muhammad ash-Shaybani also collected a group which he also
called al-Athar. Many transmissions are the same in both books.
Many scholars think that the transmissions can be correctly ascribed to Abu
Hanifa. Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani says in Ta'jil alMunfa'a, "As for the Musnad
of Abu Hanifa, he did not collect it. What is extant of the hadiths of Abu
Hanifa is found in the Kitab a l - A t h a r which Muhammad ibn al-Hasan
related, and other hadiths of Abu Hanifa can be found in the books of
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan and Abu Yusuf. Abu Muhammad al-Harithi, who
lived after 300 AH, was interested in the h a d i t h s of Abu Hanifa and
collected them in a volume."
This would indicate that the Musnad ascribed to Abu Hanifa is not actually
his own collection. Other scholars state the same. It seems that the traditions
ascribed to Abu Hanifa are valid, but that their actual collection and ordering
were done by Abu Yusuf and ash-Shaybani.
Abu Hanifa's knowledge transmitted by his students
It is clear that the only method we can use to discover the fiqh of Abu Hanifa
is by way of his companions. We see that they wrote down the issues which

they discussed with their shaykh after a specific opinion had been reached.
We must, however, take note of three things:
· The writings of the companions of Abu Hanifa that have been mentioned do
not preclude him having recorded his fiqh himself.
. The statements transmitted by his companions lack any proofs other than
transmitted traditions or reports, reliance on the fatwa of a Companion, or the
position of a Tabi'i. Rarely are analogy or reliance on istihsan mentioned,
except in the books of Abu Yusuf, and he only reports them occasionally.
There is no doubt that this does not take us far towards understanding the use
of analogy which was so strong in Abu Hanifa's time that his opponents
accused him of going too deeply into it and claimed that his analogies left the
Sunn a and exceeded the scope of the Muslim mujtahid.
When we read the books of ash-Shaybani, we only rarely find an analogy in
which the underlying reason is clarified so that we know how it was deduced
and pursued. Also, where is the istihsan of Abu Hanifa which his students
could not dispute because of his profound perception and insight? We have
no evidence that the later form of deduction was the same method of thought
as that followed by Abu Hanifa.
· Abu Hanifa's companions served his school by transmitting its teachings
clearly to following generations and their concern made Abu Hanifa
respected. Each of those companions was an imam in his own right. Abu
Yusuf was a respected and important imam. He was the Chief Q a d i of the
government for a long time. Muhammad ash-Shaybani was an imam like Abu
Yusuf in both fiqh of opinion and fiqh of hadith. He also related the
Muwatta' of Malik as he related the fiqh of Iraq and he knew both.
We have no option but to take Abu Hanifa's fi q h from those who
accompanied him and so we should briefly mention those of them who
transmitted his f i q h. Abu Hanifa had many students. Some travelled to him
and stayed for a time and then returned home after learning his method and
technique. Others remained with him. More than once, he mentioned the
companions who remained with him: "They are thirty-six men: twenty-eight
are fit to be qadis; six are able to give fatwa; and two - Abu Yusuf and Zafar
- are fit to teach the qadis and those who give fatwa." For Abu Hanifa to

make such a statement, these students must have already been mature.
Because of his age, this would exclude ashShaybani, although he is in fact the
major source for the transmission of the fiqh of Abu Hanifa to subsequent
generations.
We will take a brief look at some of the companions who were responsible
for recording the f i q h of Abu Hanifa, whether they were with him for a
long time or whether, like Muhammad ibn alHasan ash-Shaybani, they were
not. The criterion is whether they play an important role in the transmission
of his fiqh.
Abu Yusuf
He is Ya'qub ibn Ibrahim ibn Habib al-Ansari al-Kufi. He was an Arab and
not a client. He was born in 133 AH and died in 182. He grew up poor and in
need and had to work to eat. Fervour for knowledge moved him to listen to
scholars until Abu Hanifa noticed him and helped him financially. After that
he devoted himself to knowledge entirely. He had been with Ibn Abi Layla
before joining Abu Hanifa to whom he then devoted himself. It seems that
after Abu Hanifa's death, or while he was still alive, he also studied with
hadith scholars.
He was qadi under three khalifs: al-Mahdi, al-Hadi and then arRashid.
Coupled with the fact that he was one of the fu q a h a ' o f opinion, his
appointment as qadi was one of the reasons why some hadith scholars have
avoided his hadiths. The Hanafi school benefited in several ways by the
appointment of Abu Yusuf as q a d i since his selection gave the school
influence. A q a d i deals with people 's problems and has to apply himself
to solving them and thus the analogy and istihsan he used was derived from
everyday life not theoretical situations. Through his appointment, the Hanafi
school was put on a firm footing. Abu Yusuf may have been the first of the f
u qa ha ' of opinion to base opinions on h a d i t h for he combined both
disciplines.
The books of Abu Yusuf
Abu Yusuf wrote many books containing his opinions and those of his

shaykh. The Index of Ibn an-Nadim mentions a number of them, most of
which have not survived. There are also a number of books which Ibn an-
Nadim does not mention, one of which is the Kitab al-Athar and books on
differences with other fuqaha'.
His best known book is the Kitab al-Kharaj, a treatise which Abu Yusuf
wrote for ar-Rashid on the financial matters of the state. He clarified the
sources of financial revenue for the state and the areas of taxation in great
detail, basing himself on the Qur'an, transmission from the Prophet, and the
fatwas of the Companions. He quotes hadiths and deduces their underlying
intentions and the actions of the Companions.
This book was entirely written by Abu Yusuf, but in it he mentioned his
disagreement with Abu Hanifa regarding several questions. Is it reasonable to
conclude that he agrees with Abu Hanifa when he does not mention that they
disagree? This would seem to be the case. When he differs, he produces the
method of reasoning involved in his reaching a separate conclusion.
The Kitab al-Athar is transmitted by him from Abu Hanifa and contains a
number of f a t w a s which Abu Hanifa selected or opposed from the
positions prevalent in Kufa at that time. This book has several important
scholarly implications for us:
. Its ascription to Abu Hanifa shows a group of his transmissions and the type
of hadiths on which he relied in his deduction of rulings and fatwas.
. It makes it clear that Abu Hanifa accepted the fatwas of the Companions
and how he accepted and used mursal hadiths.
. It includes some of what he selected of the f a t w a s of the Tabi'un among
the fuqaha' of Kufa and of Iraq in general. It, therefore, provides a legal
collection which was known and studied in Iraq.
Another significant book was The Disagreement of Abu Hanifa and Ibn Abi
Layla: It contains the questions on which there was disagreement between the
two. Abu Yusuf supports Abu Hanifa although both of them had been his
teachers. As-Sarakhshi says about Abu Yusuf's move:
"Abu Yusuf used at first to go to Ibn Abi Layla and studied with him for nine

years. Then he moved to the gathering of Abu Hanifa. It is said that the
reason for Abu Yusuf's move was that he attended a marriage contract and
sweets were distributed. Abu Yusuf had some and Ibn Abi Layla disliked that
and spoke harshly to him, saying, 'Do you not know that this is not lawful?'
So Abu Yusuf went to Abu Hanifa and asked him about that and he said,
'There is nothing wrong with it. We have heard that the Messenger of Allah
was with his Companions at the marriage contract of an Ansari and dates
were distributed and the Prophet began to pick them up and tell his
Companions, "Take". We also heard that during the Farewell Hajj when the
Messenger of Allah sacrificed a hundred camels, he ordered that a piece of
each camel be kept for him.' When the disparity between them was clear,
Abu Yu s u f moved to Abu Hanifa."
We find this transmitted from ash-Shaybani. The book also shows how Abu
Hanifa utilised analogy in Iraqi fiqh. Abu Yusuf's book illustrates the use of
evidence and different aspects of analogy. It also shows the disagreement
between the people of Madina and the people of Iraq. An example of that is
the share a horse receives from the booty.
Abu Hanifa said that a man with two horses only receives a share for one
horse. Al-Awza'i said that he receives the share for two horses and no further
share and that this is what the people of knowledge say and the statement
according to which scholars act. Abu Yusuf said, "Nothing about shares for
two horses has reached us from the Prophet or any of his Companions except
for one h a d i t h. We consider a single h a d i t h to be anomalous and do not
take it as evidence. As for the statement that the Imams act by it and the
people of knowledge follow it, this is like the statement of the people of the
Hijaz, "And that is the past sunna." This is not an acceptable position to
adopt. Who is the Imam who does this and who is the scholar who accepts it?
We must look to see whether he is worthy to be transmitted from and certain
about whether his position is based on knowledge or not. How can there be
shares for two horses and not for three? How can there be a share for a horse
tethered at camp which is not used in the fighting?"
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ash-Shaybani
His kunya was Abu 'Abdullah. He was a client. He was born in 132 and died

in 189 AH. He was only about eighteen years old when Abu Hanifa died and
had not been with him for a long time, but nonetheless he compiled a more
complete study of the fiqh of Iraq than Abu Yusuf. He took from ath-Thawri
and al-Awza'i, and travelled to Malik and learned the figh of hadith,
transmissions and the opinions of Malik, after having learned f i q h of
opinion from the Iraqis. He stayed with Malik for three years. He was
appointed a q a d i under ar-Rashid but was never Chief Q a d i. He had great
skill in letters and so he had both linguistic training and analytic perception.
He was concerned with his appearance so that ashShafi'i said about him,
"Muhammad ibn al-Hasan fills both the eye and the heart." He also
mentioned his great eloquence.
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan achieved what no other companion of Abu Hanifa
did, except Abu Yusuf - he learned the fi q h of Iraq completely and then
was appointed q a d i. He studied with Abu Yusuf and then, as we have
mentioned, he also learned the fiqh of the Hijaz from Malik and the fi q h of
Syria from the shaykh of Syria, al-Awza'i. He also had skill in calculating the
distribution of inheritance. He was inclined to record things and he is truly
considered to be the transmitter of the fiqh of the Iraqis to posterity. As we
mentioned, not only did he transmit the fiqh of Iraq, but he also transmitted
the Muwatta' of Malik.
Ash - Shaybani's position among the Iraqis came from him being a
leading mujtahid who had valuable legal opinions. He did not relate fiqh
directly from Abu Hanifa but by way of Abu Yusuf and others. He mentions
his transmission from Abu Yusuf. Indeed, the entirety of al-Jami' as-Saghir is
transmitted from Abu Yusuf. The one book which he did not review with
Abu Yusuf was a 1 Jami' al-Kabir.
The books of ash-Shaybani form the primary source for Abu Hanifa's fiqh,
whether it be what he transmits from Abu Yusuf or what he records of the f i
q h known in Iraq. Not all of ashShaybani's books possess the same degree of
reliability. Scholars divide them in two. Some are clear in transmission, like a
l
Mabsut, az-Ziyadat, al-Jami‘ as-Saghir, as-Siyar as-Saghir, a s Siyar
al-Kabir and al-Jami' al-Kabir. The ascription of others is not as certain. The
first group are the bedrock of the transmission of Hanafi fiqh.

Al-Mabsut or al-Asl, as it is sometimes known, is the longest of his books in
which he collected questions on matters which Abu Hanifa gave fatwa. It
contains the differences between Abu Yusuf and ash-Shaybani, when there
were any, and matters on which there was no disagreement. Each chapter
begins with the traditions they considered sound regarding the topic
concerned and then various questions and their answers. It reports Iraqi fiqh,
but not the legal reasoning behind it.
Al-Jami' as-Saghir contains things which ash-Shaybani related from Abu
Yusuf, as is mentioned at the beginning of every chapter. Some sources state
that it is the only thing which he transmitted directly from Abu Yusuf. It is
arranged according to legal topics.
In the case of al-Jami' al-Kabir, scholars agree that it did not come from Abu
Yusuf, although he knew what it contained and many of the conclusions must
have been transmitted from him. It, like as-Saghir, lacks legal deduction and
there is no evidence for the conclusions reached, although a reader may
discern it by reading between the lines.
He has other books as well that clarify various rulings which reflect Iraqi fi q
h and frequently illustrate the difference between Iraqi figh and Madinan
fiqh. His books also include transmission of h a d i t h s and later traditions
which were transmitted by Abu Hanifa and the people of Iraq and which were
used as sources by later Hanafi scholars.
Zafar ibn Hudhayl
He was a companion of Abu Hanifa before the other two. He died in 158 at
the age of 84. His father was an Arab and his mother a Persian and he had
traits of both races. He was strong in using evidence and took the fi qh of
opinion from Abu Hanifa which dominated his work. He was most acute in
analogy. There is a report in The History of Baghdad from al-Muzani: "A
man came and asked about the people of Iraq. 'What do you say about Abu
Hanifa?' 'He is their master,' was the reply. 'And Abu Yusuf?' 'He is the one
among them who most follows h a d i t h.' 'And Muhammad ibn al-Hasan?'
'The one with the most secondary deduction.' 'And Zafar?' 'The most acute
of them in using analogy."

No books are transmitted from him and it is not known that he recorded the
school of his shaykh, and it seems that the reason for that was that he died
soon after him - only eight years later - while the other two lived for more
than thirty years and had time to write. He seems to have only orally
transmitted Abu Hanifa's teaching.
He was q a d i of Basra while Abu Hanifa was alive. Ibn 'Abdu'l-Barr reports
in al-Intiqa': "When he was appointed qadi of Basra Abu Hanifa said to him,
'You know the enmity, envy and rivalry which exists between us and the
Basrans. I do not think that you will be safe from them.' When he went to
Basra as qadi, the people of knowledge gathered round him and began to
debate with him about fiqh day after day. When he saw that they accepted his
a rguments, he told them, 'This is the position of Abu Hanifa.' They said,
'Does Abu Hanifa find this good?' 'Yes,' he replied. He continued in this
vein until they accepted Zafar completely and had transformed their hatred
into love."
He took Abu Hanifa's place in his circle after he died and Abu Yusuf took it
after him.
Several other f u q a h a ' of the Hanafi school are considered to have
transmitted the opinions of Abu Hanifa. Among them was alHasan ibn Ziyad
al-Lu'lu'i (d. 204) who is said to have been a student of Abu Hanifa. He
became qadi of Kufa in 194.
The place of Abu Hanifa's figh in relation to earlier fiqh
We want to examine the principles on which Abu Hanifa based his deduction
and which were the source of his figh and to relate it to a topic which some
other writers have broached - the place of Hanafi fiqh in relation to the fiqh
which preceded it. Did he innovate the method he followed? Did his fiqh
cover an area not previously dealt with or did he simply follow a course
plotted by others before him so that he did not bring anything new? Did Abu
Hanifa complete a process which began in Iraq and culminated with him?
These are the three possibilities and Abu Hanifa must fall into one of them.
His partisans state that he instigated a totally new way of legal thinking based

on the Book, Sunna and sound tradition from the Companions but such
claims are unsupported. Opposing them are those who claim that Abu Hanifa
was merely a follower and brought nothing new, except in respect of
extrapolation and speed of derivation, and that the source of the method
which he followed was Ibrahim an-Nahka'i. One such person is Shah
Waliyullah adDihlawi who states, "Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with
him, was the strongest proponent of the school of Ibrahim and his
contemporaries. He did not go beyond it except as Allah willed. He
extrapolated according to Ibrahim's school." He concludes that Abu Hanifa
did not bring any new ideas but was merely a follower and transmitter of an-
Nakha'i.
There is no doubt that this is an attack on the position of Abu Hanifa in figh
because it makes him an imitator, or a followed imitator, not the master of a
school of ijtihad. If, however, Abu Hanifa had been like this, he would not
have had such an effect on subsequent generations. Furthermore, we also find
that Abu Hanifa transmits many traditions from other sources than Ibrahim.
An illustration of this is found in the Kitab al-Athar by ash-Shaybani where it
is reported from Ibn 'Abbas that if someone on hajj has intercourse after
standing at 'Arafat but before his tawaf, he owes a camel, completes the h a j
j, and his h a j j is complete. Then he reports from Ibrahim that if he has
intercourse before or after 'Arafat and before tawaf, he owes a sheep,
completes the hajj and must perform hajj again the following year.
Ash-Shaybani says, "The correct position is what Ibn 'Abbas said. The
school of Abu Hanifa is as the books of the school state: intercourse before
standing at 'Arafat invalidates the h a j j, but it does not invalidate it after the
standing, which is the opinion of Ibn 'Abbas." From this it is clear that Abu
Hanifa completely abandoned Ibrahim's opinion and accepted that of Ibn
'Abbas which was related by 'Ata'. This is part of the fiqh of Makka, not
Kufa. So he left Ibrahim and Kufa. How can this be blind imitation of
Ibrahim or the people of Kufa? Such exceptions are often seen in the
traditions of Abu Yusuf.
The truth is that Abu Hanifa came onto the scene when Iraqi fiqh was mature
but he did not confine himself to what he found there. He followed a path
which another had begun and went to the end of the road. We are not partisan
here and take a middle course in this matter. There is no doubt that the