Archive for haneefah

What Aboo Haneefah’s Critics Said About Him

Posted in Miscellaneous with tags , , , , , , , on July 15, 2014 by TheAuthenticBase

Because of Imaam Aboo Haneefah’s high standing, many laid severe criticism of him and many have fabricated statements to the scholars which show they had a hatred for Imaam Aboo Haneefah as well.

Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdaadee relates statements from a variety of scholars, statements that accuse Aboo Haneefah of being weak in the knowledge of hadeeth and of having access to only a small number of hadeeths. For example he relates the following four narrations:

Ibn Mubaarak said, “Aboo Haneefah was an orphan in hadeeth.”

Yahyaa Ibn Sa’eed Al-Qattaan said, “He was not one of the people of hadeeth.”

Imaam Ahmad said, “Indeed he has with him neither opinion, nor hadeeth.”

Aboo Bakr Ibn Abee Daawood said, “All of the hadeeth that have been related from Aboo Haneefah do not exceed 150 in number, and even in half of those he erred.

Because of his many deductions, some spiteful critics have said, “He is the most ignorant of people regarding what has occurred, and the most knowledgeable regarding that which has not occurred.

Two Reasons Why Aboo Haneefah Differed With The Majority In His Rulings

Posted in Hadith Studies with tags , , , , , , , , , on July 10, 2014 by TheAuthenticBase

1) Unauthenticating Many Authentic Narrations:

Aboo Haneefah stipulated strict conditions for a narration to be accepted – very difficult conditions indeed, but he only did so because fabrication in hadeeth became a widespread phenomenon. During his time, Iraaq was the source of revolutionary and intellectual groups in the Islaamic world, and as such, it was fertile soil for fabrications and fabricators to thrive.

These factors impelled Imaam Aboo Haneefah to be more circumspect when accepting the authenticity of a hadeeth, and so he only accepted those hadeeth that were famous and widespread, and came from trustworthy people. In this regard he was more careful and strict than even the scholars of hadeeth which is why he deemed many hadeeths to be weak, which in the view of the scholars of hadeeth, were authentic and accepted.

2) Accepting Mursal Narrations:

Although he was strict in one aspect of judging the authenticity of hadeeths, he was more lenient in another: he would consider disconnected (mursal) narrations to be acceptable, but only if the one who narrated it was trustworthy.

Mursal narrations are narrations wherein one of the Taabi’een would narrate a hadeeth without mentioning the source from whom he took it.

Imaam Aboo Haneefah’s view in this matter is contrary to the view of the majority of Hadeeth Scholars, which led him to arguing issues based on hadeeths that were considered to be weak and inapplicable by others.

[Taken from “The Sunnah And Its Role In Islaamic Legislation” by Mustafa As-Sibaa’ee, p.492]

The View Of Aboo Haneefah On Hypothetical Fiqh Issues

Posted in Hadith Studies, Methodology Of The Salaf with tags , , , , , , on September 10, 2012 by TheAuthenticBase

Aboo Haneefah would even derive verdicts for incidents that had not yet taken place during his time, a practise that the scholars before him disliked. They deemed it to be a waste of time because it occupied people’s time with matters in which there was no benefit.
Aboo Haneefah on the other hand, saw things in a different light: he felt that the job of the mujtahid is to prepare people to accept a ruling in fiqh, for though a matter might not occur during the life of the mujtahid, it might occur afterwards.

Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdaadee relates an issue which clearly shows Imaam Aboo Haneefah’s view in this issue:

When Qataadah came to Koofa, Aboo Haneefah met him and said, “What do you say about a man who leaves his wife for so many years that his wife supposes him to be dead, She  (then) marries another, but her first husband then returns to her. What do you say regarding her dowry?

In answer to this question, Qataadah said, “Woe unto you! Has this matter occurred?

Aboo Haneefah said, “No.”

He said, “Then why do you ask e about that which has not occurred?

Aboo Haneefah replied, “Indeed we are preparing for the problem before it arrives, and when it does arrive, we know its ins and outs.

Hence, his school came to be known as the “supposers”, or the school of those who hypothesized occurrences, saying, “Suppose that such and such were to happen or suppose that such and such occurred.

Through deductions and the study of hypothetical issues, the number of issues in the fiqh of Imaam Aboo Haneefah are indeed many. The author of “Al-‘Inaayah Sharh Al-Hidaayah” estimated those issues to approximately 1,270,000!

Because of his many deductions, some spiteful critics have said, “He is the most ignorant of people regarding what has occurred, and the most knowledgeable regarding that which has not occurred.

[Taken from “The Sunnah And Its Role In Islamic Legislation” Pp.490-492]

Means To Shirk Which The Hanafee Scholars Have Forbade

Posted in Tawheed/Shirk with tags , , , , , , , on August 1, 2011 by TheAuthenticBase

The Hanafee scholars have openly forbade the means to shirk such as:

– plastering graves (tajsees) (1)

– building structures on them (1)

– decorating them

– writing on them (1)

– taking them as masaajid (2)

– putting lights on them (3)

– facing them in prayer and du’aa (4)

– taking them as places of festivity (5)

– travelling to them. (6)


(1) Jaabir reported that the Messenger of Allaah “forbade that the graves should be plastered (made into permanent structures) and that they be written on.” [Aboo Daawood, At-Tirmidhee, and others]. For more info on the position of the Hanafees refer to badaa’i As-Sanaa’i 1/320

Continue reading

A Detailed Analysis Of The Khaas (Specific) Verses In The Quraan

Posted in Qur'an with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 26, 2011 by TheAuthenticBase

Abrogation VS specific:

According to the majority of the scholars the verse conveyed in specific terms specifies the verse conveyed in general terms.

According to the majority of scholars the time factor has no role to play in the event of general and specific. The specific always specifies the verse conveyed in general terms. According to the hanafes however, when the specification was revealed after the general verse was revealed, it abrogates the general verse, rather than specifying it.

Below is a table which shows how the chronological order effects the role of specifying the general verses in the Quraan:

Specific in relation to the general Parallel After Unknown Before
Majority Specifies Specifies Specifies
Hanafee Specifies Abrogates Specifies Abrogates

As is seen in this table, when the Specific is parallel, after or unknown (in chronological order of revelation) it specifies the general, but according to the Hanafees, when the specific is after the general, it abrogates it. Likewise, when the order of revelation is unknown, the hanafees presume that it is parallel to the general, thus take it as a form of specifier.

The difference between specifying and abrogating is that abrogation is a total or partial suspension of a ruling at a later date, whereas specification simply limits the application of the ruling.

According to the majority, the specific is a form of bayaan (explanation), whereas the Hanafees say it is a form of bayaan (explanation) when:

(a) the chronological order of both the specific and general is parallel (as seen in the table above), and;

(b) the specific and general are both of the same strength (i.e, qat’ee [decisive] or zanni [speculative]) in their application.

So according to the hanafees, when the specific is after the general, the specific is a form of abrogation, not bayaan (explanation).

The hanafees differ with the majority of scholars when it comes to the detailed rulings of specification (takhsees). The Hanafees say that specification is a partial abrogation whereas the majority of scholars disagree on this and say that it is not a partial abrogation but a bayaan (explanation) or a qualification. [See below for more details on a verse being partially specified/abrogated]

Al-Ghazaalee refutes the two points/conditions the Hanafees maintain ((a) and (b) above) namely that (a) the time factor can change the specification into an abrogation and (b) the strength of the verse determines the difference between specification and abrogation.

Qat’ee and Zanni:

Qat’ee is a definitive proof and zanni is speculative in its proof.

The majority of scholars say that the general a zanni (speculative), whether before or after being specified (so it is open to qualification and ta’weel).

Continue reading

Allaah Is Above The Throne (Refuting The Ash’ariyyah & Those Like Them) Part 1

Posted in 'Aqeedah, Various Other Misguided Sects/Groups Exposed with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 21, 2010 by TheAuthenticBase

O ‘Abdullaah Ibn al-Mubaarak, How Do We Know Our Lord?:

‘Alee Ibn al-Hasan Ibn ash-Shaqeeq said, “I said to ‘Abdullaah Ibn al-Mubaarak (d. 181), ‘How are we to know our Lord?

He (‘Abdullaah Ibn al-Mubaarak) replied:

“He is above the seventh Heaven, above His Throne, and we do not say as the Jahmiyyah say, ‘He is here upon the earth’.”

So that was mentioned to Imaam Ahmad and he said:

“That is how it is with us.”

[Ar-Radd ‘Alal Mareesee, of ad-Daarimee, p. 24. And Ar-Radd ‘Alal Jahmiyyah, p. 50]

Aboo Haneefah Declares The Denier To Be A Kaafir:

Aboo Mutee’ al-Hakam al-Balkhee said,

I asked (imaam) Aboo Haneefah about the one who says, ‘I do not know whether my Lord is above the Heavens (fis-samaa’) or the earth.

So he said:

‘He is a kaafir, since Allaah, the Most High, says:

The Most Merciful has ascended over the Throne.” [20:5]

…And His ‘Arsh (Throne) is above the Heavens.’

So I said, “If he says, ‘I say that He ascended above the ‘Arsh (Throne), but I do not know whether the Throne is above the Heavens (fis-samaa’) or the earth.‘ (then what is the ruling regarding him?)”

He (Imaam Aboo Haneefah) said:

“If he denies that He is above the Heaven, then he is a kaafir.”

[Reported by adh-Dhahabee in “Mukhtasirul ‘Uluww”, no. 118]

How Do We Know Our Lord?:

It was said to Ibn al-Mubaarak:

“How are we to know our Lord?”

He (‘Abdullaah Ibn al-Mubaarak) replied:

“Above the Heavens, over (‘alaa) His Throne.”

[Khalq Af’aalul ‘Ibaad, by Imaam Bukhaaree (yup he authored more than one book!), no. 13]

Continue reading

Does Tashbeeh Lead One To Become A Mushabbihah And A Mujassimah (Anthropomorphist)

Posted in 'Aqeedah with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 9, 2010 by TheAuthenticBase

As has been explained in the previous post, the way of the Salaf was to accept the narrations pertaining to the Sifaat (Attributes of Allaah) as they are, upon their literal meaning.

Due to this, the Jahmiyyah, Ash’ariyyah, Mu’tazilah, the Maatooreediyyah and others like them from among the ahlul kalaam accuse Ahlu Sunnah (those upon the ‘Aqeedah of the salaf), that they are Mushabbihah and Mujassimah (Anthropomorphists).

Rather it is they who are the Mushabbihah and Mujassimah (Anthropomorphists) due to the desease in their hearts. It is not possible for them to affirm the Attributes of Allaah without their hearts resembling them to the creation and this is why ta’weel (misinterpretation) is one of their hallmarks, their claim being, ‘We are declaring Allaah free from defects’, but in fact they are stripping Allaah of his Attributes, until Allaah is but nothingness!

As Muhammad Ibn al-hasan Ash-Shaybaanee (d. 189), the student of Imaam Aboo Haneefah said:

All the fuqahaa, from the east to the west, are agreed upon (the obligation of) having faith in the Qur’aan and the ahaadeeth which the reliable and trustworthy narrators have come with from the Messenger of Allaah (saw) in describing the Lord, the Mighty and Majestic, without explaining them (tafseer) or likening them to the creation (tashbeeh).

So whoever explains anything from them today, then he has departed from tat which the Prophet (saw) and his companions were upon. For verily, they did not explain them, but they gave verdicts with whatever is in the book and the sunnah and then they remained quite.

So whoever speaks with the saying of Jahm (ibn Safwaan) then he has seperated from the Jamaa’ah since he (Jahm) describes Him (Allaah) with nothingness!

[Sharh Usoolul I’tiqaad, of al-Laalikaa’ee, 3/432]

And this is also the basis for their accusation against Ahlu Sunnah, that they are Dhaahiriyyah (1) (Literalists) since they, due to the aforementioned sickness in their hearts, resort to ta’weel (misinterpretation, away from the literal meaning) with respect to the Attributes of Allaah and explain them in a way unknown to the Messenger (saw) and his companions (ra).

[Taken from “Foundations Of The Sunnah” p. 115]

(1) A study of the actuality of Ahlu Sunnah being Dhaahiriyyah, and how true this is, will be done in the near future in shaa Allaah.