﷽
The 2nd of Shaʿbān marks the passing of al-Imām al-Aʿẓam Abū Ḥanīfah al-Nuʿmān ibn Thābit (80AH–150 AH), the only one of the four recognised imāms of fiqh who was a Successor (tābiʿī) and who had seen the Companions (such as Anas b. Mālik). He is the imām of millions in matters of fiqh (jurisprudence) and the founder of the school of fiqh with the largest following in the Muslim world.
He lived in Kufa (Iraq) and emerged as one of the greatest jurists in Islamic history. Despite his towering rank, there is no doubt that he is the most attacked and maligned of the four imāms. Out of envy and fanaticism, detractors have attempted to diminish his status with baseless accusations, claiming that he prioritised personal reasoning over textual evidence or that he possessed limited knowledge of ḥadīth and the Sunnah.
These claims are demonstrably false. Had they been true, no one from the best generations of Islam would have followed him nor would the leading scholars of his era have accepted his authority. Numerous impartial scholars have included Imām Abū Ḥanīfah among those regarded as ḥuffāẓ of ḥadīth (preserver of thousands of Prophetic reports). His direct students, Imām Abū Yūsuf and Imām Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī, are unquestionably also counted among the great ḥuffāẓ of ḥadīth (see al-Dhahabī’s Tadhkirat al-Huffāẓ).
If it were true that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah was ignorant of the Sunnah or placed his reasoning above revelation, then such towering authorities would never have stood by him. Furthermore, almost all of his teachers were from the tābiʿīn, men who had sat with the Companions, observed their practices directly, and absorbed their understanding of Islam. How could it possibly make sense that a scholar living in such an era would disregard the knowledge and practice of teachers who themselves learned directly from the Companions? Why would the Muslims of that time choose to follow him if he were deficient in knowledge or methodology when many great imāms were alive?
The only reasonable conclusion is that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah himself was a great imām, who had deep understanding of the Sunnah and profound expertise in fiqh.
It must also be remembered that Kufa during the time of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah was a major centre of Islamic learning. This was due to the caliphate of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib being based there, and before that, the prolonged presence of senior Companions such as ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd, who had been teaching in Iraq since the time of the second Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb. Ibn Masʿūd alone produced thousands of students.
One must seriously ask: What exactly do people imagine Ibn Masʿūd was teaching them?
Is it plausible to suggest that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah would deliberately oppose dozens of authentic narrations in matters such as ṣalāh, had he not observed the practice of those who learned ṣalāh directly from the Companions themselves? If his method of prayer were truly contrary to authentic Prophetic reports, would it have been tolerated and transmitted in the best of generations?
The only sensible answer is that his method of ṣalāh, like his legal reasoning, was taken from the lived practice of the Companions, especially those of Kufa and their foremost students. What applies to ṣalāh applies equally to other areas of fiqh. Like all recognised schools of fiqh, the Ḥanafī madhhab is firmly rooted in textual evidence, applied through established principles, with analogy (qiyās) employed only after recourse to revelation.
To retroactively judge Imām Abū Ḥanīfah using narrations collected in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, works compiled over a century after his birth, is an intellectually flawed methodology. Imām Abū Ḥanīfah was born in 80 AH, while Imām al-Bukhārī was born 114 years later. Are the narrations recorded in Bukhārī and Muslim the only authentic narrations to exist? Or is it not the case that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah often had shorter chains of transmission, being far closer to the Companions?
Within those 114 years, how many additional narrators were introduced into the chains? Earlier scholars naturally possessed shorter, stronger chains (isnāds), even if later collections preserved those reports more systematically.
Even Ibn Taymiyyah, despite being frequently misused by modern fanatics, was far more just and restrained in his assessment. He did not insult Imām Abū Ḥanīfah with reckless accusations. Rather, he explained and defended the legitimacy of juristic disagreement in his work: Rafʿ al-Malām ʿan al-Aʾimmat al-Aʿlām. Many contemporary polemicists and fanatics ought to read this work.
Muhammad Kalim Misbahi
