Abū Ḥanīfah raḥimahullāh; al-Imām al-Aʿẓam
His name and lineage:
Al-Nuʿmān ibn Thābit ibn al-Marzubān ibn Zawṭā ibn Mā al-Fārisī raḥimahullāh.
He was never a slave, as stated by his grandson; Ismāʿīl ibn Ḥammād ibn Abū Ḥanīfah. He said: ‘Indeed, Thābit ibn al-Nuʿmān ibn al-Marzubān; the father of Abū Ḥanīfah was from the freed Persian descent. By Allāh, none of us were ever slaves. My grandfather; Abū Ḥanīfah was born in the year 80AH. Thābit went to ʿAli ibn Abū Ṭālib (raḍiyAllāh ʿanhu) and he made duʿā’ for barakah in his progeny.’
His teachers:
Abu Ḥanīfah studied at the feet of scholars from Kūfah; his birthplace, especially from Ḥammād ibn Abū Sulaymān (raḥimahullāh). He didn’t achieve the honour he achieved except through accompanying and emulating Ḥammād and his other teachers. ʿĀtikah, the sister of Ḥammād said: ‘Al-Nuʿman used to comb our cotton at our door, buy our milk and vegetables and so on. Whenever someone would come to ask him a matter, he would say, “What is your question?” And the questioner would then ask.
He (raḥimahullāh) would provide the answer to the question and then say: “Hold on.” He would go to Ḥammād and say: “A man came and asked such and such and I answered with such and such. What do you say regarding the matter?” Ḥammād would say: “They narrated to us such and such, our companions said such and such and Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī said such and such.” Thereafter, Abū Ḥanīfah would say: “Should I narrate from you?” To which the reply would be in affirmative. So, he would go to the questioner and say: “Ḥammād said such and such.”’
There is no way we can list all of his teachers as Ṭāshkubrī Zādah, Imām al-Laknawī and others have stated that they amount to four thousand teachers.
Among them were Ibrāhim ibn al-Muntashir, Al-Ḥakam ibn ʿUtaybah, Abū Saʿīd; the slave of Ibn ʿAbbās, al-Ḥasan ibn ʿUbaydullāh al-Nakhaʿī, Saʿīd ibn Masrūq, Salamah ibn Kuhayl, Simāk ibn Ḥarb, Ṭāwūs ibn Kaysān, al-Shaʿbī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Hurmuz, ʿAṭā’ ibn Abū Rabāḥ, ʿAṭā’ ibn al-Sā’ib, ʿIkrimah; the slave of Ibn ʿAbbas, ʿAlqamah ibn Marthad, Qābūs ibn Abū Ẓabyān, Qatādah ibn Daʿāmah, Muḥammad al-Bāqir, Muḥammad ibn al-Sā’ib, al-Zuhrī, Manṣūr ibn al-Muʿtamir, Nāfiʿ; the slave of Ibn ʿUmar, Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Anṣārī and ʿAmr ibn Dīnār (raḥimahumullāh).
His principles:
The details of this aspect can be found in books regarding his principles. However, we will mention a comprehensive statement regarding his practice with texts of Sharīʿah and a few of his madhhab’s principles.
Abū Ḥanīfah said: ‘I take from the Book of Allāh. If I do not find anything, I turn to the sunnah of the Messenger ﷺ. If I don’t find anything, I accept the statements of his companions, I take from whomever I want from among them and leave whomever I wish. And I do not leave their statements for the statements of others. However, if the matter was brought to Ibrāhīm, al-Shaʿbī, Ibn Sīrīn, al-Ḥasan, ʿAṭā’, Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab and others and they reached a legal judgment through reasoning, I will also do the same.’
From this, we deduce the following:
- The adherence of Abū Ḥanīfah to the methodology of the ṣaḥābah; taking from the Book of Allāh, then the sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ.
- His adherence to the consensus of the ṣaḥābah.
- His adherence to one of their statements if they differed because the truth wouldn’t extend beyond their opinions.
- Reaching a legal judgement through reasoning with the tābiʿīn since he was just like them; a tābiʿī.
Some of his maxims:
• Analogical deduction.
Fiqh according to Abū Ḥanīfah is analogical deduction and juristic discretion. Analogical deduction here means the maxim and principle in every issue. He would examine the texts of the sharīʿah and extract the reason, which would be the principle, upon which rulings would be based.
For example, after examining the invalidators of wuḍū’ from the Qur’ān, sunnah and statements of the ṣaḥābah and tābiʿīn, he found that they all revolved around a maxim: ‘Impurity which exits nullifies wuḍū’. Hence, this would be considered the maxim of the issue.
If a text which was established according to Abū Ḥanīfah contradicted these (extracted) maxims, he would act upon the text using juristic discretion, since this is the exception to analogical deduction.
• Juristic discretion.
It is well known that Abū Ḥanīfah used juristic discretion such that ḥanafī books are filled with it. It should be noted however, that juristic discretion is not passing a judgement based on desires as some people believe. Rather, a person who does this can never be considered a jurist. If this was the case with Abū Ḥanīfah, there would be no end to dismissals, rejections and criticism against him.
Juristic discretion has two aspects:
- Two principles gravitate towards a subsidiary matter. It has similarity to both of them but one is stronger than the other such that it would append to the subsidiary matter over the other.
For example, the issue regarding water from which a predatory bird drank (su’r). Predatory birds are similar to predatory beasts in that its meat is unlawful and impure. So, since the water from which a predatory beast drink is impure, it is fitting that water from which a predatory bird drink is also impure. This is what analogical deduction would suggest.
However, juristic discretion points to a hidden analogical deduction which is that the su’r of a predatory beast is impure because its saliva touches its flesh. Hence, the saliva becomes impure due to the impurity of its flesh.
As for predatory birds, they drink with their beaks such that their saliva doesn’t reach the water. Hence, its su’r would not be impure. And due to precautionary measures, it would be disliked to use.
- Departing from a general ruling even with the presence of its reasoning.
A general ruling can be left out due to text from the Qur’ān, sunnah, ijmāʿ or necessity.
• Departing from a general ruling on the basis of text.
This means that a text is established from the Qur’ān or sunnah which requires the dismissal of analogical deduction.
For example, analogical deduction suggests that eating and drinking forgetfully nullifies one’s fast. However, Abū Ḥanīfah dismissed this deduction due to explicit ḥadīth.
Also, analogical deduction suggests that laughing loudly in ṣalāh would not invalidate one’s wuḍū’ just as it doesn’t invalidate it outside ṣalāh. However, this analogical deduction was dismissed due to explicit ḥadīth.
• Departing from a general ruling on the basis of consensus from the scholars.
This means dismissing analogical deduction when scholars have unanimously agreed to what is contrary to it.
For example, analogical deduction suggests that a manufacturing contract is invalid because the subject matter of the contract is absent. However, this analogical deduction is dismissed due to their consensus.
In any case, everything that the ḥanafī school says about juristic discretion is supported by evidences and it is in no way based on following one’s desires. These evidences can be found in their books.
• Accepting the initially disconnected narration (al-ḥadith al-mursal)
An initially disconnected narration is a narration wherein the ṣaḥābī is omitted in the chain of narration. This means that a tābiʿī says that he heard the Messenger ﷺ saying such and such.
Abū Ḥanīfah is of the opinion that this type of narration is accepted with the condition that the tābiʿī is trustworthy.
Al-ʿAllāmah Ẓafar Aḥmad al-Tahānawī (raḥimahullāh) said: ‘Whoever omits the ṣaḥābī from the narration has taken responsibility for its authenticity. This is because when a trustworthy, reliable person decisively says: “The Messenger ﷺ said such and such…,” he is saying that because he knows that he did in fact say it. And if he was unsure or he knew that he didn’t say it, he wouldn’t have decisively said so since it would be a lie or a deception.’
Al-Tahānawī (raḥimahullāh) also said: ‘And undoubtedly, neglecting to accept this type of narration – especially from senior tābiʿīn – is abandoning part of the sunnah. Al-Imām Abū Dāwūd wrote in his letter to the people of Makkah: “As for initially disconnected narrations, the scholars used them as evidence such as Sufyān al-Thawrī, Mālik ibn Anas, al-Awzāʿī until al-Shāfiʿī (raḥimahumullāh) came and spoke about it.”’
The way to reconcile between those jurists who say its authentic and those scholars of ḥadīth who say it’s weak is that, according to the rules and terminologies of the scholars of ḥadīth, it cannot be considered authentic because it is not connected directly to the Messenger ﷺ and has a missing link. And as for the jurists, they intend that the meaning which the narration indicates is correct. Hence, when it is strengthened by other factors, it will be used as evidence.
Narrating in this manner; omitting the ṣaḥābī was the norm in that era.
Al-Dārquṭnī (raḥimahullāh) said: ‘It was the habit of Mālik (raḥimahullāh) to narrate initially disconnected narrations and omit a narrator.’
Al-Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wāḥid (raḥimahullāh) said: ‘I have seen Ibn al-Mubārak narrate many authentic narrations and attribute it to the ṣaḥābah.’
Aḥmad al-Ghimārī (raḥimahullāh) said: ‘Indeed, it was the habit of these scholars and authors such as Mālik, Ibn Abū Shaybah, ʿAbd al-Razzāq and Ibn al-Mubārak (raḥimahumullāh) to prefer narrations attributed to the ṣaḥābah, interrupted and initially disconnected narrations over those attributed to the Messenger ﷺ and connected ones. How many connected narrations you would find in the ṣaḥīḥayn and sunan but find the very same ones in other books interrupted or initially disconnected. Many of the interrupted narrations in Muwaṭṭā’ Mālik can be found in the ṣaḥīḥayn uninterrupted. And this doesn’t indicate towards weaknesses in the ṣaḥīḥayn and sunan just as it doesn’t indicate that here.’
Every era had its own method of preserving the religion and conveying knowledge. One cannot be compared to the other. This is a delicate point which many seem to neglect.
• Stipulating that narrations should not contradict the principles.
Al-Kawtharī (raḥimahullāh) said: ‘Among the conditions for accepting narrations according to aḥnāf whether it is uninterrupted or initially disconnected is that it should not contradict the principles. This is because these jurists extensively scrutinised the texts from the Qur’ān and sunnah and the judgements of the ṣaḥābah (raḍiyAllāh ʿanhum) until they traced back every matter to a basis and maxim. Hence, they gathered their principles – which can be found in their respective books – and presented isolated narrations (khabar al-āḥād) to their principles. If these narrations contradicted the principles, they would consider them to be opposing to what is stronger and more established.
For example, the narration: ‘Whoever touches his genitals should perform wuḍū.’ This is contradicting the maxim of the issue according to the aḥnāf; ‘impurity which exits nullifies wuḍū’. It also contradicts the narration of Qays ibn Ṭalq (raḥimahullāh) from his father: ‘We were with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and a bedouin came to him and said: “O Messenger of Allāh. When we are in ṣalāh, we feel an irritation in our skin and our hands touch our genitals.” He ﷺ said: “Isn’t it just a piece of flesh from you?”’ Hence, this is more appropriate to be accepted such that wuḍū’ would not be broken according the Abū Ḥanīfah (raḥimahullāh).
• Actions passed down from one generation to the other.
Majority of the issues are based on the traditions of the ṣaḥābah and tābiʿīn (raḍiyAllāhu ʿanhum) especially those who lived and occupied Kūfah. The madhhab contains the legal rulings of the ṣaḥābah, tābiʿīn and atbāʿ al-tābiʿīn. Hence, it is a madhhab whose rulings passed down from one generation to the other.
The Generation of the Ṣaḥābah
Saʿd ibn Abū Waqqāṣ, ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir, ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd, ʿAli ibn Abū Ṭālib, Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, Ḥudhayfah ibn al-Yamān, Salām al-Fārisī, al-Barā’ ibn ʿĀzib.
↓
The Generation of the Senior Tābiʿīn
Saʿid ibn Fayrūz al-Ṭā’ī, Ibrāhim ibn Yazīd al-Taymī, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, Ribʿī ibn Ḥirāsh, Sālim ibn Abū al-Jaʿd, ʿĀmir ibn Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, Yāhyā ibn Wathāb al-Asadī, ʿĀmir ibn Shurāhīl al-Shaʿbī, Saʿd ibn ʿUbaydah al-Sulamī, Ṭalḥah ibn Muṣarrif al-Hamdānī, al-Ḥakam ibn ʿUtaybah al-Kindī, Muḥārib ibn Dithār al-Sadūsī.
↓
The Generation of Atbāʿ al-Tābiʿīn
Al-Ḥakam ibn ʿUyaynah, Ḥabīb ibn Abū Thābit, ʿAlqamah ibn Marthad al-Ḥaḍramī, ʿAmr ibn ʿAbdullāh al-Sabī’ī, ʿUthmān ibn ʿĀṣum ibn Ḥaṣīn, Maʿbad ibn Khālid al-Jadalī, Jāmiʿ ibn Shaddās al-Muḥaribī, Manṣūr al-Sulamī, ʿAbd al-Mālik ibn ʿUmayr al-Qurashī, ʿAṭā’ ibn al-Sā’ib al-Thaqafī, al-Ajlaḥ ibn ʿAbdullāh al-Kindī, Sulaymān ibn Mihrān al-Aʿmash.
↓
The Generation of Abū Ḥanīfah’s Associates
ʿAbdullāh ibn Shubrumah, Ḥajjāj ibn Arṭāh al-Nakhaʿī, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al- Raḥmān ibn Abū Laylā, Misʿar ibn Kidām al-Hilālī, Ḥamzah ibn Ḥabīb al-Zayyāt, ʿĪsā ibn ʿUmar al-Hamdānī, Sufyān ibn Saʿīd al-Thawrī, al-Ḥasan ibn Ṣāliḥ al-Hamdānī, al-Qāsim ibn Maʿn ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Sharīk ibn ʿAbdullāh.
His path to becoming a jurist:
Abū Ḥanīfah (raḥimahullāh) took the reins of jurisprudence after his teacher Ḥammād ibn Abū Sulaymān for fear that it will be lost. Ḥammad ibn Salamah said: The jurist of Kūfah after the death of Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī was Ḥammād ibn Abū Sulaymān. The people were rich in knowledge because of him. So, when he passed away, they needed someone to teach them and his companions feared that he would be forgotten and knowledge would be effaced.
So, they asked Abū Ḥanīfah to which he replied: ‘I do not want knowledge to die.’ So, he helped and taught them. Abū Yūsuf, Asad ibn ʿAmr, Qāsim ibn Maʿn and Zufar (raḥimahumullāh) frequently visited him and thereafter. Abū Ḥanīfah taught them a great deal about the religion and was extremely devoted and kind to them. This continued until his endeavours became deep-rooted such that governors needed him and leaders mentioned him.
His teaching was such that he expected his students to not accept everything thrown their way. Rather, he wanted them to present whatever they had until the issue became clear to them as day. They would accept the issues whose evidence was evident and discard that which gave away.
He used to say to the effect: ‘It is not permissible for anyone to support our statements until they know from where it came.’ And this is the secret to the emergence of his madhhab.
Zufar (raḥimahullāh) said: ‘We used to frequent Abū Ḥanīfah; myself, Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan. We would write what he said until one day he said to Abū Yūsuf: “O Yaʿqūb! Do not write everything you hear from me. For I would have an opinion on a matter today and discard it tomorrow. And I would have an opinion tomorrow and discard it the next day.”’
Look at how he forbade his students from writing everything he said before it was scrutinised and refined as it ought to be.
Al-Muwaffaq al-Makkī (raḥimahullāh) said: ‘Abū Ḥanīfah made his madhhab a consultation between his companions. He would not manage anything without them as this was his struggle for the religion and sincere conduct (naṣīḥah) for Allāh, His Messenger and the believers. He used to present the issues one at a time, listen to what they had to say, say what he thought about it, debate over it for a month or more until one answer was firmly established. Then, Abū Yūsuf would add it to the principles until all of them were established.’
Scholars’ Praise Regarding Him:
Al-Suyūṭī (raḥimahullāh) said: ‘The Messenger ﷺ gave glad tiding of Abū Ḥanīfah in the following ḥadīth:
“If the religion were at the Pleiades (the highest star), even then a person from Persia would have taken hold of it, or one amongst the Persian descent would have surely found it.”’
The author of al-Sīrah al-Shāmiyah; the student of al-Suyūṭī said: ‘What our teacher positively stated about Abū Ḥanīfah (raḥimahullāh) being the intent of this ḥadīth is undoubtedly clear. Because no one among Persian decent attained the level of knowledge like he did.’
ʿIkrimah al-Makhzūmī (raḥimahullāh) said: ‘I have never seen a scholar in my era more devout, ascetic, devoted to worship and knowledgeable than Abū Ḥanīfah.’
ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Mubārak (raḥimahullāh) said: ‘It has reached us that Abū Ḥanīfah prayed the five daily ṣalawāt with one wuḍū’ for forty years. He slept sitting for a moment between Ẓuhr and ʿAṣr. In the winter, he slept for a moment in the beginning of the night and used to complete the Qur’ān in two rakʿāt. He said: “Abū Ḥanīfah is the most knowledgeable of people in Fiqh.” He also said: “Four scholars completed the entire Qur’ān in two rakʿāt: ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān, Tamīm al-Dārī, Saʿīd ibn Jubayr and Abū Ḥanīfah.”’
Al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī (raḥimahullāh) said: ‘Whoever wants to master and delve deeply into the field of jurisprudence is in need of Abū Ḥanīfah. Whoever wants to master and delve deeply into the military campaigns of the Prophet ﷺ is in need of Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq. Whoever wants to master and delve deeply into the field of syntax is in need of al-Kisā’ī.’
Jaʿfar ibn al-Rabīʿ (raḥimahullāh) said: ‘I stayed with Abū Ḥanīfah for five years and I have never seen anyone whose silence prolonged to such an extent. But when he was asked about a matter regarding fiqh, he would blossom and flow like a valley.’
Al-Dhahabī (raḥimahullāh) said: ‘He was a devout scholar, who acted upon what he knew. He had a great status and didn’t accept gifts from leaders. Rather, he would trade and earn for himself.’ He also said: ‘He was among the intelligent children of Ādam. He combined jurisprudence with worship, piety and generosity. He didn’t accept gifts from the government, rather he would spend from his earnings. He had a building for silk and had workers and manufacturers.’
His Tribulation:
Yazīf ibn Hubayrah was the leader of Iraq and wanted Abū Ḥanīfah (raḥimahullāh) to be a judge for Kūfah in the era of Marwān ibn Muḥammad; the last king of Banū Umayyah but he refused. He whipped him ten times for ten days and when he saw his forbearance and refusal, he left him.
Abū Jaʿfar al-Manṣūr moved him from Kūfah to Baghdād and wanted him to a judge as well but he refused. He (Abū Jaʿfar) said: ‘Do you detest what we are doing?’ He replied saying: ‘I am not suitable to be a judge.’ He said: ‘You’re lying.’ He replied: ‘The leader of the believers has ruled that I am not suitable since he has accused me of lying. So, if I am a liar, I am not suitable. And if I have truthful, I have already informed you that I am not appropriate.’
Al-Ṣaymarī (raḥimahullāh) said: ‘Abū Ḥanīfah didn’t accept the order to be a judge and so he was whipped 100 times, imprisoned and died in prison.’
He refrained from being a judge due to his intense fear of Allāh, piety and knowledge of the injustice that occurred in the era of Abū Jaʿfar al-Manṣūr. And if it wasn’t for that, there wouldn’t be anyone more deserving of the task than him since many jurists who were trained and educated by him. And it is sufficient to mention Abū Yūsuf (raḥimahullāh) for he was the first person to be the main judge in Islām.
Abū Yūsuf said: ‘We gathered at Abū Ḥanīfah’s on a rainy day with a group of his students. Among them were Dāwūd al-Ṭā’ī, al-Qāsim ibn Maʿn, ʿĀfiyah ibn Yazīd, Ḥafṣ ibn Ghiyāth, Wakīʿ ibn al-Jarrāḥ, Mālik ibn Mighwal and Zufar. He faced us and said: ‘You are all the happiness of my heart and the means of removing my sorrow. I saddled and bridled jurisprudence for you. I left people to tread on your heel and seek out your words. There is no one among you who is not suitable to be a judge.’
He died in the year 150AH. May Allāh have mercy upon him.
A Claim and its Refutal:
Some have claimed that Abū Ḥanīfah (raḥimahullāh) is weak in ḥadīth and that his narrations are very little so much so that he has opposed some narrations in his jurisprudence.
This claim has been refuted in books authored for the sole purpose of this and whoever wants to learn more about it should review them. We will only mention here a short summary.
- Great scholars of discrediting and endorsing narrators have attested to his trustworthiness and reliability.
Shuʿbah (raḥimahullāh) thought good about him. Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān, Wakīʿ ibn al-Jarrāḥ, Ibn al-Mubārak (raḥimahumullāh) used to pass rulings based on his opinions. Ibn al-Madīnī (raḥimahullāh) said: ‘He is reliable, there’s no problem with him.’ Ibn Maʿīn said: ‘There is no problem with him; he was never accused of lying.’ This is the statement of the main criticiser which has the same meaning as reliable. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said: ‘We do not speak badly of Abū Ḥanīfah and we do not endorse anyone who speaks badly of him. For indeed, I have not seen anyone better, more devout and knowledgeable of jurisprudence than Abū Ḥanīfah.’
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr also said: ‘Those who narrated from Abū Ḥanīfah endorsed him and praised him more than those who spoke against him. And those people of ḥadīth who have spoken against him have only found fault in his use of qiyās. And this isn’t a fault nor is it blameworthy as has been previously mentioned.’
- The criticism of his associates would not be accepted if there is evidence that it was done unjustly or the criticism came from fanatics.
Al-Tāj al-Subkī (raḥimahullāh) said: ‘Beware of understanding that criticism is favoured over endorsement without exception. Those whose leadership and impartiality has been established, whose endorsements outweigh their criticism and there is evidence indicating that the criticism is from fanatics, it will not be considered.’
He then said: ‘We have already informed you that the criticism of a person would not be accepted – even if it is explained – if his acts of obedience outweigh his disobedience and his endorsers outweigh his critics. This is with the condition that there is evidence that proves it is due to fanaticism or worldly dispute. Hence, the statements of al-Thawrī will not be accepted with respect to Abū Ḥanīfah, nor would Ibn Abū Dhi’b’s statements be accepted with respect to Imām Mālik. Ibn Maʿīn’s statements would not be accepted with respect to al-Shāfiʿī and al-Nasā’ī’s would not be accepted with respect to Aḥmad ibn Ṣāliḥ and so on.’
He also said: ‘If we favour criticism over endorsement without exception, no one among the scholars would be safe. Since there’s not a single scholar who wasn’t criticised and slandered.’
Ibn Ḥajar (raḥimahullāh) said: ‘If criticism is from a person’s associates, it will not be considered because the criticism of associates over each other is not accepted as Imām al-Dhahabī has explained. This is especially if it is from an enemy of the madhhab since no one can be safe from jealousy except those whom Allāh has protected.’
- Many statements from envious fanatics regarding Abū Ḥanīfah were inserted in books of scholars.
Such as his biography written in Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl by Imām al-Dhahabī because there is no mention of it in authentic copies. Al-ʿIrāqī, al-Shakhāwī, al-Suyūtī and others have explained this. This is also supported by Imām al-Dhahabī; the author of the aforementioned book since he considered Abū Ḥanīfah to be a scholar of ḥadīth and wrote a lengthy biography about him in Tadhkirah al-Ḥuffāẓ where criticisms weren’t mentioned.
- Abū Ḥanīfah sought ḥadīth frequently as Imām al-Dhahabī has mentioned.
He was the most knowledgeable of ḥadīth in his era as al-Sarakhsī and al-Kāsānī has explained. Al-Aʿmash used to bring him in front in his gatherings and scholars of ḥadīth such as al-Dhahabi, Ibn ʿAbd al-Hādī, Ibn Nāṣir al-Dīn, Ibn al-Mubarrid al-Ḥanbalī, al-Suyūṭī, al-Badakhshī and others considered him as a ḥāfiẓ (one who has committed 100,000 aḥāḍith to memory; both the chain of narrations and text).
- Giving a ruling contrary to some aḥādīth isn’t specific to only Abū Ḥanīfah.
Rather, this is the case of everyone who delves into jurisprudence since every mujtahid must have principles which he uses to extract laws from the Qur’ān, sunnah and sayings of the ṣaḥābah and tābiʿīn. And this requires him to give preference to some over others due to it being abrogated or interpreted a different way, etc.
Al-Layth ibn Saʿd said: ‘I have counted 70 issues for which Imām Mālik (raḥimahullāh) ruled according his opinion. And all of them are contrary to the sunnah of Allāh’s Messenger ﷺ.’
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr followed this by saying: ‘We have never seen any of the scholars establish a ḥadīth and thereafter dismiss it except with evidence. Such as abrogation, due to ijmāʿ or an issue in its chain of narrators. And had anyone dismissed a ḥadīth without a valid reason, their integrity would dissolve not to mention their leadership. This would also tarnish their reputation with depravity (fisq). May Allāh protect us from that. And it has been reported that the ṣaḥābah and tābiʿīn (raḍiyAllāh ʿanhum) gave legal rulings according to their opinions and analogical deduction.’
Al-Suyūṭi supports him by saying: ‘To summarise, Abū Ḥanīfah wasn’t the only person to give rulings according his opinion and analogical deduction. Rather, this is the case of all jurists.’
[Translated from al-Madkhal al-Mufaṣṣal ilā al-Fiqh al-Ḥanafī]
