The Status of Imam Abu Hanifah as a Narrator of Hadithwww.notesonalimamalazam.wordpress.

com Imam Abu Hanifah (80 150 H) was from the generation of the Tabiin as he was alive during the era of the Sahabah and he saw Anas ibn Malik (d. 93 H), although it is not authentic that he narrated from him or any other Sahabi. Imam al-Suyuti mentions in Tabyid al-Sahifah (Mahmud Muhammad Mahmud Hasan Nassar ed. p. 34) that Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said, Ibn Sad narrated with a sanad in which there is no harm that Abu Hanifah saw Anas. Ibn Hajar goes on to mention that this distinguishes Abu Hanifah from all the other Imams of the major towns from his contemporaries like al-Awzai, Hammad ibn Zayd, Hammad ibn Salamah, al-Thawri, Malik, Muslim ibn Khalid and al-Layth ibn Sad. Imam Abu Hanifahs authority in fiqh is accepted by all from the Ahl al-Sunnah, both his supporters and his detractors. However, some still insist on casting doubt on his reliaibility in the narration of hadith. Imam Abu Hanifah did not narrate many hadiths as his preoccupation was fiqh and recording its masail, but his dependence on hadith and athar is apparent from his rulings and in this sense he is from the mukthirin those who narrated large amounts of hadith (see Abu Hanifah wa Ashabuhu l-Muhaddithun, pp. 19-23). Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi narrated in his Tarikh Baghdad (Dr. Bashshar Awwad Maruf ed. 15:473) with an authentic chain of narration [in which all the narrators, al-Khallal, al-Hariri, al-Nakha'i and Muhammad ibn Isma'il al-Farisi are thiqat (trustworthy)] from Makki ibn Ibrahim (126 214 H), a narrator from Abu Hanifah and one of the oldest shaykhs of Imam Bukhari and a narrator of the six famous collections of hadith described by Ibn Hajar as thiqah thabt in al-Taqrib one of the loftiest grades of reliability, that he said about Abu Hanifah, He was the most knowledgeable of the people in his time. (kana alama ahli zamanihi) Knowledge (ilm) in that time was knowledge of Quran and Sunnah, showing Abu Hanifah had vast knowledge of hadiths, but he would not be preoccupied with narration. Imam alDhahabi wrote: Logic, dialectics and the philosophy of the ancients were not, by Allah, from the sciences of the Sahabah, nor the Tabiin, nor al-Awzai, al-Thawri, Malik and Abu Hanifah. Rather, their sciences were the Quran and hadith. (Tadhkirat al-Huffaz, 1:192) Imam Abu Hanifahs trustworthiness in narrating hadith has been transmitted from the following five Imams of al-Jarh wa l-Tadil: 1. Abu Dawud al-Sijistani (202 275 H), the author of the Sunan Abu Umar ibn Abd al-Barr (368 463 H) narrates in his al-Intiqa fi Fadail al-Aimmati lThalathat al-Fuqaha (Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah ed. pp. 66-67): Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Abd al-Mumin ibn Yahya (al-Qurtubi), Allah have mercy on him, narrated to us: Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Bakr ibn Abd al-Razzaq, known as Ibn Dasah, narrated to us: I heard Abu Dawud Sulayman ibn al-Ashath ibn Ishaq al-Sijistani, Allah have mercy on him, say: Allah have mercy on Malik, he was an Imam. Allah have mercy on al-Shafii, he was an Imam. Allah have mercy on Abu Hanifah, he was an Imam. Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Abd al-Mumin al-Qurtubi is reliable (saduq) as mentioned in Lisan al-Mizan (4:587) which also states that he is from the oldest of Abu Umar (Ibn Abd alBarr)s shaykhs. Ibn Dasah (d. 346) is trustworthy (thiqah) and a narrator of the Sunan from Abu Dawud al-Sijistani (Siyar Alam al-Nubala). The isnad is therefore sound (hasan). Imam has different meanings, but when used in the context of hadith science and narratorcriticism, it is on par with trustworthy (thiqah) and proof (hujjah) and firm (thabt), as mentioned by al-Sakhawi in his Sharh Alfiyyat al-Iraqi (al-Raf wa l-Takmil, p. 75-6). Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani also sufficed with Imam when grading Imam Abu Hanifahs reliability in Taqrib al-Tahdhib, indicating this term is sufficient to establish trustworthiness. 2. Ali ibn Abd Allah al-Madini (161 235 H), the great Imam of al-Jarh wa l-Tadil

Muhammad ibn al-Husayn ibn Ahmad ibn al-Husayn Abu l-Fath al-Azdi al-Mawsili (d. 374) mentioned in his book, al-Duafa, Ali ibn al-Madini said: Al-Thawri, Ibn al-Mubarak, Hammad ibn Zayd, Hushaym, Waki ibn al-Jarrah, Abbad ibn al-Awam and Jafar ibn Awn narrated from Abu Hanifah. He is trustworthy (thiqah), there is no harm in him. (quoted in Ibn Abd al-Barrs Jami Bayan al-Ilm wa Fadlih, Abu al-Ashbal al-Zuhayri ed., p. 1083) Abu l-Fath al-Azdi narrated it without chain but his manner of narration (using sighat al-jazm) indicates it is authentic according to him. 3. Shubah ibn al-Hajjaj (85 160 H), the creator of the science of al-Jarh wa l-Tadil Ibn Abd al-Barr narrated from Hakam ibn al-Mundhir from Abu Yaqub Yusuf ibn Ahmad ibn Yusuf Ibn al-Dakhil from Ahmad ibn al-Hasan al-Hafiz from Abd Allah ibn Ahmad ibn Ibrahim alDawraqi: Yahya ibn Main was asked about Abu Hanifah while I listened. He said: [He is] trustworthy (thiqah), I have not heard anyone weakening him. Here is Shubah ibn al-Hajjaj, writing to him and advising him to narrate. And Shubah is Shubah! (Al-Intiqa fi Fadail alAimmat al-Thalathat al-Fuqaha, p. 197) Al-Dawraqi is trustworthy (thiqah) according to al-Daraqutni and reliable (saduq) according to Ibn Abi Hatim (Misbah al-Arib 2:133). The rest of the narrators are known as huffaz and muhaddithin but their reliability is unknown. This narration is therefore either weak (daif) or sound (hasan), depending on the principles used. Shubah ibn al-Hajjaj would only narrate from trustworthy narrators, so if the above narration is sound, this would amount to Shubah declaring Abu Hanifah trustworthy. 4. Yahya ibn Main (158 233 H), the great scholar of al-Jarh wa l-Tadil Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Qasim ibn Muhriz, a student of Ibn Main, narrated in his transmission of Marifat al-Rijal of Ibn Main from Yahya ibn Main that he said: Abu Hanifah, there was no harm in him. And he said once: Abu Hanifah was, according to us, from the people of integrity. He was not accused of lying. Ibn Hubayrah beat him for [refusing] judgeship and he refused to be judge. (Marifat al-Rijal, Muhammad Kamil alQassar ed., vol. 1, no. 230; also al-Khatib with his chain in Tarikh Baghdad 15:580) Ibn Muhrizs reliability is unknown (he is majhul al-hal) but his narrations from Ibn Main on the narrators of hadith have generally been accepted by the scholars of Rijal, and this transmission from him is corroborated by other narrations (mentioned below). It is well-known that Ibn Mains statement there is no harm in him is equivalent to his statement trustworthy (thiqah), as mentioned in Tadrib al-Rawi. This narration, therefore, proves Imam Abu Hanifah is trustworthy according to Ibn Main. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi narrates: (Abu l-Hasan Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad) ibn Rizq (325 412) narrated to us: Ahmad ibn Ali ibn Umar ibn Hubaysh al-Razi narrated to us: I heard Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isam (d. 313) say: I heard Muhammad ibn Sad al-Awfi say: I heard Yahya ibn Main say: Abu Hanifah was trustworthy. He would not narrate a hadith except what he had memorised and he would not narrate what he had not memorised. Ibn Rizq is trustworthy according to al-Khatib and al-Barqani. Ahmad ibn Ali ibn Umar ibn Hubaysh is trustworthy (Tarikh Baghdad 5:510). Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isams reliability is unknown. He is mentioned in Tarikh Asbahan of Abu Nuaym. Muhammad ibn Sad al-Awfi is weak (layyin) according to al-Khatib but according to al-Daraqutni there is no harm in him. The narration is therefore weak (daif) or sound (hasan), but more probably the latter as it is supported by similar statements from Ibn Main like the two narrations mentioned above. Hafiz al-Mizzi (654 742), the teacher of al-Dhahabi, writes in the introduction to his major work on narrators Tahdhib al-Kamal, That in which we did not mention its isnad between us and its speaker: those from them in the form of certainty (sighat al-jazm) [i.e. where he uses the active

tense, like he said, he narrated], it is that which we know of no harm in its isnad from its speaker from whom it is related; and those thereof in the in the form of uncertainty (sighat altamrid) [i.e. using the passive tense, like it was said, it was narrated], then probably there is a problem in its isnad upto its speaker (Tahdhib al-Kamal, Bashshar Awwad Maruf ed., 1:153) In his biography of Abu Hanifah in Tahdhib al-Kamal, he mentions the two narrations above without isnad, and also a third: Salih ibn Muhammad al-Asadi al-Hafiz said: I heard Yahya ibn Main say: Abu Hanifah was trustworthy in hadith. (Tahdhib al-Kamal 29:424) Salih ibn Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Habib al-Asadi (d. 293) is trustworthy as mentioned by al-Daraqutni, alKhatib and others (Misbah al-Arib, 2:93). Hence, this narration is authentic according to al-Mizzi. There were other narrations from Ibn Main declaring Abu Hanifah trustworthy as mentioned in Tarikh Baghdad but they have weaknesses in them. Based on these aforementioned four narrations (from al-Dawraqi, Ibn Muhriz, Salih ibn Muhammad al-Asadi and al-Awfi), the later scholars have agreed the preserved (mahfuz) opinion of Yahya ibn Main is Abu Hanifah is trustworthy. This is clear from al-Mizzis relation of only the three abovementioned narrations in his Tahdhib al-Kamal, followed by al-Dhahabi in his Siyar and al-Asqalani in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib. Dr. Bashshar Awwad also mentions in his footnotes to Tarikh Baghdad the preserved (mahfuz) opinion of Yahya ibn Main is that Abu Hanifah is trustworthy. None of the later scholars like Mizzi, Dhahabi and Asqalani mentioned any criticism from Ibn Main of Abu Hanifah, indicating they believed the criticism narrated from him is inauthentic or unreliable. There is however a narration with an authentic chain to Ibn Main, as narrated by Ibn Adi in his alKamil fi Duafa al-Rijal from Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Sulayman (227 317) who is thiqah according to Ibn Yunus (Siyar Alam al-Nubala) from Ahmad ibn Sad ibn Abi Maryam (d. 253) who is saduq according to Ibn Hajar in al-Taqrib: I asked Yahya ibn Main about Abu Hanifah and he said: His hadiths are not written. This narration is also found in Tarikh Baghdad. Criticising this narration because of Ahmad ibn Sad ibn Abi Maryam as was done by Imam al-Kawthari in his Tanib alKhatib is incorrect, as is clear from the biographical notices on Ahmad ibn Sad ibn Abi Maryam. While the phrase his hadiths are not written does not necessarily indicate weakness in Ibn Mains usage, if it is accepted as a weakening (tadif), it would contradict the abovementioned more reliable and more numerous narrations, and would thus be shadhdh (an anomaly) and thus rejected when compared to the mahfuz narrations from Ibn Main. There is another narration narrated in Tarikh Baghdad (15:581) from Ibn Main saying Abu Hanifah was weakened but this is undoubtedly fabricated due to a particular narrator (Uthman ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Shaybah) in the chain. 5. Abu Abd Allah al-Hakim al-Naysaburi (321 405 H), the author of al-Mustadrak Abu Abd Allah al-Hakim al-Naysaburi (321 405 H) , one of the first to write on the subject of Ulum al-Hadith, wrote in his seminal work Marifatu Ulum al-Hadith in Type 49 of the sciences of Hadith (p. 642) that, This type of science is knowledge of the well-known trustworthy imams (al-aimmat al-thiqat al-mashhurin) from the Tabiin and their successors [i.e. the second and third generations] of those whose hadiths are gathered for memorisation, revision and seeking blessing through them. We will list them, from the east to the west. (p. 642) While listing the famous trustworthy imams from Kufa, he mentions Abu Hanifah al-Numan ibn Thabit al-Taymi (p. 649). In brief, therefore, it is established from Yahya ibn Main, Abu Dawud al-Sijistani and al-Hakim that they believed Abu Hanifah was trustworthy and reliable in narrating hadith. The narration from Shubah is not as strongly established, while the narration from Ibn al-Madini is sound according to Abu l-Fath al-Azdi. Once it is established from the reliable scholars of al-Jarh wa l-Tadil that a narrator is trustworthy (thiqah) as is the case here, any unexplained criticism (jarh mubham) will

not be accepted, based on the accepted principles of this science. Hence, al-Bukharis statement they abandoned him (sakatu anhu which for al-Bukhari is equivalent to tarakuhu), alNasai's he is not strong (laysa bi l-qawi), Muslims assessment in his al-Kuna wa l-Asma (no. 963 ed. Abd al-Rahim Muhammad Ahmad al-Qashqari) that he is confused in hadith (mudtarib al-hadith) and al-Daraqutnis daif will not be accepted as they are unexplained. The explained criticism mentioned in the printed version of Mizan al-Itidal by al-Dhahabi in which it mentions al-Nasai and others weakened him due to his memory, this is an insertion by a later scribe as is established by internal evidence (al-Dhahabi said he would not mention the biographies of the four imams of fiqh) and external evidence (al-Asqalani did not mention it in Lisan al-Mizan which is an expansion of al-Dhahabis work; and the earliest manuscripts of Mizan al-Itidal do not contain a biography of Abu Hanifah). This was detailed by Abu Ghuddah in his footnotes to al-Raf wa lTakmil. Ibn Main, in fact, also provides us with an explanation of the reason for other muhaddithuns criticism of Abu Hanifah. Ibn Abd al-Barr narrates: Abd al Rahman ibn Yahya narrated to us: Ahmad ibn Said narrated to us: Abu Said ibn al-Arabi narrated to is: Abbas ibn Muhammad alDuri narrated to us: I heard Yahya ibn Main say: Our companions have gone overboard in [their bias] against Abu Hanifah and his companions. It was said to him: Would Abu Hanifah lie? He said He was nobler than that. (Jami Bayan al-Ilm wa Fadlih, Abu al-Ashbal al-Zuhayri ed., p. 1081) The editor Abu al-Ashbal al-Zuhayri says Its isnad is sahih. This indicates the muhaddithun had a bias against Abu Hanifah and his students due to what they perceived as excessive issuance of rulings based on opinion, so their criticism should be taken with precaution. Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr (d. 463 H) wrote: Those who narrated from Abu Hanifah, and declared him trustworthy, and praised him, are more than those who criticised him; and those who criticised him from the scholars of hadith, most of what they blamed him for is immersion in juristic opinion, analogy and irja [all of which are invalid criticisms]. (Jami Bayan al-Ilm wa Fadlih, quoted in the footnotes to al-Intiqa fi Fadail al-Aimmat al-Thalathah, p. 185) Explained criticism (jarh mufassar), however, has precedence over accreditation (tadil). Some scholars of al-Jarh wa l-Tadil did explain their criticism of Abu Hanifah. Ibn Abi Dawud (230 316) said as narrated by al-Khatib (Tarikh Baghdad 15:576) that Abu Hanifah narrated 150 hadiths and erred in half of them. However, it is known that there were individuals who fabricated narrations with chains through Abu Hanifah, and it was probably these narrations that these scholars criticised. This is known to have been the case with Ibn Adi who narrated narrations from Abu Hanifah through Abba ibn Jafar al-Najirami who was active in the third century Hijri and would narrate fabricated hadiths through Abu Hanifah (Lisan al-Mizan 1:231). Many of his false hadiths are included in Musnad Abi Hanifah by Abu Muhammad al-Harithi (257 340). Al-Najirami was probably the reason why Ibn Abi Dawud believed Abu Hanifah would make mistakes and confused his narrations. Furthermore, there is some question over the integrity of Ibn Abi Dawud himself as mentioned in Lisan al-Mizan. There is, however, another narration from Ibn al-Madini as narrated by al-Khatib in Tarikh Baghdad (15:581): Ali ibn Muhammad (ibn al-Hasan) al-Maliki informed me: Abd Allah ibn Uthman al-Saffar reported to us: Muhammad ibn Imran al-Sayrafi reported to us: Abd Allah ibn Ali ibn Abd Allah al-Madini narrated to us: I asked my father about Abu Hanifah, the champion of opinion, and he weakened him severely and said: Were he in front of me, I would not ask him about anything. He narrated fifty hadiths in which he erred." This is an explained criticism as it states the weakening is due to the errors found in his narrations. All the narrators are trustworthy, besides al-Khatibs shaykh, Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Maliki (350 437 H) who is reliable (saduq) as mentioned in Tarikh Baghdad (13:584), and besides the son of Ibn al-Madini whose reliability is unknown. The narration therefore has a questionable chain. Moreover, it is contradicted by the narration mentioned above from Ibn al-Madini that Abu Hanifah is trustworthy in hadith. It is also contradicted by the narration from Yahya ibn Main mentioned above in which

he said I have not heard anyone weakening him, as Ibn al-Madini was a contemporary. This narration from Ibn al-Madini is therefore objectionable (munkar) with respect to its matn (text), particularly since the later specialists in the field of narrator-criticism who had full knowledge of Abu Hanifahs available hadith narrations in the Masanid, Kitab al-Athar and other works, like Imams al-Mizzi, al-Dhahabi, Ibn Kathir and Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, had only praise of him and assessed him to be strong in hadith; and if they found a large number of errors in his hadiths when compared to the hadiths of other narrators, they would not have made such an assessment. The above is a detailed analysis of the bulk of the authentic information from the early scholars explicitly relating to Abu Hanifahs reliability in narrating hadith. There are of course many other narrations relating to Imam Abu Hanifahs piety and knowledge, and others criticising him in relation to fiqh and religion, but these have little relevance when it comes to his reliability in hadith. However, many evidences with respect to Abu Hanifahs knowledge, honesty and memory support the conclusion that he was trustworthy in hadith. In sum, it is established Abu Hanifah is trustworthy according to Yahya ibn Main, Abu Dawud and al-Hakim, and probably Shubah ibn al-Hajjaj and Ibn al-Madini, so the ambiguous criticism of some muhaddithun will not be accepted based on the principle that an unexplained criticism is rejected in light of accreditation, while the authentic statements of Ibn Abi Dawud and Ibn Adi explaining the criticism of Abu Hanifah that he erred when narrating hadiths can be explained by the deliberate fabrications made against Abu Hanifah circulating at that time. There is no doubt that the later pre-modern great scholars who had full access to all the primary sources and used them in their works, like al-Mizzi (in Tahdhib al-Kamal), al-Dhahabi (in Siyar Alam al-Nubala and Tadhkirat al-Huffaz) and al-Asqalani (in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib), all believed Abu Hanifah was trustworthy in hadith, based on a complete analysis of the evidence. It should therefore be accepted that Abu Hanifah was trustworthy in narrating hadith. Modern detractors of Abu Hanifah like alAlbani dug up statements criticising Abu Hanifah after the ummah agreed to reject them and with no apparent knowledge of the principles of al-Jarh wa l-Tadil, they present them as conclusive evidence of Abu Hanifah being weak in narrating hadith. Fair analyses, taking into account all the evidence and the principles outlined by the scholars of al-Jarh wa l-Tadil, and devoid of bias in favour of Abu Hanifah or against him, clearly show he was a reliable transmitter of hadith.