The Hanbali Defense of Imam Abu Hanifah

Below is a translation of Ustadh Bara’ Yaseen’s article, Juhud ‘Ulama’ al-Hanabilah fi al-Difa‘ ‘an al-Imam Abi Hanifah al-Nu‘man rahimahu Allah.

This is a compilation of the statements made by the Hanbali scholars in praise of Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him, and in defense of his character. I have gathered these remarks from the works of their notable figures across the centuries up to the present day.

Within this collection, you will find numerous expressions of admiration and commendation for the Imam, along with affirmations of his scholarly status, virtue, and high standing. It also highlights the weight given to his dissenting opinions in matters of fiqh. It includes references to his statements on several doctrinal issues, such as his criticism of Kamal and his affirmation of the divine attribute of al-‘Uluw for Allah. The distinction is made between his stance and that of those who later attributed themselves to his school of fiqh but espoused heretical views, such as Bishr al-Marisi and the Jahmiyyah.

Additionally, this article addresses a number of spurious accusations falsely attributed to him, such as his alleged permissiveness of eating pork and his rejection of the Sunnah. Furthermore, it engages with various reports purportedly criticizing him, including those attributed to the scholars Ibn al-Mubarak and Malik ibn Anas; may Allah have mercy on them both.

You will also find a clarification of Imam Ahmad’s stance toward Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him, including his acknowledgment of the validity of some criticisms leveled against Abu Hanifah, particularly concerning his position on Irja’. Additionally, it provides insight into some of the reasons why the leaders of Ahl al-Sunnah criticized the Irja’ views held by certain jurists.

After reviewing the statements of these Hanbali scholars, you will appreciate the thoroughness and depth of their examination of this issue despite facing hostility from some of Abu Hanifah’s extreme followers. These individuals directed their attacks toward certain prominent Hanbali scholars, such as the hadith masters Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi and Ibn’ Abd al-Hadi, may Allah have mercy on them.

After reflecting on these scholarly efforts, it is hoped that your heart will come to understand the true consensus of the Muslim community regarding Imam Abu Hanifah, far removed from the distortions of those who mislead and the lies of slanderers.

Imam Abu Dawud al-Sijistani, the author of Sunan (d. 275 A.H.):

He is known for his praise of Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on both of them. He stated:

“May Allah have mercy on Malik; he was an Imam. May Allah have mercy on al-Shafi’i; he was an Imam. May Allah have mercy on Abu Hanifah; he was an Imam.”[1]

Note: Al-Saffarini, in his commentary on the Ha’iyyah of Abu Bakr Ibn Abه Dawud, may Allah have mercy on them, remarked: “This Abu Bakr and his father, the Imam and author of the Sunan, are among the notable scholars of our Hanbali madhab. His father was one of the transmitters of Imam Ahmad’s madhab, and our scholars, along with others, have considered them both to be among the prominent figures of the Hanbali madhhab.”[2]

Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (d. 561 A.H.):

He praised Imam Abu Hanifah and recognized the validity of his differing opinions. He discussed the issues where differences of opinion are permissible, stating:

“As for matters in which the jurists have differed, and where ijtihad is valid—such as a layperson drinking nabidh in accordance with the view of Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him, or marrying a woman without a guardian, as is known from his madhab—no one following the schools of Imam Ahmad or al-Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on them, should denounce him. This is because Imam Ahmad said, in a narration by al-Marwazi: ‘A jurist should not impose his madhab upon others, nor be harsh with them.’ Thus, censure is only obligatory when Ijma’ has been breached, not when there is legitimate disagreement.”[3]

Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir also referred to Abu Hanifah as an Imam in several instances where he mentioned his opinions. For example, when discussing the timing of the Fajr prayer, he said:

“It is preferable to pray at the time of darkness, contrary to the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifah, who held that it is preferable to pray at the time of brightness.”[4]

In his discussion on the merits of Salah and the ruling regarding one who abandons it, it is mentioned: “Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: ‘He is not to be killed, but rather imprisoned until he prays, and either repents or dies in prison.’”[5]

Note: Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani considered the Hanafis to be among the Murji’ah sect. Abu Hanifah’s form of Murji’ism is referred to as the Murji’ism of the jurists (Irja’ al-Fuqaha), which he adopted from his teacher Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman. They held that Iman is a matter of verbal confession, thereby excluding actions from the definition of Iman.

Later Hanafi scholars debated the apparent contradiction between Abdul Qadir al-Jilani’s classification of the Hanafi school as Murji’ah and his being described as an eminent figure. They presented responses to reconcile this, repeatedly addressing the issue without recognizing that excluding actions from the concept of Iman is precisely the form of Murji’ism condemned by the pious predecessors.[6]

Another Note: Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Jilani belonged to the Hanbali school, and those who deny this are mistaken. Ibn al-Mibrad remarked:

“It is surprising that some ignorant individuals claim that he was not Hanbali, and others say that he retracted his views. Al-Dhahabi narrated from Shaykh Muwaffaq al-Din that he stayed with Abdul Qadir in his school, studying and practicing the Hanbali madhab for a month and nine days. He said: ‘Then he passed away, and we prayed over him.’ How can such falsehoods be propagated?”[7]

Al-Hafiz ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi (d. 600 A.H.):

He cited the statements of Imam Abu Hanifah and his companion Muhammad ibn al-Hasan to affirm the divine attribute of Allah’s descent, using their words as evidence. He states: “We believe in this and affirm it without describing how or likening it to the descent of created beings.” He adds that some scholars said: “Abu Hanifah was asked about this—referring to Allah’s descent—and he replied: ‘He descends without [asking] how.’ His disciple, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, said: ‘The narrations stating that Allah descends to the lowest heaven, and similar hadiths, have been transmitted by reliable authorities. We narrate them and believe in them, but we do not make tafsir of them.’”[8]

In another instance, al-Maqdisi quotes Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, who said: “The jurists from the East to the West all agreed on belief in the Qur’an and in the hadiths transmitted by trustworthy narrators about the attributes of the Lord, the Almighty, without tafsir or comparison. Whoever makes tafsir of any of these today has deviated from the way of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his Companions. They did not make tafsir but ruled by what is in the Book and the Sunnah, and then they remained silent. Whoever follows the views of Jahm has left the Jama’ah because he has ascribed to Allah an attribute of nothingness.”[9]

Note: Al-Diya al-Maqdisi, in the biography of Al-Hafiz ‘Abd al-Ghani, said: “I heard Al-Hafiz say: ‘While we were in Mosul, we were listening to al-Jarh wa-Ta’dil of al-‘Uqayli, and the people of Mosul seized me, imprisoned me, and wanted to kill me because of what was mentioned about Abu Hanifah in it. Then a tall man came to me carrying a sword, and I thought to myself, perhaps this man will kill me and relieve me of this. But he did nothing, and eventually, they released me. Al-Hafiz continued: ‘He and Imam Ibn al-Barni al-Wa‘iz were listening together, and Ibn al-Barni took the folios containing the mention of Abu Hanifah and hid them. They found nothing when they searched the book, and thus I was freed. And Allah knows best.’”[10]

Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi, in his biography of Al-Hafiz ‘Abd al-Ghani, said: “When he returned from Isfahan, he entered Mosul and read from the book al-Jarh wa-Ta’dil of al-‘Uqayli, which mentioned and criticized Abu Hanifah. This provoked Abu Hanifah’s followers, and they imprisoned him. If it were not for al-Burhan Ibn al-Birti al-Wa‘iz, who rescued him, they would have killed him. He tore out the folios that mentioned Abu Hanifah, and when they searched for Abu Hanifah’s name, they found nothing, so they released him. He left the city in fear, anxiously looking over his shoulder.”[11]

It is worth noting that Al-Kawthari relied on this story while disregarding what Al-Hafiz ‘Abd al-Ghani narrated in his ‘Aqidah regarding Imam Abu Hanifah and his disciple Muhammad ibn al-Hasan affirming the divine attributes. Instead, Al-Kawthari attacked Al-Hafiz ‘Abd al-Ghani on this basis, stating in his remarks on Al-Hafiz al-‘Uqayli’s book: “Some narrators, driven by fanatical zeal, used this book to stir up discord, as happened to the author of Al-Kamal, ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi, in Mosul.”[12] He also referred to the sources of the aforementioned story.

The truth is that those fanatics from among the Hanafis misunderstood Al-Hafiz ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi’s purpose in reading Al-‘Uqayli’s book and wronged him. People with inflamed emotions often fail to comprehend the methods and approaches of scholars in research, teaching, transmission, and practice, and they interpret every action as a plot against them. Al-Hafiz ‘Abd al-Ghani’s reading of what was in Al-‘Uqayli’s book does not necessarily mean that he agreed with everything mentioned in those narrations. Moreover, it is possible that those narrations had valid interpretations in his view.

Al-Kawthari should have condemned the actions of those fanatics instead of attacking Al-Hafiz ‘Abd al-Ghani in the manner that he did. Otherwise, who is more deserving of being accused of blowing the trumpet of fanaticism and stirring up discord?!

It suffices to demonstrate the error in their understanding by what we have already presented of Al-Hafiz ‘Abd al-Ghani’s defense of Abu Hanifah and his disciple Muhammad ibn al-Hasan in affirming the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah regarding the divine attributes.

The fanaticism of some Hanafis, which led them to harass and harm scholars, was not limited to what they did to Al-Hafiz ‘Abd al-Ghani. Taqi al-Din al-Fasi mentioned in his biography of Al-Hafiz Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi: “Due to his impartiality, many of the Sufis and Hanafis distanced themselves from him. I heard that he was asked to compile something on the hadith of Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him, but he hesitated and downplayed the matter, attributing it to the scarcity of Abu Hanifah’s hadith narrations. This did not sit well with the Hanafis, so they left him alone until he went to the masjid early in the morning. They then took him to one of the schools, reprimanded him for his hesitation, and made him believe that they intended to kill him. He managed to calm them down and appeased them by agreeing to their request, compiling for them a work titled: ‘A Clean Collection of Hadith from Abu Hanifah.’”[13]

A similar account of their actions toward Al-Hafiz Ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi will also be discussed.

Imam Shaykh al-Islam al-Muwaffaq Ibn Qudama (d. 620 A.H.):

He stated at the end of his concise creed, Lum’at al-I’tiqad:

“Anyone who identifies with anything other than Islam and the Sunnah is an innovator, such as the Rafidah, the Khawarij, the Jahmiyyah, the Qadariyyah, the Murji’ah, the Karramiyyah, the Salimiyyah, the Kullabiyyah, the Mu’tazilah, and the Ash’aris. These are the misguided sects and groups of innovation, from which we ask Allah to protect us.”

He then continued: “As for following an Imam in the branches of religion, such as the four schools of thought, this is not blameworthy. Disagreement in secondary issues is a mercy, and those who differ are praiseworthy in their disagreement, rewarded for their ijtihad. Their differences are a broad mercy, and their agreement is a decisive proof.”[14]

This indicates that the differences between Imam Abu Hanifah and the other three Imams are considered praiseworthy differences for which the jurist is rewarded.

In the book Al-Mughni by Al-Muwaffaq, we find a practical application of what he mentioned here. He filled his work with references to Imam Abu Hanifah, just as he did with other leading scholars of Fiqh and fatwa from among the Companions, the Tabi‘un, and their followers. This indicates that he valued Abu Hanifah’s differing views and opinions.

In his book Dham al-Ta’wil, Al-Muwaffaq cited Abu Hanifah’s statement criticizing the use of blameworthy Kalam, saying: “Nuh al-Jami’ narrated: I asked Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him, ‘What do you say about what people have introduced regarding discussions on accidents and bodies?’ He replied: ‘These are the sayings of the philosophers. You must adhere to the tradition (al-athar) and the way of the Salaf, and beware of every new matter, for every innovation is a bid‘ah.’”[15]

He also referenced[16] the statement of Abu Hanifah’s student, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, regarding the divine attributes, mentioned earlier by Al-Hafiz ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi.

Najm al-Din al-Tufi (d. 716 A.H.):

He described Imam Abu Hanifah as “the foremost of the imams of Islam and the Imam of the Salaf.”[17] In his work Sharh Mukhtasar al-Rawdah, al-Tufi addressed many criticisms directed at Abu Hanifah, such as his association with relying on Ra’y and accusations of deliberately opposing hadith. He refuted these claims, asserting that the detractors were either ignorant or envious. Furthermore, he explained that Imam Ahmad’s later stance was one of praise for Abu Hanifah.

Al-Tufi stated: “Know that people of Ra’y, in its broadest sense, refers to all those who apply reasoning in legal judgments, encompassing all the scholars of Islam. This is because no jurist can conduct ijtihad without employing reasoning, whether by assessing and refining the relevant contexts—an uncontested practice.

However, in the narrower sense, ‘people of Ra’y’ was a term specifically used by the early generations to refer to the scholars of Iraq, particularly those of Kufa, such as Abu Hanifah and his followers. They were known as ‘people of Ra’y because they often relied on reasoning and analogy (qiyas) over hadith. The reasons for this included:

1. The hadith did not reach them.

2. The hadith contradicted the Qur’an.

3. The hadith was narrated by someone lacking legal understanding.

4. The original narrator of the hadith denied it.

5. The hadith was solitary (khabar ahad) in matters requiring widespread knowledge.

6. The hadith dealt with issues of legal punishments or expiations, according to their principles regarding such matters.”

Based on these principles, they were obliged to disregard many hadiths to the extent that, according to what al-Khallal mentioned in his Jami‘, Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) identified approximately one hundred or five hundred authentic hadiths that Abu Hanifah had contradicted. Some went to extreme lengths in their criticism of him, even composing works that highlighted the differences between the teachings of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and those of Abu Hanifah. The criticism from some of the early scholars of Islam became so intense that it is best not to elaborate on it, yet Allah willed to protect him from their accusations and preserve him from what they attributed to him.

In summary, it is certain that Abu Hanifah did not deliberately oppose the Sunnah out of obstinacy. Rather, when he differed, it was due to his independent reasoning (ijtihad) based on clear and valid evidence. His arguments are well-known and widely available, and his critics have rarely succeeded in refuting them. If he erred in his judgment, he is still rewarded; if he was correct, he is doubly rewarded. As for his detractors, they are either envious or ignorant of the principles of ijtihad.

The final position authentically reported by Imam Ahmad (may Allah be pleased with him) is one of praise and commendation of Abu Hanifah. This was mentioned by Abu al-Ward, one of our companions, in his book Usul al-Din. And Allah, the Most High, knows best what is correct.[18]

Shaykh al-Islam Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 720 A.H.):

Firstly, Ibn Taymiyyah’s positive praise of Abu Hanifah:

One of the Shia scholars, in a book he authored on the authenticity of the hadith about the sun’s return, stated: “Abu al-‘Abbas Ibn ‘Aqdah narrated to us: Ja‘far bin Muhammad bin ‘Amr reported to us that Sulayman bin ‘Abbad said: I heard Bashar bin Dirā‘ say: Abu Hanifah met Muhammad bin al-Nu‘man and asked him: ‘From whom did you narrate the hadith of the sun’s return?’ He replied: ‘From someone other than the one from whom you narrated the hadith of “O Sariyah, the mountain!”’ All of these are indications of the authenticity of the hadith.”

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah responded:

“This indicates that the leading scholars of knowledge did not accept this hadith as authentic, as none of the prominent imams of the Muslims narrated it.

Here is Abu Hanifah, one of the most renowned imams, who cannot be accused of any bias against Ali. After all, he was from Kufa, the stronghold of the Shia, and had interacted with many of them, hearing as much as Allah willed of Ali’s virtues. He loved and was loyal to him. Yet, despite this, he rejected this hadith when Muhammad bin al-Nu’man narrated it.

Abu Hanifah was more knowledgeable and skilled in fiqh than al-Tahawi and others of his kind. Ibn al-Nu‘man did not respond to him with a proper answer; instead, he merely said, “I narrated it from someone other than the one from whom you narrated the hadith of ‘O Sariyah, the mountain.’”

To this, one could reply: even if that report were false, how does its falsehood prove the truth of this one?

Abu Hanifah did not deny that miracles (karamat) could occur for figures like Umar, Ali, and others. Rather, he rejected this specific hadith due to the overwhelming evidence indicating its falsehood. It contradicted both the Shariah and reason, and none of the renowned scholars of hadith from the generation of the Tabi‘in or their followers, who transmitted hadiths from the Companions, narrated it. It was only transmitted by liars or unknown individuals whose reliability and precision were not established. How, then, could such a report be accepted from such people?

All the scholars of Islam wish that such reports were true due to the miracles of the Prophet (peace be upon him) they contain and the virtue of Ali that they affirm, especially for those who love and revere him. However, they do not permit themselves to believe in falsehood, and so they rejected it out of religious conviction.”[19]

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah counted Abu Hanifah and his two companions, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, among the “scholars who search day and night for knowledge, without being influenced by personal agendas. Rather, they sometimes favored the opinion of one companion and at other times the opinion of another, based on what they deemed to be the most compelling evidence from the Shariah.”[20] He also listed their contemporaries from among the imams of the tabi‘in (the successors to the Companions) and the followers of the tabi‘in, who belonged to the early, virtuous generations.

When Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned the position of Ahl al-Sunnah regarding the precedence of the two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and Umar), he enumerated the names of the Muslim scholars who upheld this view, including Abu Hanifah and his companions.[21] He also included him among the scholars of the ummah known for their intelligence and righteousness.[22] He later described Abu Hanifah as one of the “imams of Islam, unanimously acknowledged by the Muslims for their guidance and knowledge, and who are held in high regard by the ummah.”[23]

Ibn Taymiyyah frequently referenced Abu Hanifah’s opinions, agreeing with him on many issues and acknowledging their disagreements, which are too numerous to detail.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah clarified that the criticism directed at Abu Hanifah by many of the hadith scholars does not invalidate consideration of his views, just as criticism of other imams by some does not nullify their opinions. In his response to al-Subki on the issue of divorce, he stated:

“Many people have criticized various imams, but this does not prevent their opinions from being considered. For instance, many Hanafis and Malikis criticized al-Shafi‘i (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding his lineage, knowledge, and integrity, and they claimed that his view should not be considered in matters of consensus (ijma‘). They presented various arguments for this, and among them was a figure highly regarded by Muslims, such as Qadi Isma’il ibn Ishaq, who used to say that the disagreement of al-Shafi‘i should not be considered.

Most of the hadith scholars criticized Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) and his companions in well-known criticisms that filled books. They went so far as to exclude narrations from them in the hadith collections, so they are not mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, or the Sunan collections.

Many of the scholars of Iraq criticized Malik (may Allah be pleased with him), saying that he should have remained silent and refrained from speaking.

Furthermore, many of the followers of Dawud al-Zahiri (may Allah have mercy on him) favored his school over the schools of Abu Hanifah, Malik, and others. A group of them even debated me on this matter.”[24]

Objection and Response:

Some of those hostile toward Abu Hanifah have selectively quoted and distorted the words of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah in this context, twisting them away from the intended meaning we have clarified earlier. The point Ibn Taymiyyah was making is that criticism of an imam by some does not necessarily invalidate the consideration of his views. However, they took this to mean that the Shaykh acknowledged that most hadith scholars criticized Abu Hanifah, and based on that, they argued that those who revere the Shaykh are also compelled to criticize Abu Hanifa!

The response is that a majority opinion does not necessarily indicate that it is the settled, authoritative position of the hadith scholars. The fact that a majority within a group holds an opinion does not automatically make it their official stance. If that were the case, then Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah himself—one of the hadith scholars and indeed one of their leading figures—would not have disagreed with them. In reality, this objection is an attack on Abu Hanifah and Ibn Taymiyyah himself.

Secondly: Ibn Taymiyyah’s Position on Some Claims Attributed to Abu Hanifa

1. The Accusation of Jahmism:

Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “As for those who do not attribute the term jism (body) to Allah—such as the imams of hadith, tafsir, Sufism, and fiqh, like the Four Imams, their followers, the well-known scholars of Islam, and those who preceded them from among the Companions and their righteous successors—none of them said that Allah is a jism. At the same time, none of the early scholars or imams ever explicitly stated that Allah is not a jism either. Those who ascribed anthropomorphism to some of them did so based on their own understanding of the term jism and what they believed was a necessary consequence for others.”[25]

Shaykh al-Islam clarified that Abu Hanifah’s principles did not support Jahmism, though some of his followers leaned toward it. He said: “As for the accusation of Jahmism, reports about it differ, which is why those who follow Abu Hanifah are divided between Sunnis and Jahmis, men and women, anthropomorphists and corporealists, because his principles neither affirm nor deny innovations, even if they do not necessarily uphold them.”[26]

Ibn Taymiyyah also pointed out that many followers of the four imams adopted certain innovative theological positions and then mixed these with the established teachings of their respective imams. He said: “Similarly, some followers of Abu Hanifah mix elements of the theological positions of the Mu‘tazilites, Karramites, and Kullabites with the views of Abu Hanifah and then attribute these ideas to his school.”[27]

Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Many who followed Amr ibn Ubayd from the Mu‘tazilites of Basra were joined by others, including many who identified with the fiqh of Abu Hanifah from among the Mu‘tazilites. However, none of the other major scholars of Islam shared the Mu‘tazilite views—neither in denying the divine attributes, nor in their beliefs regarding predestination, the Manzila Bayn al-Manzilatayn position, or the enforcement of divine threats.”[28]

In his fatwas, Ibn Taymiyyah addressed the following issue: “Regarding someone who referenced a matter from Abu Hanifah’s al-Fiqh al-Akbar that states the verse {The Most Merciful established Himself above the Throne} [Taha: 5] denies that Allah is above the heavens and the Throne and that the establishment on the Throne means that He Himself is above it. They objected to this, claiming that it was disbelief (kufr), and said it is also impermissible to refer to Allah with the term ‘Himself,’ as this would be anthropomorphism. Is this indeed disbelief or not?”

Shaykh al-Islam responded: “Praise be to Allah. Whoever declares Abu Hanifah and similar imams of Islam to be disbelievers for saying that Allah is above the Throne is more deserving of being declared a disbeliever. The imams of Islam, upon whom the Muslim community unanimously agrees regarding their guidance and knowledge, and who hold a respected position within the ummah—such as the Rightly Guided Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali), Ibn Mas‘ud, Ibn Abbas, and the like, and such figures as Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyib, al-Hasan al-Basri, Ibrahim al-Nakha‘i, and Ata’ ibn Abi Rabah, and also Malik, al-Thawri, al-Layth ibn Sa‘d, al-Awza‘i, Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi‘i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ishaq ibn Rahwayh, and Abu ‘Ubayd—whoever declares them disbelievers has opposed the consensus of the ummah and departed from its religion. All believers revere and speak well of these figures, and to declare them disbelievers is akin to the actions of the Rafidah, who declared most of the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) disbelievers, except for a few. It is also similar to the Khawarij, who declared Uthman, Ali, and those who supported them among the Muslims as disbelievers, killing Muslims while sparing idol worshipers.”[29]

Al-Irja’:

Shaykh al-Islam (Ibn Taymiyyah A.H.) does not deny the attribution of irja’ to Imam Abu Hanifah. This refers to the position of the jurists who argued that Iman consists solely of speech and excluded actions from its definition. Shaykh al-Islam states: “The statements of Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal] concerning the details of the Sunnah and his refutation of innovations were far more comprehensive than others. The innovators affiliated with others, whether they were Jahmites, Qadarites, Shiites, or Murji’ites, did not find their doctrines represented by an imam, except in the case of irja’, which is the view of Abu [so-and-so].”[30] Here, he is referring to Abu Hanifah.

Nevertheless, Ibn Taymiyyah clarifies that the type of irja’ attributed to Abu Hanifah is among the least severe innovations. He states: “The Murji’ites emerged, most of whom were from the people of Kufa. However, neither the followers of Abdullah nor Ibrahim al-Nakha’i, and others like them, were from the Murji’ites. These Murji’ites became the opposite of the Khawarij and Mu’tazilites, claiming that actions are not part of faith. 

This innovation was among the least severe ones, as much of the dispute revolved around terminology rather than substantive rulings. The jurists associated with this view—such as Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, Abu Hanifah, and others—agreed with the rest of Ahl al-Sunnah that Allah punishes the people of major sins in Hellfire but eventually admits them to Paradise through intercession, as established in the authentic hadiths. They also agreed that verbal confession is essential for Iman and that obligatory deeds must be performed, with the neglectful deserving of blame and punishment. Therefore, most of the disagreement pertained to whether actions are considered part of Iman and issues like making istithna’ [to say, I am a believer, insha’Allah]; much of this was largely a matter of semantics...”[31].

Ibn Taymiyyah states: “For this reason, a group of scholars known for their knowledge and piety within the Muslim community subscribed to the irja’ of the jurists. This is why none of the Salaf declared the Murji’ite jurists to be unbelievers. Rather, they regarded it as an innovation in speech and practice, not an innovation in belief, as much of the disagreement on this matter was semantical. However, the wording that aligns with the Qur’an and Sunnah is correct, and no one is permitted to speak contrary to the word of Allah and His Messenger. This is especially true given that such phrasing became a pretext for the innovations of Ahl al-Kalam among the Murji’ites and others and led to the spread of fisq. Thus, what began as a minor semantical error developed into a significant error in beliefs and actions. For this reason, strong condemnation of irja’ has been issued.”[32]

He then goes on to cite several statements from the Salaf condemning irja’ and the Murji’ites.

What Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned about the view of the Murji’ite jurists becoming a pretext for the innovations of Ahl al-Kalam among the Murji’ites and others is supported by the fact that al-Qushayri, in his defense of the Ash‘arite view on Iman in his treatise “The Complaint of Ahl al-Sunnah Concerning the Trial They Endured,”[33] relied on Abu Hanifah’s opinion. He said: “According to Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari, may Allah have mercy on him, Iman is assent (tasdiq), and this is also the view of Abu Hanifah, may Allah be pleased with him.”

However, the truth is that the position that Iman is mere assent is actually the view of the Jahmites, not that of the Murji’ite jurists. Imam Ahmad clarified the distinction between the Jahmite view, which al-Ash’ari supported, and the view of the Murji’ite jurists. Hamdan ibn Ali al-Warraq reported: “I asked Ahmad—when the Murji’ites were mentioned—and I said to him: ‘They say that if a man knows his Lord in his heart, he is a believer.’ He replied: ‘The Murji’ites do not say this; rather, the Jahmites say this.’

The Murji’ites hold that a person must profess faith verbally and that their limbs must act in accordance with it. The Jahmites, on the other hand, assert that if one knows their Lord in their heart, even if their limbs do not act accordingly, they are still believers. This, however, is the same disbelief as that of Iblis, who recognized his Lord and said: “My Lord, because You have put me in error” [Qur’an, 15:39]. 

I asked: “So why did the Murji’ites exert such effort if this was their belief?” He replied: “It was a trial (balāʾ).”[34]

As for what Shaykh al-Islam mentioned regarding the claim of the Murji’ites leading to fisq, the explanation is as follows:

“The extremist Murji’ites’ view concludes that just as no act of obedience benefits a person while they are in a state of disbelief, no act of disobedience harms a person as long as they have Iman. This is a vile belief that undermines the very foundations of Islam. It serves as a gateway for abandoning Salah, withholding zakat, neglecting the Hajj, and abandoning fasting. It also opens the door to zina, homosexuality, and all manner of sins. No person of sound mind would doubt that this is a mockery of the religion and a dangerous game. Anyone who follows this path is standing on the edge of a collapsing cliff and is closer in conduct to the people of disbelief and atheism than to the righteous believers.”[35]

3. Intentionally Contradicting Hadith and Sunnah:

Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, said:

“Anyone who thinks that Abu Hanifah or other Muslim scholars intentionally contradicted an authentic hadith in favor of qiyas or anything else is mistaken. Such a person has either spoken out of assumption or personal desire. Abu Hanifah, for instance, followed the hadith permitting the use of nabidh (fermented drink) for ablution during travel, despite it contradicting qiyas. He adhered to the hadith about laughing during prayer, even though it opposes qiyas—because he believed in the authenticity of these hadiths, even though the leading hadith scholars did not consider them authentic.”[36]

He also said:

“It has been narrated that Abu Hanifah said: ‘Do not adopt the qiyas of Zufar. If you follow his qiyas, you will end up prohibiting the lawful and permitting the unlawful.’ This is because Zufar often adhered rigidly to what he perceived as qiyas, while his knowledge of textual evidence (nusus) was limited. On the other hand, Abu Yusuf had a different approach—he was more knowledgeable about hadith than Zufar.

This is why the issues in which Zufar disagreed with his peers were mostly based on qiyas, and upon closer examination, these qiyas often proved to be weak. Conversely, the issues in which Abu Yusuf disagreed with Abu Hanifah and was followed by Muhammad [al-Shaybani] were generally based on adherence to textual evidence and sound qiyas. This is because, after Abu Hanifah’s death, Abu Yusuf traveled to the Hijaz and benefited from the knowledge of the Sunnah that was present there, knowledge that was not as well known in Kufa. Abu Yusuf used to say: ‘If my companion had seen what I have seen, he would have retracted just as I have retracted,’ acknowledging that his teacher (Abu Hanifa) had no intention other than to follow the Shariah, but that there might have been knowledge of the Sunnah available to others that had not reached him.”[37]

4. Permissibility of Pork:

This issue was reported by Ibn Hibban in his biography of Abu Hanifah in Kitab al-Majruhin. He narrates with his chain of transmission from Suwayd ibn Abdul-Aziz, who said: “A man came to Abu Hanifah and asked, ‘What do you say about someone who eats pork?’ Abu Hanifah replied, ‘There is no sin upon him.’”[38]

Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, refutes the attribution of this falsehood and similar claims to Abu Hanifah. He says:

“Although people disagreed with Abu Hanifah on certain issues and criticized him for them, no one can doubt his deep knowledge, understanding, and jurisprudence. Some reports have been fabricated to tarnish his reputation, such as the issue of wild pigs and similar claims, which are undoubtedly false.”[39]

Al-Hafiz Shams al-Din Ibn Abd al-Hadi (d. 744 A.H.):

May Allah have mercy on him, he said in the biography of Abu Hanifah: 

“Abu Hanifah was an imam, pious, knowledgeable, a man of action, devoted to worship, and of great stature. He did not accept gifts from rulers but instead engaged in trade and earned his own livelihood. 

Dirar ibn Surad said that Yazid ibn Harun was asked, ‘Who is more knowledgeable in fiqh, al-Thawri or Abu Hanifa?’ He replied, ‘Abu Hanifah is more knowledgeable in fiqh, while Sufyan [al-Thawri] is better in memorizing hadith.’ 

Ibn al-Mubarak said: ‘Abu Hanifah is more knowledgeable in fiqh.’ 

Al-Shafi’i said: ‘People in fiqh are dependent on Abu Hanifah.’ 

Yazid said: ‘I have not seen anyone more pious or more rational than Abu Hanifah.’ 

Abu Dawud said: ‘May Allah have mercy on Abu Hanifah; he was an imam.’

Bishr ibn al-Walid narrated from Abu Yusuf: ‘I was walking with Abu Hanifah when a man said to another, “This is Abu Hanifah; he does not sleep at night.” Abu Hanifah replied: “By Allah, do not attribute what I do not do to me.” After that, he spent the night in prayer, supplication, and humble devotion.’

His virtues and merits are many. He passed away in the month of Rajab, 150 A.H. May Allah have mercy on him.”[40]

Ibn Abd al-Hadi authored a dedicated book on the virtues of the four imams, which is an educational work. Following the example of these imams, he compiled this book to inspire students of knowledge to strive for excellence and diligence in their studies. In his introduction, he writes:

“To Allah belongs the choice of His creation. He creates what He wills and selects whom He pleases. He chose Adam and his descendants over all other beings, then selected from among them the master of all of Adam’s children [Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him]. He then chose for him companions whom He favored over all other believers. After them, He chose successors and inheritors, making them the best of the followers, and elevated some among them over the rest of the world.

Among these are the four imams, the imams of Islam, and the lights of humanity. Their legal opinions and statements became well-known across the lands, and the people reached a consensus on their status as Imams. Their reputation spread throughout cities and regions, and their knowledge traveled as far as the sun reaches the horizon. This was not but due to the inner qualities known only to the One who knows the hidden secrets. Allah has particularities in His creation that He bestows upon whomever He wills, and He ordains for them their due measure, for everything with Him is according to measure.

For this reason, I chose to highlight some aspects of their virtues and biographies. By learning about them, one’s ambition is elevated, and through following them and emulating their example, blessings are attained. And indeed, when the righteous are remembered, mercy descends.”[41]

He then said: 

“The first of these mentioned imams, and the one closest in time to the Master of the Messengers, is Imam Abu Hanifah al-Nu‘man ibn Thabit al-Taymi al-Kufi, one of the distinguished imams and the jurist of the people of Iraq. He met a group of the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and saw Anas ibn Malik...”[42]

He then mentioned some of Abu Hanifah’s virtues and merits, as well as the testimonies of prominent scholars regarding his knowledge and integrity. Among those he quoted are al-Shafi’i, Ibn al-Mubarak, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shaddad ibn Hakim, Mis’ar ibn Kidam, Abu Yusuf, Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash, Abu Yahya al-Hammami, Ibn ‘Uyaynah, Sharik ibn Abdullah, Waki’, Qays ibn al-Rabi’, Malik ibn Mughal, Ali ibn Salih ibn Hayy, Sa’id ibn Abi ‘Urubah, Yahya ibn Adam, Ali ibn Asim, Muhammad ibn Abdullah al-Ansari, Ibn Jurayj, and others.[43]

Ibn Abd al-Hadi, as was his custom in meticulous scholarship, masterfully summarized the biography of Abu Hanifah despite its brevity. His account stands out for its originality, as he did not rely on others who wrote about the virtues of the imams, but rather on what he personally researched and compiled.”

Note:

Ibn al-Mibrad mentioned that some followers of the Hanafi school became so hostile towards the hadith scholar Ibn Abd al-Hadi that they poisoned him to death. This occurred because they found him copying the words of Imam Ibn Abi Shayba from his work, al-Musannaf, in which he critiqued Abu Hanifah. Similarly, they had previously shown hostility towards the hadith scholar Abdul-Ghani. This kind of extreme fanaticism, ignorance, and intolerance is rare in Islamic history.

Ibn al-Mibrad stated in his book Tanwīr al-Sahīfa, after listing the hadiths that Imam Ibn Abi Shayba included in al-Musannaf in criticism of Abu Hanifah: 

“I heard from my father that it was because of this that the hadith scholar Shams al-Din Ibn Abd al-Hadi was killed. A group of Hanafis entered upon him while he was writing, and they assumed he was the author of that refutation and that he had composed it himself. They stirred up trouble against him, but eventually, there was reconciliation. However, they later poisoned the food that he ate, and he died from it. I heard him say that after eating it; he didn’t even reach his home before collapsing and dying.”[44]

In Jami’ al-Juyush wal-Dasakir, while discussing those opposed to Ash’arism, he said: 

“Among them was the great scholar, imam, hadith expert, jurist, grammarian, meticulous scholar, Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abd al-Hadi al-Maqdisi. He opposed the Ash’aris just like his teacher and was persecuted and eventually killed for it.”[45]

There is no contradiction between the two accounts. They can be reconciled by understanding that the killers of the hadith scholar Ibn Abd al-Hadi, may Allah have mercy on him, were likely from the Maturidi sect, who followed the path of negating and distorting the divine attributes while also showing extreme partisanship to Abu Hanifah in matters of jurisprudence. Thus, they combined the ugliness of sectarian fanaticism with the deviation of doctrinal innovation.

Ibn Abd al-Hadi was killed while he was still young, yet despite that, he left behind beneficial knowledge and a praiseworthy reputation. This is why al-Safadi told him, “Had he lived longer, he would have been a wonder of his time.”[46]

Imam Shams al-Din Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 751 A.H.):

He praised Abu Hanifah highly, referring to him as “the Shaykh of the World” and citing his statements to affirm the divine attribute of Allah’s ‘uluww. When mentioning the positions of the leading scholars on affirming this attribute, Ibn al-Qayyim said: “He mentioned the statements of the four imams, may Allah be pleased with them, including the words of Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah sanctify his soul.” He then listed several of Abu Hanifah’s texts affirming Allah’s ‘uluww and declaring disbelief of those who withhold affirmation of this belief.[47]

In his Nuniyya (poem), while discussing the views of those who affirm Allah’s ‘uluww, Ibn al-Qayyim said:

 Likewise, al-Nu‘man (Abu Hanifa) said, and after him, 

 Ya‘qub, with the wording belonging to al-Nu‘man, 

 Whoever does not affirm His Throne, glorified be He, 

 Above the heavens, above every place, 

 And does not affirm that Allah is above the Throne, 

 Nothing of the thoughts of minds is hidden from Him, 

 Then there is no doubt in declaring him a disbeliever. 

 By Allah, what an imam of the time you are! 

 This is what is found in their Fiqh al-Akbar, 

 And there are several commentaries clarifying it.[48]

Furthermore, in his Nuniyya, when discussing the distinction between the act and the object in his critique of the Maturidiyya, Ibn al-Qayyim said:

One says: it is eternal, inherent in the essence, 

 Like the power of the Most Gracious, 

 They named it “eternal creation,” 

 As said by the followers of the Shaykh of the World, al-Nu‘man, 

 While their opponents were unfair in refuting it, 

 Rather, they obstinately rejected it without providing clarity.[49]

As for Ibn al-Qayyim’s engagement with Abu Hanifah and his followers on peripheral issues, whether in support or opposition, his works such as I‘lam al-Muwaqqi‘in ‘an Rabb al-‘Alamin and Zad al-Ma‘ad fi Hady Khayr al-‘Ibad are filled with these discussions. There are numerous examples, too many to mention in full here.

Imam Shams al-Din Ibn Muflih (d. 763 A.H.):

He paid special attention to the views of Abu Hanifah on matters of jurisprudence in his works Nukat ‘ala al-Muharrar, Kitab al-Furu‘, and al-Adaab al-Shar‘iyyah. Ibn Muflih cited Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, who said: “In Kufa when someone would express a wish, they would say, ‘I wish I had the fiqh of Abu Hanifah, the memorization of Sufyan, the piety of Mis’ar ibn Kidam, and the decisiveness of Sharik.’”[50]

Ibn Muflih also quoted Nuh al-Jami‘, who said: “I asked Abu Hanifah about the new ideas people had introduced concerning accidents and bodies, and he replied: ‘These are the beliefs of the philosophers. Stick to the path of the Salaf and avoid all innovations.’”[51]

Additionally, he narrated from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan: “Abu Hanifah used to encourage us to focus on fiqh and forbid us from engaging in Kalam. He would say: ‘May Allah curse ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd; he opened the door for people to indulge in discussions that do not concern them.’”[52]

These two narrations were circulated among the Hanbalis. The first was mentioned by Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi, as previously noted, and both were used as evidence by Ibn al-Mibrad in his criticism of Kalam.[53] Shaykh Mar‘i al-Karmi also cited them in his defense of Abu Hanifah.[54]

Jamal al-Din Abu al-Mahasin Ibn al-Mibrad (d. 909 A.H.):

He is also known as Ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi al-Saghir. He showed particular dedication in defending Imam Abu Hanifah. He authored a work on this subject titled Tanwir al-Sahifa bi-Manaqib Abi Hanifah, which was considered lost until a selected portion was recently published.[55] This selection was compiled by a scholar of the 11th century, Ibrahim ibn Sulayman al-Janini al-Hanafi. Despite its brevity, the selection provides much-needed insight for the eager reader.

The chapters chosen by al-Janini carry the following titles:

- Chapter Nine: On the prohibition of criticizing or belittling him and refuting those who did so.

- Chapter Ten: On criticisms of his opinions and analogies.

- Chapter Eleven: On the methods he used in deriving legal rulings and his contributions to knowledge and books.

- Chapter Twenty: On his precedence, his excellence, and the claims regarding his superiority in that, as well as the evidence that he was among the Tabi‘un (successors to the Companions) and his distinction in this regard.

- Chapter Thirty-One: On the reverence scholars and the public held for him, and their greetings sent to him.

- Chapter Thirty-Two: On the testimonies of senior scholars regarding his knowledge and integrity.

- Chapter Forty-Five: On condemning those who disparaged him or his madhab.

- Chapter Forty-Seven: On the unique legal issues and rulings in his school that people greatly benefit from.

- Chapter Forty-Nine: On the prominence of his school and the precedence of judges who followed it over others.

The concept and structure of the book are both highly commendable and engaging. Some of its content was drawn from the work of al-Hafiz Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Intiqa fi Tarajim al-Thalatha al-A’imma al-Fuqaha (Biographies of the Three Imams of Jurisprudence), as seen in Chapters Thirty-One and Thirty-Two. Additionally, as found in Chapter Eleven, other material was narrated with chains of transmission from al-Khatib al-Baghdadi. Ibn al-Mibrad also compiled another treatise that gathered a selection of hadiths attributed to Abu Hanifah titled al-Mukhtara min Ahadith Masanid Abi Hanifah (The Chosen Hadiths from the Musnads of Abu Hanifa).

Here, we will present the most relevant sections of his defense of Imam Abu Hanifah from this treatise, which fulfill the purpose of this article, alongside other related remarks from some of his other works.

First: His Explanation of Imam Ahmad’s Statements and Clarification of His True Position Regarding Imam Abu Hanifah:

In his book Bahr al-Dam fi man Takallama fihi al-Imam Ahmad bi-Madh aw Dham (The Sea of Blood: On Those Whom Imam Ahmad Criticized or Praised), Ibn al-Mibrad quotes Imam Ahmad’s remarks about Abu Hanifah. He wrote:

 “Al-Nu‘man ibn Thabit ibn Zuta, the Imam Abu Hanifah: Ahmad said, as narrated by Ibrahim ibn Hani’: ‘Abandon the opinions of Abu Hanifah and his followers.’”[56]

Muhammad ibn Ruh al-‘Akbari reported:

 “I heard Ahmad say: ‘If a man were to be appointed as a judge, and he ruled according to the opinion of Abu Hanifah, and I were asked about him, I would view it appropriate to reject his judgments.’”

In the narration of ‘Umar ibn Ma‘mar, Ahmad said:

 “If you see a man avoiding Abu Hanifah, avoiding looking into his views, not trusting him or those who follow his school, especially those who exaggerate, and not taking him as an imam, then expect good from him.”

In the narration of Ibn Ibrahim, Ahmad was asked:

 “Is it permissible to narrate from Abu Hanifa?” He replied: “No.” He was then asked: “What about Abu Yusuf?” Ahmad said: “He was the best of them.” He then added: “Anyone who writes books does not appeal to me; let them stick to pure hadith.”[57]

In his book Tanwir al-Sahifa bi-Manaqib Abi Hanifah (Illumination of the Scroll with the Virtues of Abu Hanifa), Ibn al-Mibrad states:

 “No one should be misled by Imam Ahmad’s statement: ‘Abandon the opinion of Abu Hanifah.’ The response to this can be explained in ten points:

 1. He did not criticize Abu Hanifah personally; rather, he only instructed people to leave his opinions because they did not align with his own principles and ijtihad.

 2. There are reports from Imam Ahmad that praise Abu Hanifah and ask for mercy upon him, which indicates his veneration of him, even though he did not follow his opinions.

 3. He was a mujtahid, and a mujtahid is not required to follow the opinions of others.

 4. Imam Ahmad not only called for abandoning Abu Hanifah’s opinions but also instructed people to leave all opinions based on ra’y, which is why he added ‘and others like it.’

 5. Ahmad’s methodology was to act upon hadiths from singular chains of transmission (khabar al-ahad), unlike Abu Hanifah, who preferred ra’y in certain cases. So, Imam Ahmad may have meant to reject any opinion that contradicted such reports.

6. The ‘opinion’ in question could refer to views that oppose hadiths.

 7. It could also refer to opinions that contradict the sayings of the Companions and the Tabi’un.

 8. Imam Ahmad’s words are not like those of others, given his proximity to Abu Hanifah’s time and before the schools of thought had fully solidified. A mujtahid, especially one close to another, is permitted to strengthen his position by critiquing others.

 9. A mujtahid cannot hold an opinion he believes to be correct unless he believes that the opposing view is incorrect. If he believes it to be wrong, he is justified in ordering others to abandon it.

 10. Imam Ahmad’s statement was directed at those who followed him in his ijtihad, not at everyone.”

This should mislead no one, as Imam Ahmad praised Abu Hanifah and prayed for Allah’s mercy upon him. The author of al-Jawahir al-Mudiyya stated: “The statements of the imams about one another should not be given much attention or concern when it pertains to those whose imamate in religion is well-established and whose mastery of knowledge is profound.”[58]

It was also reported that Imam Ahmad denied that Abu Hanifah believed in the creation of the Qur’an. Ibn bint Sa‘d narrated that Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: “It has not been confirmed to us that Abu Hanifah believed in the creation of the Qur’an. We do not know of Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf, Zufar, or any of Abu Hanifah’s companions who said the Qur’an was created. It was only Bishr and Ibn Abi Du’ad who caused controversy regarding the companions of Abu Hanifah.”[59]

Second: His Critique of Certain Narrations Criticizing Abu Hanifah:

1. The narration from Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman disavowing Abu Hanifah due to his alleged belief in the creation of the Qur’an: It was reported from Sufyan al-Thawri that Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman said, “Tell Abu Hanifah, the polytheist, that I am free of him.” Sufyan explained that this was because Abu Hanifah was said to have claimed that the Qur’an was created.[60]

After citing this report with its chain of transmission, Ibn al-Mibrad commented:

 “It is unlikely that Hammad would say this, given that Abu Hanifah was his student unless it occurred during a time when Abu Hanifah was engaged in Kalam, before he abandoned it, repented, and returned to Hammad. This is not improbable, as it was Hammad who drew him away from Kalam and brought him into fiqh.

As for these four imams, my belief, which I adhere to in worshipping Allah, is that it is impermissible for anyone—especially in our time—to speak ill of them in any way.”[61]

He then cited the previously mentioned statement from Imam Ahmad, denying that Abu Hanifah believed in the creation of the Qur’an.

2. The criticism of Abu Hanifah attributed to ‘Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak: Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr reported that Mu‘alla ibn Asad said, “I asked Ibn al-Mubarak: ‘People say that you follow the opinion of Abu Hanifa!’ He replied, ‘Not everything people say is correct. We used to visit him for a while without fully understanding him. Once we came to know him, we left him.’”[62]

After citing this narration, Ibn al-Mibrad commented:

 “This report from Ibn al-Mubarak is highly doubtful, as we have numerous accounts of his praise for Abu Hanifah, which contradict this statement.”[63]

3. The narration about Bishr ibn al-Mufaddal rejecting the hadith: Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr reported that Bishr ibn al-Mufaddal said, “I told Abu Hanifah: ‘Nafi‘ narrated from Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The two parties in a sale have the option to cancel as long as they have not separated, except for sale with an option.”’ Abu Hanifah replied: ‘This is sinful.’ Then I said: ‘Qatadah narrated from Anas that a Jew crushed the head of a young girl between two stones, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) crushed his head between two stones in retaliation.’ Abu Hanifah responded: ‘This is nonsense.’”[64]

After narrating this, Ibn al-Mibrad commented:

“It is highly improbable that Abu Hanifah would say such a thing, and I do not believe this report to be authentic.”[65]

Thirdly: His Criticism of Certain Hadith Scholars’ Biographical Narrations of Abu Hanifa

Ibn al-Jarud: Commenting on Ibn al-Jarud’s statement that “al-Nu‘man ibn Thabit, Abu Hanifah, most of his narrations are erroneous, and there is disagreement over his Islam,” it is noted: “This is a fabrication unworthy of someone like him. Ibn Abd al-Barr said: ‘Such statements, and others like them, should be evident as false to anyone who reflects properly and carefully considers them.’”[66]

Al-Saji: Ibn Abd al-Barr remarked, “Al-Saji, in his Kitab al-‘Ilal, mentioned in the section on Abu Hanifah that he was forced to repent regarding the creation of the Qur’an, and he did repent. However, al-Saji was among those who were rivals[67] of Abu Hanifah’s followers.”[68] Ibn al-Mibrad commented, “His statement about Abu Hanifah is therefore not credible, and what he said is far-fetched.”[69]

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi: It was said, “Al-Khatib consistently displayed bias against our Imam, against Abu Hanifah and his followers. His stance on this is well known, to the extent that he said things about Abu Hanifah that are inappropriate even to mention.”[70]

He also said, “Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi criticized many of the leading scholars and spoke against them. His criticism of Imam Abu Hanifah was particularly harsh, and he attributed numerous faults and deficiencies to him. He also criticized Imam Ahmad and other prominent figures.”[71]

He also said, “Al-Khatib’s words should deceive no one, for he harbored excessive prejudice against a group of scholars, including Abu Hanifah, Imam Ahmad, and some of their companions. He attacked them in every possible way and sought to disparage them from every angle. His words should not be relied upon.”

Ibn al-Jawzi even authored a book on this matter, titled Al-Sahm al-Musib fi Ta‘asib al-Khatib (The True Arrow Against al-Khatib’s Fanaticism), and some Hanafis wrote a book titled Al-Sahm al-Musib fi Kabid al-Khatib (The True Arrow in the Liver of al-Khatib). Thus, his statements are not dependable.[72]

Ibn al-Jawzi: It was stated, “As for Ibn al-Jawzi, he followed al-Khatib in this matter. Even his grandson expressed astonishment at this, and one should exercise extreme caution, for Abu Hanifah is one of the pillars of Islam.”[73]

Then he quoted Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi, who said: “It is not surprising that al-Khatib criticized many scholars, but, astonishingly, my grandfather followed his approach in his work Al-Muntazam, where he went even further and made even more serious claims.”[74]

Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi further commented after citing his grandfather’s words: “I have not responded to what they – meaning al-Khatib and his grandfather Ibn al-Jawzi – have said. I say as Harith ibn Wa’la said:

‘My people were the ones who killed my orphan brother, 

And when I cast, my arrow strikes me. 

If I pardon, I will pardon out of endurance, 

And if I strike, I will break my own bones.’”[75]

Fourth: His Emphasis on Condemning Those Who Slander Abu Hanifah and His Ruling on Their Deserving Punishment

He stated: “Whoever attacks this Imam, who is one of the pillars of Islam—indeed, Allah Almighty has made these four Imams the pillars of Islam—must understand that anyone who sees the truth recognizes that these figures are the foundations and mainstay of Islam. Whoever Allah has raised to this station has been appointed to uphold His deen. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: ‘The scholars of my Ummah are like the prophets of the Children of Israel,’ and ‘The scholars are the inheritors of the prophets.’

Since Allah has made the religion of this Ummah reliant upon these four Imams, they are the guides for all people. Therefore, it is impermissible for anyone to attack or criticize any of them or to disparage or dishonor them. Extreme caution must be exercised in this matter, for such actions are a fatal disease, a deadly poison. Those who engage in such behavior risk incurring Allah’s wrath or His punishment upon those who are His guides and pillars on Earth. As in the Divine Hadith: ‘Whoever shows enmity to a friend of Mine, I have declared war against him, and I become as angry for My allies as a fiercely protective lion.’

So beware, beware of this! The flesh of scholars and ascetics is poisonous, and their honor is lethal. No one has ever attacked or belittled the scholars without eventually fading into obscurity, their memory erased, and their knowledge corrupted.”[76]

In the “Forty-Fifth Chapter: On the Condemnation of Those Who Belittle or Criticize Him or His Madhab,” he clarifies the consensus of the Ummah on the imamate of the four Imams and the deserving punishment by authorities for anyone who insults them due to their misconduct. He states:

“Anyone who attacks them reveals the deficiency of their intellect. Know that no one has ever spoken against any of the four Imams except someone harboring hypocrisy or innovation in their heart. This is something that is impermissible and cannot be approached. How could it be lawful for anyone to speak against the pillars of Allah’s deen, whom Allah Almighty chose for the best of nations to follow in their words, deeds, and example?

Whoever reflects on this matter carefully, with Allah opening the eye of insight, will realize that Allah chose these four from among the Ummah so that the entire Ummah may follow them until the Day of Judgment. He made them the foundation of His deen and the guides to be emulated. Just as this Ummah is the best of nations, chosen by Allah from among all people, and its Prophet is the best of prophets— as Allah Almighty said, ‘You are the best nation produced for mankind’ [Aal Imran: 110]—likewise, as the best of nations with the best Prophet, Allah chose it from His creation, guided it, and protected it from error. As authentically reported from the Prophet (peace be upon him), ‘My Ummah will never unite upon misguidance.’ Allah has chosen for this Ummah leaders to be followed.

The Ummah has reached a consensus on the authority of these four Imams, guided by the divine will of Allah and in recognition of His knowledge of them. It has been reported: “The scholars of my Ummah are like the prophets of the Children of Israel,” and it is authentically narrated that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The scholars are the inheritors of the prophets.” How, then, can it be permissible for anyone to criticize one of the pillars of deen, one of the Imams to be followed, upon whose rulings Islam is built, and who are the inheritors of the prophets and hold a station akin to that of a prophet?

When one observes other religions, one sees that the Jews hold all their rabbis in great esteem. If anyone were to criticize one of their early rabbis, they would be severely condemned. Likewise, the Christians revere their monks and priests, and if anyone were to speak against one of them, they would face the collective disapproval of the rest. So how can a Muslim justify criticizing one of the Imams of Islam, one of its pillars, and do what even the Jews and Christians would not permit?

What I believe, and what I regard as my duty to Allah, is that such criticism is absolutely prohibited. It is forbidden to speak ill of the scholars and the pillars of the religion. Whoever speaks against one of the Imams commits a grave sin and incurs a great offense, and in most cases, such a person will not prosper, nor will any of their endeavors bear fruit.

Whoever does this [criticizes the Imams] must be punished by all rulers and authorities. They should be struck and disciplined, and deterred from such actions by every form of punishment and retribution. In fact, it becomes obligatory for every Muslim to denounce such behavior and to take a stand against the perpetrator.”[77]

Mar‘i al-Karmi (d. 1033 A.H.): 

The esteemed position of Shaykh Mar‘i in the Hanbali school is well-known. His works, such as Dalil al-Talib and Ghayat al-Muntaha, have been relied upon by later scholars.

First: Shaykh Mar‘i’s Praiseworthy Commendation of Abu Hanifa

Shaykh Mar‘i authored a treatise titled Tanwir Basa’ir al-Muqallidin fi Manaqib al-A’imma al-Mujtahidin (Illuminating the Minds of the Followers on the Virtues of the Mujtahid Imams), in which he discusses the virtues of the four Imams. The first chapter is dedicated to the virtues of Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him). It is divided into several sections: a section on those from whom Abu Hanifah transmitted narrations, a section on those who narrated from him, a section on the praise of other scholars for him, a section on his devotion and frequent prayers, a section on his fear of and mindfulness of Allah, a section on his piety, a section on his intellect and insight, a section on his generosity, a section on his noble character, a section on people’s opinions about Abu Hanifah, a section on Abu Hanifah’s rejection of excessive use of analogy and personal opinion, a section on Abu Hanifah being one of the leading hadith scholars, a section on his engagement in jurisprudence and its codification, a section on his trials, and a section on his death, which concludes the biography of Abu Hanifah.

Shaykh Mar‘i summarized many of these sections from the book ‘Uqud al-Juman fi Manaqib al-Imam al-A‘zam Abi Hanifah al-Nu‘man by Imam Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Salihi.[78]

Shaykh Mar‘i, at the beginning of his biography of Abu Hanifah, wrote: “He is the renowned Imam, the brilliant scholar and paragon of piety, whom both the early and later generations unanimously recognized for his vast knowledge, deep piety, devotion, sharp understanding, precise reasoning in deriving evidence, his cautiousness in matters of religion, and his fear of Allah Almighty: Imam Abu Hanifah al-Nu‘man ibn Thabit ibn Zuta ibn Mah.”[79]

In the section dedicated to the praise of the scholars for him, he quoted Imam Ahmad’s commendation of Abu Hanifah and his rejection of the claim that Abu Hanifah held the belief in the creation of the Qur’an. According to the narration of al-Maroodhi, Imam Ahmad said: “It has not been proven to us that Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) ever said that the Qur’an was created.” Al-Maroodhi responded: “Praise be to Allah, O Abu Abdullah, for he is indeed held in high regard for his knowledge!” Imam Ahmad replied: “Glory be to Allah! He is highly ranked in knowledge, piety, asceticism, and preference for the Hereafter that even Ahmad cannot attain it. He was even beaten with whips for refusing to accept the position of judge under Abu Ja‘far, yet he did not yield.”[80]

Elsewhere, he said: “Ibn Kass narrated from Isma‘il ibn Salim al-Baghdadi that Abu Hanifah was beaten for refusing to assume a judicial position, but he did not accept it. After being beaten, Ahmad ibn Hanbal would remember Abu Hanifah’s situation and pray for Allah’s mercy upon him.”[81]

Second: Shaykh Mar‘i’s Position on Some of the Claims Attributed to Abu Hanifah:

Shaykh Mar‘i states: “Many people have excessively criticized him, attributing to him reliance on ra’y and qiyas and accusing him of serious matters.” After quoting the praise of various scholars for Abu Hanifah, he continues: “Now that you know this, be aware that all criticisms directed at Imam Abu Hanifah are either sheer prejudice, as previously mentioned, or they can be responded to, as will be explained, Allah willing.”[82]

I will now present Shaykh Mar‘i’s defense of Abu Hanifah on several issues.

1- The Issue of Ra’y and Qiyas:

In response to those who criticized Abu Hanifah for his use of ra’y and qiyas, Shaykh Mar‘i states:

“And furthermore, the core of their criticism of Abu Hanifah is their claim that he relied on personal ra’y and qiyas. But he is not unique in this regard. Ibn Abdul Barr narrates from Salamah ibn Shabib that he heard Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal say: ‘The ra’y of al-Awza‘i, Malik, Abu Hanifah, and Sufyan are all ra’y; the true authority lies in the narrations.’[83] So, if all of these scholars are equal in their use of ra’y, why have they not criticized the others as they have criticized Abu Hanifa? Why is it that so many of those who harbor animosity have gone to such extremes against Abu Hanifah, even writing books on the subject? Justice requires that if one is to criticize Abu Hanifah for his use of ra’y, they must also criticize the others who employed it in the same way.”[84]

After discussing the criticism that Abu Hanifah excessively relied on ra’y and qiyas and quoting Ibn Abdul Barr’s defense that the Companions themselves used qiyas, Shaykh Mar‘i continues:

“If you reflect on this—may Allah guide you—you will realize that Imam Abu Hanifah was not alone in using qiyas based on foundational principles. In fact, the jurists of all regions did the same, as mentioned earlier. Therefore, the argument against Abu Hanifah based on this criticism falls apart, as it stems from rigidity and prejudice. All the mujtahids have used qiyas, and their followers continue to do so to this day in cases where no clear text from the Qur’an or Sunnah exists. There has been no objection to this practice among them. In fact, they have established qiyas as one of the four sources of evidence, saying: ‘The Qur’an, the Sunnah, Ijma’, and Qiyas.’”[85]

2) The criticism of his limited transmission of hadith was addressed as follows:

“It was observed that he, may Allah be pleased with him, only narrated hadith from the most reputable, just, and trustworthy of the Tabi’un, those who lived in the best generations, as testified by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). These include scholars like Al-Aswad, ‘Alqama, ‘Ata’, ‘Ikrima, Mujahid, Makḥul, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, and their peers.

All the narrators between him and the Prophet (peace be upon him) were known for their integrity and reliability, with no liars or individuals accused of dishonesty among them. For this reason, he was regarded as one of the most esteemed and pioneering Imams, being among the earliest to document fiqh and having a closer chain of transmission to the Prophet (peace be upon him) compared to others. Moreover, he had direct exposure to the actions of the leading figures among the Tabi’un.

The fact that his hadiths did not circulate as widely as those of other Imams does not imply any lack of interest in hadith or deficiency in his knowledge of it, as alleged by some envious critics. Rather, the scarcity of narrations from him—despite his vast memory—can be attributed to two reasons:

Firstly, his engagement in deriving legal rulings from the evidence took precedence over narration, similar to how prominent Companions like Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and others were preoccupied with governance and practical matters, which led to their limited hadith transmission despite their extensive knowledge and understanding.

Imam Malik and Imam Al-Shafi’i also transmitted relatively few hadiths compared to what they had actually heard, primarily because they were preoccupied with deriving legal rulings from the available evidence.

The second reason for Abu Hanifah's limited narrations is that he believed hadiths should only be transmitted by those who had memorized them accurately.

Despite all this, prominent hadith scholars have transmitted several hadiths from him, which are recognized by those with expertise in the science of hadith.”[86]

3- His Position on Certain Narrations Criticizing Abu Hanifah:

Shaykh Mar’i discussed two critical narrations of Imam Abu Hanifah, attributed to the two eminent scholars Sufyan Al-Thawri and Malik ibn Anas. He explained that, even if their statements were proven authentic, they could be interpreted favorably, and this reinterpretation is necessary to maintain the esteemed status of these great Imams.

He said: “Abu Muti’ reported that Sufyan once said, ‘Abu Hanifah has dismantled Islam link by link.’ A superficial or uninformed person would focus on such negative statements and ignore instances where the speaker later retracted their criticisms. We mention this because it is well-known[87] that many leading scholars, such as Malik, Al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, Sufyan, and others, held Abu Hanifah in high regard.

Furthermore, when scholars make outwardly critical statements, they can often be reinterpreted or understood in a different light out of respect for their lofty status. For example, Sufyan’s statement that ‘Abu Hanifah dismantled the links of Islam’ could be understood positively, meaning that Abu Hanifah resolved complex issues within Islam, one by one, leaving no difficult problem unsolved due to his vast knowledge and profound understanding.

It is also possible that false statements are attributed to these Imams, with people attributing to them what they never actually said. An example is the claim that Imam Malik criticized Abu Hanifah, as reported through Al-Walid ibn Muslim, who claimed Malik said to him, ‘Is Abu Hanifah mentioned in your land?’ I replied, ‘Yes.’ Malik responded, ‘Your land is not fit to be inhabited.’ However, Hafiz Al-Mizzi pointed out that this narrator, Al-Walid, is weak.”[88]

Assuming the statement attributed to Imam Malik is proven authentic, it can be reinterpreted to mean that if Imam Abu Hanifah is frequently mentioned in your region, particularly in a manner that suggests complete adherence to his views and following his opinions, then it is not suitable for a scholar to reside there. This is because the people of your region would rely solely on Abu Hanifah’s knowledge, seeking his guidance in all matters of deen, and would therefore not need to consult other scholars. If a scholar were to settle in that area, their knowledge would go unused, and they would not be engaged in teaching. Hence, it would be better for such a scholar to move to another region where their knowledge could benefit others.[89]

Shaykh Mansur Al-Buhuti (d. 1051 A.H.), the Verifier of the Hanbali School:

He said: “Al-Nu‘man is the unique Imam, Abu Hanifah Al-Nu‘man ibn Thabit ibn Zuta ibn Mah. Both the early and later generations have unanimously agreed on the vastness of his knowledge, piety, devotion, and sharp understanding. He was born in Kufa in the year 80 A.H., during the caliphate of Abdul Malik ibn Marwan, and lived for seventy years. He passed away in Baghdad in the year 150 AH.”

He narrated from Nafi’, the servant of Ibn Umar; ‘Ata’ ibn Abi Rabah; Mujahid; ‘Ikrimah, the servant of Ibn Abbas; and others. His students included Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, Abdul Razzaq ibn Hammam, Ibn al-Mubarak, and others.[90]

Shaykh Mansur benefited from this brief biography of the previously mentioned book by Shaykh Mar’i.[91]

Shams al-Din al-Saffarini (d. 1188 A.H.): 

He said in his poem on creed:

And may the mercy of Allah, along with His pleasure, 

And righteousness, honor, and kindness 

Be sent with reverence and blessings 

From me to the resting place of the protector of Islam.

The Imams of religion, guides of the ummah, 

The people of piety from all the Imams, 

Especially Ahmad and Al-Nu’man, 

And Malik and Muhammad, the two companions.[92]

In his commentary, he said:

“Abu Hanifah al-Nu‘man ibn Thabit al-Kufi is, by consensus, the Imam and jurist of the people of Iraq and the leader of the proponents of ahl al-ra’y. Al-Hafiz Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti mentioned in Tabaqat al-Huffaz: It is said that he was of Persian descent and that he was from the Tabi’un, as he met Anas ibn Malik and Abu al-Tufayl (may Allah be pleased with them both). He narrated from Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, ‘Ata’, ‘Asim ibn Abi al-Najud, Al-Zuhri, Qatadah, and many others. His narrators included his son Hammad, Waki’, ‘Abdul Razzaq, Abu Yusuf Al-Qadhi, and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, who are the two students referred to as ‘the companions’ when mentioned in Hanafi scholarship.

Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in said: ‘Abu Hanifah was trustworthy and did not narrate anything unless he had memorized it.’ Imam’ Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak said: ‘I have not seen anyone in fiqh like him.’ Makki ibn Ibrahim said: ‘He was the most knowledgeable person of his time, and I have not seen anyone among the Kufans more pious than him.’ Imam al-Shafi’i said: ‘People in fiqh are dependent on Abu Hanifah.’ And when Yazid ibn Harun was asked: ‘Who is more knowledgeable in fiqh, Abu Hanifah or Sufyan?’ he replied: ‘Sufyan had better memory for hadith, but Abu Hanifah was more knowledgeable in fiqh.’

Abu Hanifah, may Allah be pleased with him, was coerced into accepting the position of a judge, but he refused to serve as one. He spent his nights in prayer, supplication, and earnest devotion.

He, may Allah be pleased with him, was born in the year 80 A.H. and passed away in the year 150 A.H., though some say it was in 151 or 153, but the first is more accurate.”[93]

Shaykh Hasan ibn Umar al-Shatti al-Dimashqi (d. 1274 A.H.):

In his Mukhtasar Sharh al-Saffarini, summarizing the previous discussion of al-Saffarini’s verses, he said:

“And [likewise is] the greatest Imam, the highly revered scholar, Abu Hanifah al-Nu‘man ibn Thabit al-Kufi, the undisputed Imam and jurist of the people of Iraq. He was of Persian descent and from the Tabi’un, as he met Anas ibn Malik and Abu al-Tufayl, may Allah be pleased with them both. He narrated from Hammad, Al-Zuhri, Qatadah, and many others. His narrators included his son Hammad, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, Waki’, and ‘Abdul Razzaq. Imam al-Shafi’i said: ‘People in fiqh are dependent on Abu Hanifah.’ He would spend his nights in prayer, supplication, and devotion. He, may Allah be pleased with him, was born in 80 A.H. and passed away in 150 A.H.”[94]

Scholars of the Najd Dawah Movement:

First: A General Overview of the Dawah Imams’ Position on Imam Abu Hanifah in Its Historical Context:

A question was posed to Shaykh Salih bin Abdul Aziz bin Muhammad bin Ibrahim Al-Sheikh, may Allah preserve him, as follows:

“What is your opinion regarding what was mentioned in the book of Abdullah, the son of Imam Ahmad, where Abu Hanifah is accused of believing in the creation of the Qur’an and other similar claims?”

The response was:

“This is a good question. What is mentioned in Kitab al-Sunnah by Abdullah, the son of Imam Ahmad, is related to the time when the controversy over the creation of the Qur’an was at its peak. At that time, some statements were falsely attributed to Abu Hanifah regarding the creation of the Qur’an, from which he is entirely innocent. Similar claims were also made regarding his alleged agreement with the Mu’tazilites in making ta’wil of Allah’s attributes, which are also false. Some of these claims spread among the people and were conveyed to certain scholars, who judged based on what they heard without further investigation. This occurred before Abu Hanifah had established a formal school or a recognized madhhab. During that period, statements were being circulated from various scholars such as Sufyan, Waki’, Sufyan al-Thawri, Sufyan ibn’ Uyaynah, and others regarding Imam Abu Hanifah.

At that time, it was necessary for Abdullah, Imam Ahmad’s son, to try to convey scholars’ opinions regarding what was attributed to Imam Abu Hanifah.

However, after that period — as Al-Tahawi mentioned — the scholars unanimously agreed not to transmit such reports and that Imam Abu Hanifah should only be remembered with goodness and respect. This shift occurred after Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi’s time. Some of the companions of Imam Ahmad may have spoken critically, and Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi recorded some well-known reports in his book on history. These reports were later refuted, and by the sixth and seventh centuries A.H., the methodology of the Salaf had been established. Ibn Taymiyyah wrote the famous treatise Raf’ al-Malam’ an al-A’imma al-A’lam (Lifting the Blame from the Distinguished Imams), in which he consistently speaks well of Imam Abu Hanifah, prays for mercy upon him, and attributes to him only one issue: the stance of Irfaj’ al-fuqaha. This is distinct from the various other claims attributed to him, as Imam Abu Hanifah’s work Al-Fiqh al-Akbar and his other writings demonstrate that, in general, he adhered to the approach of the Salaf al-Salih, except in the matter of whether actions are included in the definition of Iman.”[95]

This has been the approach of scholars, as Imam Al-Tahawi mentioned, except for a few who have taken extreme positions on both sides. On one side, there are those among the rationalists who have gone too far in attacking the people of hadith, calling them Hashwiyyah (simple-minded) and labeling them as ignorant. On the other side, there are those affiliated with hadith and tradition who have gone to extremes by criticizing Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him, or by attacking the Hanafi school of fiqh or other scholars.

The balanced methodology is the one outlined by Al-Tahawi and followed by the Imams of the Salaf. When Imam Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab emerged, he revived this balanced approach among the people: no scholar should be mentioned except with respect and goodness. Their opinions should be examined, and what is supported by evidence should be accepted. No scholar should be blindly followed in their errors or mistakes; rather, we say, “This is the scholar’s view and his independent reasoning, but the other opinion is stronger.”

This approach became widespread in the school of the Dawah, emphasizing the distinction between the stronger and weaker opinions. Scholars were nurtured in these matters to uphold this principle.

When King Abdulaziz, may he rest in peace, entered Mecca,[96] the scholars at the time sought to print Kitab al-Sunnah by Abdullah, son of Imam Ahmad. The esteemed scholar, Sheikh Abdullah bin Hassan Al-Sheikh, may he rest in peace. He was then the chief judge in Mecca[1] and supervised and reviewed the publication. He removed an entire section from the book before it was printed. This section was not included because, from the perspective of Islamic wisdom and jurisprudence, its time had passed, and it was a matter of ijtihad. The principles of Islamic governance and concern for public interest dictated its removal, ensuring that it did not remain. This act was not a betrayal of trust; rather, it was an effort to prevent people from being distracted from the correct Sunnah and creed that Abdullah, son of Imam Ahmad, had outlined in his book due to some controversial reports that had been included.

The book was published without this section and spread among scholars and the public as Kitab al-Sunnah by Abdullah, son of Imam Ahmad.

Recently, this section was reintroduced and included in a scholarly thesis or research paper. Although this section is known to exist in the manuscripts, it was reinserted under the claim that academic integrity necessitates its inclusion, and so on. However, there is no doubt that this is incorrect. The actions of the scholars of the previous Da’wah were based on principles of Islamic governance, as well as an understanding of the objectives of scholars in their writings, the variations in time, place, and circumstance, and the established creed and scholarly discourse on such matters.

When the book was printed in its most recent edition, we were at a gathering hosted by the esteemed Sheikh Saleh al-Fawzan at his home. Sheikh Abdulaziz, may he rest in peace, was also in attendance. I brought up the fact that the latest edition of Kitab al-Sunnah, which was published in two volumes, had reintroduced the section regarding Abu Hanifah that had been excluded from the first edition by the earlier scholars.

He, may Allah have mercy on him, said in Sheikh Saleh’s gathering: “What the earlier scholars did is the correct course of action, and from the perspective of Islamic governance, it was appropriate to omit that section, as its inclusion is unsuitable. This is in line with the methodology of the scholars.”

He went on to say that the matter escalated to the point where books began to appear that criticized Abu Hanifah, with some even using derogatory names like “Abu Jifah” (Father of Carrion) and similar remarks. Undoubtedly, this is not our approach, nor is it the way of the scholars of the Da’wah or the early Salaf. We only speak well of scholars; if they err, we do not follow them in their mistakes—especially the four great Imams—because they hold an undeniable status and rank.”[97]

We already relayed in this article the words of the esteemed scholar Ibn al-Mibrad, who remarked: “The words of Imam Ahmad are not like the words of others, as he was close to that time, and his statements came before the establishment of the schools of thought. A mujtahid—especially one close to the level of ijtihad—has the right to strengthen his own school of thought, and weakening the opinion of another is a way of reinforcing his own position.”

He also said, “Regarding these four Imams, what I believe and what I adhere to is that it is impermissible for anyone—especially in our time—to speak ill of them in any way.”[98]

Ibn al-Mibrad lived in the 10th century after the schools of thought and their opinions had been firmly established, and the rulings of subsequent times followed the rulings of his era.

Objection and Response:

Some contemporary scholars have questioned the attribution of Kitab al-Sunnah to Abdullah, the son of Imam Ahmad, arguing that its narrator, Abu al-Nadr al-Simsar, is unknown. However, the hadith scholar Abu Dharr al-Harawi authenticated him.[99] Moreover, the Hanafi scholars have cited Kitab al-Sunnah, which indicates that they do not reject its attribution, as can be seen in several places in al-Hadiqa al-Nadiyya Sharh al-Tariqa al-Muhammadiyya by Abdul Ghani al-Nabulsi.

Second: Statements of the Najdi Da’wah Scholars:

A thorough examination of the statements by the scholars of the Najdi Da’wah regarding their praise of the four Imams and their acknowledgment of Abu Hanifah, his fiqh, and his differences of opinion would be lengthy. Therefore, we will suffice with mentioning brief excerpts from their statements, which contain general praise.

1. Imam of the Da’wah, Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 A.H.): 

He said: “We are followers of the Qur’an and Sunnah, the Salaf al-Salih of the Ummah, and the reliable positions of the four Imams—Abu Hanifah al-Nu’man ibn Thabit, Malik ibn Anas, Muhammad ibn Idris, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal—may Allah have mercy on them.”[100] 

He also said: “My creed and the religion that I follow is the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, which is adhered to by the Imams of the Muslims, such as the four Imams and their followers.”[101]

Sheikh Abdul Latif Al-Sheikh, in his account of Sheikh Muhammad’s beliefs, said: “He supported the four Imams, acknowledged their virtue and leadership, and recognized that they possessed an exceptional level of merit and excellence, one that even the most ambitious scholar could not attain. He was loyal to all Muslims and their scholars—be they specialists in hadith, fiqh, tafsir, or asceticism and worship. He also believed in the prohibition of deviating from the established opinions of the past scholars of religion and the Salaf by adopting any innovative views or newly invented opinions. He held that nothing new should be introduced into the deen that lacks a foundation in the teachings of the scholars and transmitters of knowledge.”[102]

The Sheikh, like other Hanbali scholars, explained the attribution of Irja’ to Imam Abu Hanifah, saying: “As for the belief that ‘There is no god, but Allah’ encompasses the entirety of the religion and that anyone who says it will be saved from the fire, even if there is in his heart the smallest amount of faith, there is no issue with that. The key to the matter is that Iman can be divided into parts, and it does not follow that if some parts are lost, the entire Iman is lost. This is, in fact, the view of the Khawarij. So, the one who says that all deeds are part of ‘There is no god but Allah,’ his statement is correct. And the one who says that whoever says it will be removed from the fire if there is in his heart even the weight of a mustard seed of Iman, his statement is also correct. As I have explained to you, the reason lies in the concept of Iman being divisible. Abu Hanifah and his followers erred in their claim that deeds are not part of Iman due to their lack of understanding of this divisibility.”[103]

2. Sheikh Hamad bin Nasser bin Muammar (d. 1225 A.H.):

He said: “Our creed is the creed of the Salaf: affirmation without anthropomorphism, and transcendence without negation. This is the creed of the Imams of Islam, such as Malik, al-Shafi’i, al-Thawri, al-Awza’i, Ibn al-Mubarak, Imam Ahmad, and Ishaq ibn Rahwayh. It is also the belief of the esteemed scholars who are to be followed. There is no disagreement among these Imams on the fundamentals of the deen, and the same applies to Abu Hanifah, may Allah be pleased with him. The belief firmly attributed to him aligns with the beliefs of these Imams, and it is in accordance with what is stated in the Qur’an and Sunnah.”[104]

He also said: “The distinction of Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Ahmad, and the Imams before and after them became evident only through their adherence to the truth, their support of it, and their rejection of falsehood.”[105]

3. Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1244 A.H.):

In his discussion on the names and attributes of Allah, he said: “What we believe in and follow is the creed of the Salaf of this Ummah and its leaders, from the Companions and those who followed them in righteousness, including the four Imams and their companions, may Allah be pleased with them.”[106]

He also mentioned this in another context: “The Imams who are to be followed from among the scholars of hadith and jurists.”[107]

4. Sheikh Abdul Latif bin Abdul Rahman bin Hasan Al-Sheikh (d. 1293 A.H.):

He said: “It is obligatory upon all accountable individuals in every time and place to adhere to what is authentically reported and established from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). No one is permitted to deviate from this to anything else. If one cannot grasp a matter of his religion, he must follow what the Salaf al-Salih and the early generations adhered to. If he does not know any of that, but something from one of the four Imams whose credibility is well established in the Ummah is verified to him, then following them is permissible in that case.”[108]

He also referred to a previous statement by Sheikh Muhammad, affirming and citing it as evidence.

5. Sheikh Ishaq bin Abdul Rahman bin Hasan Al-Sheikh (d. 1319 A.H.):

He mentioned Abu Hanifah among “the people of knowledge and faith, from the predecessors of the Ummah.”[109]

6. Sheikh Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Abdul Latif Al-Sheikh (d. 1389 A.H.):

In his fatwas, Sheikh Muhammad frequently referenced Imam Abu Hanifah’s views and disagreements, describing him as an exemplary leader (imam). He also instructed the Chief Judge, Sheikh Abdullah bin Hasan Al-Sheikh, may Allah have mercy on him, to take action against anyone who insulted the four Imams. In his collected letters and fatwas, it is stated:

“From Muhammad bin Ibrahim to His Eminence the Chief Judge, Sheikh Abdullah bin Hasan—may Allah preserve him. Peace be upon you, and the mercy and blessings of Allah. After greetings: We have received a letter from Umar Fathi in which he mentions some actions of Indian preachers and others, where they attack the four Imams, belittling their status, their views, and their followers. As this behavior contradicts the respect due to the Imams and the scholars of the Ummah, and incites discord and division among people, we would like to bring this to your attention. We are sending you a copy of his letter for your review. Undoubtedly, upon examining it and confirming what the writer has stated, you will address the matter as required, God willing. May Allah protect you.”[110]

The Sheikh, like other Hanbali scholars, affirmed the attribution of Irja’ to Imam Abu Hanifah. He said: “Imam Abu Hanifah, may Allah have mercy on him, and his teacher Hammad bin Abi Sulayman were among the Murji’ah jurists who held that actions of the limb are not part of Iman, though they emphasized the seriousness of these actions. It is merely a matter of semantics. The majority, however, hold the opposite view.”[111]

He also confirmed the authenticity of the book Al-Fiqh al-Akbar, attributed to Imam Abu Hanifah, which affirms the attribute of Allah’s ‘uluww. He explained how some of the later Hanafis, influenced by the Jahmiyyah, disagreed with Abu Hanifah on this matter. He said: “Its fame is well known and reliably attributed to Abu Hanifah through established chains of transmission. However, some who falsely claim to follow the Hanafi school but are not truly among them found its attribution problematic due to the infiltration of Jahmiyyah beliefs into their ranks. They saw it as conflicting with their own creed, as many of them adhere to Ash’ari or Maturidi beliefs. Thus, they felt compelled to deny this attribution to Abu Hanifah, thinking of him as an impeccable figure. This reflects their ignorance of their own Imam, as well as of the Qur’an and Sunnah, a mistake that has occurred among the followers of other Imams as well.”[112]

7- Sheikh Abdul Aziz ibn Baz (d. 1420 A.H.):

He, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “Al-Shafi’i, Malik, Ahmad, Abu Hanifah, Al-Awza’i, Ishaq ibn Rahwayh, and their peers—all of them are imams of guidance and callers to the truth. They called people to the religion of Allah and guided them to what is right.”[113]

He also said: “... and after them, the imams of the Sunnah, such as Al-Awza’i, Al-Thawri, Malik, Abu Hanifah, Ahmad, Ishaq, and others from among the leaders of the Muslims.”[114]

May the blessings and peace of Allah be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his companions.

---

[1] Narrated by Ibn Abd al-Barr in Al-Intiqa (pp. 66-67) and Jami‘ Bayan al-‘Ilm wa-Fadlihi (2/1221). 

[2] Lawa’ih al-Anwar al-Saniyyah wa-Lawaqih al-Afkar al-Sunniyyah: Sharh Ha’iyyat Ibn Abi Dawud (1/111). 

[3] Al-Ghunyah (1/116). 

[4] Ibid. (2/170). 

[5] Ibid. (2/188). Also see: Ibid. (2/85, 86). 

[6] Refer to these answers in: Al-Raf‘ wal-Takmil by Al-Lucknawi (pp. 374-388).

[7] Jam‘ al-Juyush wal-Dasakir ‘ala Ibn ‘Asakir (pp. 379-380). 

[8] Aqidat al-Hafiz ‘Abd al-Ghani (pp. 52-53). 

[9] Ibid. (pp. 109-110). 

[10] Quoted by Al-Hafiz Ibn Rajab in Dhayl Tabaqat al-Hanabilah (3/29). 

[11] Mir'at al-Zaman (22/139), and it was quoted by Abu Shama in Al-Mudhail ‘ala al-Rawdatayn. 

[12] Introduction to Intiqad al-Mughni (p. 9), and this was quoted by his student, Sheikh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah, in his commentary on Al-Raf‘ wal-Takmil (p. 406). 

[13] Ta‘rif Dhawi al-‘Ula biman Lam Yadhkuruhu al-Dhahabi min al-Nubala (p. 50). 

[14] Lum‘at al-I‘tiqad (pp. 41-42), and the mention of the Ash‘ariyyah is an addition from some manuscript copies. 

[15] Dham al-Ta’wil (pp. 32-33). 

[16] Ibid. (p. 14). 

[17] Al-Intisarat al-Islamiyyah fi Kashf Shubah al-Nasraniyyah (2/749). 

[18] Sharh Mukhtasar al-Rawdah (3/289-290). Al-Tufi criticized the fanaticism of the Hanafis and others among the followers of the madhhabs, but we shall not go into detail to avoid straying from the main point. See: Al-Ta‘yīn fi Sharh al-Arba‘īn (pp. 260-266). 

[19] Minhaj al-Sunnah (8/197-198). 

[20] Ibid. (6/52). 

[21] Ibid. (7/286). 

[22] Ibid. (2/82-83). 

[23] Jami‘ al-Masa'il (7/338). 

[24] Al-Radd ‘ala al-Subki (2/836-837). 

[25] Minhaj al-Sunnah (2/105). 

[26] Majmu‘ al-Fatawa (20/186). 

[27] Minhaj al-Sunnah (5/261). 

[28] Majmu‘ al-Fatawa (12/312). Abu Sulayman al-Jawzjani and Ma‘la ibn Mansur al-Razi said: “Neither Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, Zufar, nor Muhammad, nor any of their companions spoke about the Qur'an. Rather, it was Bishr al-Mirisi and Ibn Abi Du'ad who did so, and they tarnished the reputation of Abu Hanifa's companions.” Tarikh Baghdad (15/516). Al-Sam‘ani said in Al-Ansab (12/210) in the biography of Bishr ibn Ghayath al-Mirisi: "He was known for declaring the Qur'an as created, and it was reported that he had disgraceful views and unacceptable doctrines. Scholars criticized him for these, and most of them declared him a disbeliever because of them." Al-Lucknawi acknowledged this in Al-Fawa'id al-Bahiyyah fi Tarajim al-Hanafiyyah (1/54). 

[29] Jami‘ al-Masa'il (7/337-338). 

[30] Majmu‘ al-Fatawa (20/186). 

[31] Ibid. (13/38-39). 

[32] Ibid. (7/394).

[33] As in Tabaqat al-Shafi‘iyyah by Ibn al-Subki (3/419). 

[34] Al-Sunnah by Al-Khallal (1/492-493). 

[35] Lawa’ih al-Anwar al-Saniyyah wa-Lawaqih al-Afkar al-Sunniyyah: Sharh Ha’iyyat Ibn Abi Dawud (2/342). 

[36] Majmu‘ al-Fatawa (20/304-305). 

[37] Al-Intisar li-Ahl al-Athar (pp. 68-69). 

[38] Al-Majruhin (3/73). 

[39] Minhaj al-Sunnah (2/619-620). 

[40] Tabaqat ‘Ulama’ al-Hadith (1/261-262). 

[41] Manaqib al-A’immah al-Arba‘ah (p. 57). 

[42] Ibid. (p. 58). 

[43] Ibid. (pp. 61-77), and Ibn al-Mibrad benefited from it, as seen in Al-Muntaqa min Tanwir al-Sahifah (pp. 160-165). 

[44] Al-Muntaqa min Tanwir al-Sahifah (p. 125).

[45] Jam‘ al-Juyush wal-Dasakir (p. 399). 

[46] See: Dhayl Tabaqat al-Huffaz by Al-Suyuti (p. 233). 

[47] Ijtima‘ al-Juyush al-Islamiyyah (pp. 195-201). 

[48] Nuniyyat Ibn al-Qayyim, verses (1378-1382). 

[49] Ibid., verses (871-894). 

[50] Al-Adab al-Shar‘iyyah (2/238). 

[51] Al-Adab al-Shar‘iyyah (1/202), narrated by Al-Harawi in Dham al-Kalam (1006). 

[52] Al-Adab al-Shar‘iyyah (2/125), narrated by Al-Harawi in Dham al-Kalam (1020). 

[53] Both were narrated by Ibn al-Mibrad through his chain from Abu Isma‘il al-Harawi in Jam‘ al-Juyush wal-Dasakir (pp. 221-222). 

[54] Tanwir Basair al-Muqallidin in Majmu‘ Rasail al-Shaykh Mar‘i al-Karmi (9/123). 

[55] Sheikh Abu Ghuddah mentioned in his commentary on Al-Raf‘ wal-Takmil (p. 77) that it is a manuscript, not lost, describing it as a large volume still in manuscript form. This suggests that he had access to it or some of its details, although he did not cite any of them. 

[56] Narrated by Ibn al-Mibrad through his chain in Al-Muntaqa min Tanwir al-Sahifah bi-Manaqib Abi Hanifah (pp. 105-107). 

[57] Bahr al-Dam fi man Takallama fihi al-Imam Ahmad bi-Madh aw Dhamm (p. 161). 

[58] Al-Muntaqa min Tanwir al-Sahifah bi-Manaqib Abi Hanifah (pp. 91-93). 

[59] Al-Muntaqa min Tanwir al-Sahifah bi-Manaqib Abi Hanifah (p. 143). The report was narrated by Al-Khatib in his Tarikh (15/516) without the phrase "And we do not know...," etc. Imam Ahmad said in Al-Radd ‘ala al-Zanadiqah wal-Jahmiyyah (p. 97) in his discussion of Jahm: "With his words, he led many astray, and men from among the companions of Abu Hanifah and the companions of ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd in Basra followed him in his views." Thus, he did not attribute the following of Jahm to Abu Hanifah, which means he did not consider him a Jahmi. 

[60] Narrated by Ibn Battah in Al-Ibanah (406), and through his chain by Ibn al-Mibrad in Al-Muntaqa min Tanwir al-Sahifah bi-Manaqib Abi Hanifah (p. 143). 

[61] Al-Muntaqa min Tanwir al-Sahifah (p. 142). 

[62] Al-Intiqa’ fi Tabaqat al-Thalathah al-A’immah al-Fuqaha’ (p. 292). 

[63] Al-Muntaqa min Tanwir al-Sahifah (p. 140). 

[64] Al-Intiqa’ fi Tabaqat al-Thalathah al-A’immah al-Fuqaha’ (p. 297).

[65] Al-Muntaqa min Tanwir al-Sahifah (p. 140). 

[66] Ibid. (p. 138). 

[67] In the printed version of Al-Muntaqa min Tanwir al-Sahifah (p. 138): (He discusses!). 

[68] Al-Intiqa’ fi Tabaqat al-Thalathah al-A’immah al-Fuqaha’ (p. 286). 

[69] Al-Muntaqa min Tanwir al-Sahifah (p. 138). 

[70] Jam‘ al-Juyush wal-Dasakir ‘ala Ibn ‘Asakir (p. 346). 

[71] Jam‘ al-Juyush wal-Dasakir ‘ala Ibn ‘Asakir (p. 472). 

[72] Al-Muntaqa min Tanwir al-Sahifah (pp. 94-95). Al-Lucknawi cited this passage in Al-Raf‘ wal-Takmil (pp. 77-78) and by Ibn ‘Abidin in his Hashiya (1/37). 

[73] Al-Muntaqa min Tanwir al-Sahifah (p. 96). 

[74] Ibid. (p. 98). 

[75] Ibid. (p. 99). 

[76] Al-Muntaqa min Tanwir al-Sahifah (pp. 90-91). 

[77] Al-Muntaqa min Tanwir al-Sahifah (pp. 167-168). 

[78] It was explicitly attributed to him in some places. See Tanwir Basair al-Muqallidin fi Manaqib al-A’immah al-Mujtahidin within Majmu‘ al-Shaykh Mar‘i (9/89). 

[79] Tanwir Basa’ir al-Muqallidin within Majmu‘ al-Shaykh Mar‘i (9/80). 

[80] Tanwir Basa’ir al-Muqallidin fi Manaqib al-A’immah al-Mujtahidin within Majmu‘ al-Shaykh Mar‘i (9/91). The report with this wording is found in Manaqib Abi Hanifah wa-Saahibayhi by Al-Dhahabi (p. 43). 

[81] Tanwir Basa’ir al-Muqallidin fi Manaqib al-A’immah al-Mujtahidin within Majmu‘ al-Shaykh Mar‘i (9/146). 

[82] Tanwir Basair al-Muqallidin within Majmu‘ al-Shaykh Mar‘i (9/112-113). 

[83] Jami‘ Bayan al-‘Ilm wa Fadlih (2/1082). 

[84] Tanwir Basa’ir al-Muqallidin fi Manaqib al-A’immah al-Mujtahidin within Majmu‘ al-Shaykh Mar‘i (9/117). 

[85] Ibid. (9/120). 

[86] Tanwir Basa’ir al-Muqallidin fi Manaqib al-A’immah al-Mujtahidin within Majmu‘ al-Shaykh Mar‘i (9/127-130). 

[87] Shaykh Mar‘i here narrated an account in which Sufyan al-Thawri, Muqatil, Hammad ibn Salamah, and Ja‘far al-Sadiq retracted their criticism of Abu Hanifah after debating with him. 

[88] Shaykh Mar‘i relied on Al-Sha‘rani in this narration, and Al-Walid ibn Muslim is trustworthy but known for excessive tadlis and tiswiyah, as stated in Al-Taqrib (7456). 

[89] Tanwir Basa’ir al-Muqallidin fi Manaqib al-A’immah al-Mujtahidin within Majmu‘ al-Shaykh Mar‘i (9/116-117). 

[90] Al-Minh al-Shafiyyat bi-Sharh Mufradat al-Imam Ahmad (1/121). 

[91] Compare with Tanwir Basa’ir al-Muqallidin fi Manaqib al-A’immah al-Mujtahidin within Majmu‘ al-Shaykh Mar‘i (9/80). 

[92] Al-Durrah al-Mudiyyah fi ‘Aqd al-Firqah al-Mardiyyah, verses (202-206). 

[93] Lawami‘ al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah (2/459-460). 

[94] Mukhtasar Lawami‘ al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah (pp. 203-204). A similar narration is also found in Mukhtasar Lawami‘ al-Anwar al-Bahiyyah by Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Sallum al-Hanbali (d. 1246 AH) (pp. 560-561). 

[95] The exact wording of Shaykh al-Islam's statement has already been mentioned. 

[96] In a sermon he delivered in Mecca in 1353 AH, he said: “Whenever we find a strong argument in any of the four madhabs, we adopt it and adhere to it. But if we do not find strong evidence, we follow the opinion of Imam Ahmad. Here is the book Al-Tahawiyyah on creed, which we read, and its commentary by the Hanafis. And here is Tafsir Ibn Kathir, whose author was a Shafi‘i.” Tarikh al-Bilad al-‘Arabiyyah al-Sa‘udiyyah by Munir al-‘Ajlani (p. 229). He also said elsewhere: “There is no difference between the Imams: Malik, al-Shafi‘i, Ahmad, and Abu Hanifah—all of them are respected in our eyes.” Al-Wajiz fi Sirat al-Malik ‘Abd al-‘Aziz by Al-Zarkali (p. 217). 

[97] From the Shaykh's lessons in Sharh al-‘Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah. 

[98] Al-Muntaqa min Tanwir al-Sahifah (p. 142). 

[99] As in Al-Mu‘jam fi Tasmiyat Rijal al-Hafiz Abi Dharr al-Harawi (p. 390), his authentication of Abu Hanifah will not benefit those who disparage him, as Abu Dharr al-Harawi was an Ash‘ari, and on the same page, he describes the famous Ash‘ari theologian Ibn Furak as a trustworthy and reliable Imam, while they anathematize prominent Ash‘ari scholars. Therefore, they cannot use his authentication as evidence, leaving them unable to refute this argument concerning Kitab al-Sunnah. 

[100] Al-Durar al-Saniyyah (1/97). 

[101] Ibid. (1/64). 

[102] Minhaj al-Ta’sis wal-Taqdis fi Kashf Shubuhat Dawud ibn Jarjis (p. 62). 

[103] Al-Durar al-Saniyyah (2/66). 

[104] Ibid (3/53). 

[105] Ibid. (11/177). 

[106] Ibid. (3/33).

[107] Ibid. (1/245).

[108] Ibid. (4/105).

[109] Ibid. (1/516).

[110] Fatawa wa Rasa’il Samahat al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn ‘Abd al-Latif Al al-Shaykh (13/161-162).

[111] Ibid. Shaykh (1/245).

[112] Fatawa wa-Rasa’il Samahat al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn ‘Abd al-Latif Al al-Shaykh (13/143).

[113] Majmu‘ Fatawa Ibn Baz (1/343).

[114] Ibid. (1/132).