1

Notes on al-Imam al-A'zam

Category Imam Abu Hanifah and ‘Aqidah

SEP 15 2013

Short Statements of Creed from Imam Abu Hanifah

In a number of reports found in the biographies of al-Khatib al-Baghdadi and Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Imam Abu Hanifah
succintly defines the beliefs of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah in the context of the different heresies of the time. I
will mention five of these narrations below without any analyses of the chains as the multiple corresponding
transmissions corroborate one another so there is no need to assess individual chains. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s reports
come from his transmission of a book on the virtues of Imam Abu Hanifah collected by Yusuf ibn Ahmad ibn Yusuf
ibn al-Dakhil al-Saydalani Abu Ya‘qub al-Makki (d. 388), known as “Ibn al-Dakhil,” who was referred to as “the
muhaddith of Makkah” and the “transmi�er of of Makkah” by al-Dhahabi.

1. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr transmi�ed from Ibn al-Dakhil with the chain: Ahmad ibn al-Hasan al-Hafiz – Muhammad ibn
al-Fadl ibn al-‘Abbas – Muhammad ibn Salamah – ‘Ali ibn Habib – Abu ‘Ismah Nuh ibn Abi Maryam: “I asked Abu
Hanifah: ‘Who are the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah?’ He said: ‘The one who does not ponder about [the nature of
the essence and a�ributes of] Allah (Great and Glorious), and he does not anathematise anybody because of a
sin, and he gives precedence to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar [over all the Sahabah], and he maintains allegiance with ‘Ali
and ‘Uthman, and he does not forbid bo�led nabidh, and he wipes over leather socks.’ (al-Intiqa’, p. 314)

2. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr transmi�ed from Ibn al-Dakhil with the chain: Abu ‘Ali Ahmad ibn ‘Uthman al-Asbahani – Abu
Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Abd Allah – Dawud ibn Abi l-‘Awwam – Abu al-‘Awwam – Yahya ibn Nasr: “Abu Hanifah
would favour Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and he would love ‘Ali and ‘Uthman, and he believed in predestination, the
good of it and the bad of it, and he did not speak regarding [the nature of the essence and a�ributes of] Allah
(Great and Glorious) at all, and he would wipe his leather socks, and he was from the most knowledgeable of his
people in jurisprudence and the most pious of them.” Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi also narrated it with his chain.

3. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr narrates from Ibn al-Dakhil with the chain: Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Simnani – Ahmad ibn
Muhammad ibn al-Harawi – ‘Ali ibn Khashram – ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Muthanna: “Abu Hanifah would prefer
Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and then he would say: ‘Ali and ‘Uthman, and then after this he would say: whoever was
earlier and more pious he is superior.”

4. Muhammad ibn Hafs al-Marwazi – ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Hatim – Khalaf ibn Yahya – Hammad ibn Abi Hanifah: I
heard Abu Hanifah say: “The congregation (jama’ah) is that you prefer Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and ‘Ali and
‘Uthman, and you do not demean any of the companions of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him
peace), and you pray [janazah] over one who says “there is no deity but Allah” and behind one who says “there
is no deity but Allah” and you wipe the two leather socks and you consign authority to Allah and you leave
discussion about [the nature of the essence and a�ributes of] Allah (Glorious is His Magnificence).” (Intiqa p. 315)

5. Al-Khatib narrates with the chain: Hafiz Abu Nu’aym al-Asbahani – Abu Bakr ‘Abd Allah ibn Yahya al-Talhi –
‘Uthman ibn ‘Ubayd Allah al-Talhi – Isma’il ibn Muhammad al-Talhi – Sa’id ibn Salim al-Basri: I heard Abu Hanifah
say: “I met ‘Ata’ in Makkah and I asked him about something. He asked: ‘Where are you from?’ I said: ‘From the
people of Kufa.’ He said: ‘You are from the people of the village who split the religion into sects?’ I said: ‘Yes.’ He
said: ‘Then from which of the groups are you?’ I said: ‘From those who do not insult the predecessors and believe
in predestination and do not anathematise anybody because of a sin.’ So ‘Ata’ said to me: ‘You have recognised
[the truth] so stay firm [on it].ʹ” (Tarikh Baghdad 15:454)

The doctrinal opinions found in these statements are further corroborated by Imam al-Tahawi’s transmission of the
beliefs of Imam Abu Hanifah in his famous creedal formula famously known as al-‘Aqidat al-Tahawiyyah, and by al-
Fiqh al-Akbar which is either the work of Imam Abu Hanifah himself or at least accurately represents his views on
beliefs based on an early account from him. As shown in earlier posts, Imam Abu Hanifah had probably excelled in
a primitive form of proto-Kalam, and he made very specific and nuanced conclusions regarding the heretical beliefs
of the Jahmiyyah on the one hand and the Mushabbihah led by Muqatil ibn Sulayman on the other. It is no wonder
therefore that he is believed to not only be the founder of a law school but also a school of doctrinal theology. May
Allah bless the Imam for this tremendous service and bestow on him abundant rewards on behalf of the ummah
who are in his debt. ‫ﺁﻣﻴﻦ ﻳﺎ ﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﻦ‬

By muhammadunali • Posted in Imam Abu Hanifah and ʹAqidah

JAN 15 2012

Imam Abu Hanifah on the Uncreatedness of the Qur’an

Because some of the students of the companions of Imam Abu Hanifah supported and propogated the Mu’tazili
doctrine of the createdness of the Qur’an, and campaigned for it during the infamous mihnah which began under the
rein of caliph Abu al-‘Abbas al-Ma’mun (170 – 218), some began to suspect that this was the opinion of Imam Abu
Hanifah himself. In fact, in Orientalist circles, this view is still current, that Abu Hanifah originated the doctrine of
the createdness of the Qur’an! But, Imam Abu Hanifah, is innocent of this heresy. In examining a few narrations
from al-Khatib al-Baghdadi’s biography of the Imam, I will show that the preponderant view amongst the
companions of Abu Hanifah was that of the uncreatedness of the Qur’an, and this is in fact traced authentically to
the Imam himself, while a few followers of his school strayed and adopted the Mu’tazili and Jahmi doctrine.

1. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi narrated with his chain to al-Hakam ibn Bashir that he said: “I heard Sufyan ibn Sa‘id al-
Thawri and al-Nu‘man ibn Thabit say: ‘The Qur’an is the uncreated speech of Allah.’” (al-Qur’an kalam Allah ghayr
makhluq) (Tarikh Baghdad 15:517) Dr. Bashshar ‘Awwad Ma‘ruf comments: “Its isnad is hasan.”

This is, therefore, an authentic report establishing that Imam Abu Hanifah believed in the uncreatedness of the
Qur’an in accordance with the position of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah. This is further corroborated by Imam al-
Tahawi’s transmission of the beliefs of Imam Abu Hanifah in his famous creedal formula known as al-‘Aqidat al-
Tahawiyyah, and by al-Fiqh al-Akbar which is either the work of Imam Abu Hanifah himself or at least accurately
represents his views based on an early account from him – both of which state that the Qur’an is the uncreated
speech of Allah.

2. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi narrated with a chain of trustworthy narrators, besides one narrator who is unknown, that
Ibn al-Mubarak came to Abu Hanifah and Abu Hanifah said to him: “What is this thing that has crept amongst
you [i.e. the people of Khurasan]?” He said to him: “A man called Jahm.” He said: “What does he say?” He said:
“He says the Qur’an is created.” Thereupon, Abu Hanifah said [quoting the Qur’an]: “Grave is the word that
comes out of their mouths! (Qur’an 18:5).” (Tarikh Baghdad 15:517)

Although there is some question over the authenticity of this report due to the unidentifiable narrator in the chain, it
is known that Abu Hanifah opposed Jahm on the issue of the a�ributes of Allah and he also declared him a
disbeliever as established elsewhere (h�ps://notesonalimamalazam.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/an-explanation-of-
the-irja-of-imam-abu-hanifah/), so it is probable he addressed this false belief of Jahm also.

3. Al-Khatib narrated with his chain to Abu Bakr al-Marrudhi that he said: “I heard Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad ibn
Hanbal say: ‘It is not authentic according to us that Abu Hanifah would say the Qur’an is created.ʹ” (Tarikh
Baghdad 15:517) Dr. Bashshar ‘Awwad Ma‘ruf comments: “Its isnad is sahih.”

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was the champion of the Ahl al-Sunnah during the period of the mihnah, and his major
enemies besides the ruling elite were some scholars of the Hanafi school, in particular the judge Ahmad ibn Abi
Dawud; and even as the charge that Abu Hanifah supported the state doctrine was being propogated, Imam Ahmad
did not buy into this false propaganda and defended the Imam.

4. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi narrated with his chain to al-Nakha‘i that he said: Muhammad ibn Shadhan al-Jawhari
narrated to us: He said: I heard Sulayman al-Juzjani and Mu‘lla ibn Mansur al-Razi say: “Abu Hanifah did not
speak about [the createdness of] the Qur’an, nor Abu Yusuf, nor Zufar, nor Muhammad, nor any of their
companions. Only Bishr al-Marisi and Ibn Abi Dawud spoke about [the createdness of] the Qur’an, so they
tarnished [the good beliefs of] the companions of Abu Hanifah.” (Tarikh Baghdad 15:518). Dr Bashshar says: “Its
isnad is sahih.”

The scholars who are quoted in this report, Abu Sulayman al-Juzjani and Mu‘alla ibn Mansur, were major scholars
of Hanafi jurisprudence, as known to muftis of the Hanafi school. They were authors of some Nawadir literature, and
fatawa. They were also amongst the few scholars who openly opposed the view of the createdness of the Qur’an,
although this was before al-Ma’mun’s inquisition.

Mu‘alla ibn Mansur al-Razi, Abu Ya‘la (150 – 211), is a narrator of hadith found in all the six famous collections of
hadith. He narrated from the famous hadith-scholar Hammad ibn Zayd (98-179) as found in Sahih al-Bukhari, and he
also narrated from ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak, Malik ibn Anas, al-Layth ibn Sa‘d, and from the students of Imam
Abu Hanifah, Yahya ibn Zakariyya ibn Abi Za’idah, Qadi Abu Yusuf, ‘Ali ibn Mushir and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan
al-Shaybani. Abu Zur‘ah al-Razi said: “Al-Mu‘alla was the best of the group – meaning, the champions of juristic
opinion (ashab al-ra’y) – according to the people of knowledge. That was because he was ardent in his search for
knowledge and he travelled and gave a�ention [to it]…al-Mu‘alla is reliable.” Yahya ibn Ma‘in said he is
trustworthy. Yahya ibn Ma‘in narrated: “Al-Mu‘alla ibn Mansur al-Razi was one day praying, when his head was
stung by a wasp, and he did not move until he completed his salah. When they looked, his head had become
extremely swollen.” Al-‘Ijli said: “Trustworthy, a champion of sunnah. He was noble. They asked him to take the
position of judge and he refused multiple times.” Ya‘qub ibn Shaybah said: “Trustworthy…proficeint, reliable, a
jurist.” Ibn Sa‘d said: “He resided in Baghdad, sought hadith, and he was reliable, a master of hadith, opinion and
jurisprudence.” Abu Hatim al-Razi said: “He was reliable in hadith and a champion of juristic opinion.” Ahmad ibn
Kamil al-Qadi said: “Mu‘alla ibn Mansur was from the senior companions of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, and from
their trustworthy ones in transmission and narration.” Abu Ahmad ibn ‘Adi said: “I hope there is no harm in him
because I did not find any objectionable hadith from him.” It was narrated from him that he said: “Whoever says the
Qur’an is created is according to me a disbeliever.” Al-Khatib said: “He was a jurist from the champions of opinion.
He took from Qadi Abu Yusuf and he was trustworthy.” (Tahdhib al-Kamal 28:291-7) Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani wrote in
al-Taqrib, “Mu’alla ibn Mansur al-Razi, Abu Ya’la, a resident of Baghdad, a trustworthy Sunni jurist, he was asked to
become judge and he refused, those who claimed Ahmad accused him of lying erred.”

Regarding Abu Sulayman al-Juzjani, al-Dhahabi says: “‘Allamah Imam Abu Sulayman Musa ibn Sulayman al-
Juzajani al-Hanafi, the companion of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad. He narrated from them and from Ibn al-Mubarak.
Qadi Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Birti, Bishr ibn Musa, Abu Hatim al-Razi and others narrated from him. He was
reliable (saduq) and dear to the scholars of hadith. Ibn Abi Hatim said: “He would anathematise those who held the
Qur’an was created.” (al-Jarh wa al-Ta‘dil 8:145) It was said that al-Ma’mun offered him the position of judge and he
refused, and he gave the excuse that he is not qualified for it so he excused him. He became noble in the eyes of the
people due to his refusal. He authored books.” (Siyar A’lam al-Nubala 10:194 )

Al-Khatib described him as: “Musa ibn Sulayman, Abu Sulayman al-Juzjani. He heard ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak,
‘Amr ibn Jumay‘ and Abu Yusuf and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, the two companions of Abu Hanifah. He was a faqih
with insight into juristic opinion. He adopted the methodology of the Sunnah regarding the Qur’an [i.e. that it is
uncreated]. He lived in Baghdad and narrated therein. ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Hasan al-Hashimi, Ahmad ibn Muhammad
ibn ‘Isa al-Birti and Bishr ibn Musa al-Asadi narrated from him. Ibn Abi Hatim said: ‘My father wrote from him and
he said he was reliable.ʹ” (Tarikh Baghdad 15:26-7)

Abu Sulayman al-Juzjani and Mu’alla ibn Mansur were of course more aware of the views of their teachers and their
grand-teacher than others.

Therefore, although Bishr ibn Ghiyath al-Marisi (140 – 218) and Ahmad ibn Abi Dawud (full name: Ahmad ibn Faraj
ibn Hariz) (160 – 240) stood as proponents of the Mu’tazili doctrine while claiming to belong to the Hanafi school,
true followers of the madhhab opposed them, and clarified the position of their teachers and the teacher of their
teachers. “Bishr” in Arabic means “joy” and “Ahmad” means “the most praised.” Based on this, Imam al-Dhahabi
wrote under the biography of Bishr al-Marisi: “He was the bishr (joy) of evil while Bishr [ibn al-Harith] al-Hafi [the
famous ascetic] (152 – 227) was the bishr of goodness, just as Ahmad ibn Hanbal was the ahmad (the most praised
one) in the Sunnah and Ahmad ibn Abi Dawud was the ahmad in bid’ah.” (Siyar A’lam al-Nubala 10:202)

By muhammadunali • Posted in Imam Abu Hanifah and ʹAqidah

DEC 6 2011

An Explanation of the Irja’ of Imam Abu Hanifah

This issue of irja’ (literally: postponement) with respect to Imam Abu Hanifah – which has unforunately become a
common talking point for the denigrators of the Imam – was discussed in great detail by Imam ‘Abd al-Hayy al-
Laknawi in his al-Raf’ wa l-Takmil (h�p://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=608) (pp. 149-81). When the term “irja” was
applied to Imam Abu Hanifah, his shuyukh and his students, it was from two groups:

1. The first are the Mu’tazilah and the Khawarij who used this term for them because they actively opposed the
Mu’tazilah and the Khawarij in their belief that a major sin takes one out of faith (iman). Imam al-Shahrastani (d. 548)
wrote in his work al-Milal wa l-Nihal, “[Abu Hanifah] would oppose the Qadariyyah and the Mu‘tazilah who
appeared in the early period, and the Mu‘tazilah would designate all who opposed them with regards to faith
“murji’”.” (quoted in al-Raf’ p. 155) The Mu’tazili and Khariji belief is that a believing perpetrator of a major sin who
does not repent will forever be punished in the Fire, and this belief is opposed by the Ahl al-Sunnah. Imam al-
Shahrastani also said: “The men of the murji’ah [i.e. the famous personalities who believed in irja’], as transmi�ed,
are: al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, Sa‘id ibn Jubayr, Talq ibn Habib, ‘Amr ibn Murrah, Muharib ibn
Dithar, Muqatil ibn Sulayman, Dharr, ‘Amr ibn Dharr, Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf,
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan and Qudayd ibn Ja‘far. These are all imams of hadith. They did not declare the
perpetrators of major sins disbelievers due to a major sin, and they did not make a judgement that they abide
eternally in the Fire, as distinguished from the Khawarij and the Qadariyyah.” (quoted in al-Raf’ p. 164) Similarly al-
Taftazani said in Sharh al-Maqasid: “It is well-known regarding the madhhab of the Mu‘tazilah that the perpetrator of
a major sin without repentance will be made to stay eternally in the Fire, even if he lived for a hundred years upon
faith and obedience. They do not distinguish between the major sin being one or many, and [whether] it occurred
before the acts of obedience, after them or between them. They deem [the position of] uncertainty about
punishment, and consigning the ma�er to Allah, forgiving if He wishes and punishing if He wishes, which is the
madhhab of the people of truth, irja’, in the sense that it is postponement of the ma�er and uncertainty of punishment
and reward. By this consideration, Abu Hanifah and others were placed amongst the murji’ah.” (quoted in al-Raf’ p.
158)

2. The second group who referred to Abu Hanifah and other fuqaha as “murji’” are the muhaddithun, like Imam al-
Bukhari, who believed that works/deeds (‘amal) are included in the definition of iman and iman increases and
decreases, so they referred to those who said works are not included in the definition of iman and that it does not
increase and decrease in its essence “murji’ah.” Al-Laknawi offers a number of quotes from the books of Rijal to
prove this, including the following: Al-‘Asqalani narrated in Lisan al-Mizan in the biography of Muhammad ibn al-
Hasan: Ibn ‘Adi transmi�ed from Ishaq ibn Rahwayh: I heard Yahya ibn Adam say: Sharik would not permit the
testimony of the murji’ah. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan bore testimony before him and he rejected his testimony. He
was asked about this, and he said: “I do not permit the testimony of one who says prayers are not from faith!”
(quoted in al-Raf’ pp. 162-3) This is clear in showing that the muhaddithun regarded those who believed works are
not included in the definition of iman as murji’ah.

It is clear, therefore, that the reason Imam Abu Hanifah, his students and his teachers, were called “murji’ah” by the
Mu’tazilah firstly and the muhaddithun later, is their belief in the following:

1. Works are not included in the definition of the essence of faith (iman)
2. Faith (iman) does not increase or decrease
3. The believing man who perpetrates a major sin and does not repent may be punished and he may be forgiven

The la�er is the belief of all of the Ahl al-Sunnah. The first two is the belief of the ‘aqidah-scholars including Imam
al-Tahawi (in his al-Aqidat al-Tahawiyyah), al-Maturidi, Abu Hanifah, and others, with the hadith-scholars
disagreeing. However, this is only a semantic dispute as concluded by the verifying scholars, because although the
muhaddithun include works in the definition of iman, if a man has no works and he is sinful, they still accept that he
may be a believer (mu’min) which implies that the absence of works does not necessarily imply even according to
them the absence of faith (iman). Therefore, works, in this sense, even according to the muhaddithin, are not included
in iman, whereas confirmation with the heart (tasdiq bi l-qalb) is universally accepted as being fundamental to the
nature and essence of iman.

Regarding the second point, it is as articulated by al-Tahawi, “Iman is confession with the tongue and confirmation
with the heart, and that everything that was revealed by Allah in the Qur’an and everything that is authentic from
the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) regarding the Shari’a and explanation [of the Qur’an] is all true.
Iman is one and its adherents are in its essence the same, and the superiority [of some over others] is due to taqwa
and opposing desires.” (al-‘Aqidat al-Tahawiyyah) Again, the dispute with the muhaddithun on this issue is a semantic
dispute as all agree the believers vary, but Abu Hanifah, al-Tahawi and others say this variation is not in the essence
of iman but in its branches, while others say this variation is in iman itself.

There is no doubt, therefore, that the murji’ah are two types: those of the Ahl al-Sunnah and those deviants who
claimed that sins do not harm a believer and faith is sufficient for salvation, both of which Abu Hanifah rejected.
This division of the murji’ah was explicitly mentioned by some of the scholars, including al-Shahrastani, Abu Shakur
al-Salimi (d. 1077), and al-Birgivi (d. 981). It was even reported from Imam Abu Hanifah in his le�er to ‘Uthman al-
Ba�i.

Regarding a commonly quoted passage from Ghunyat al-Talibin by Imam ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani in which he includes
the “Hanafiyya,” subscribers to the doctrine of irja’ amongst the deviant groups, al-Laknawi discusses this at great
length on pages 166-81. He shows that at best this is a contradiction from al-Jilani (who is not infallible), since he
refers to Imam Abu Hanifah as “Imam” and quotes his opinions as valid fiqhi opinions. Examples of this are given
in page 169 of al-Raf’ wa l-Takmil. This shows al-Jilani did not believe Abu Hanifah was a deviant.

Then, al-Laknawi offers a number of responses to this text from Ghunyat al-Talibin, and he favours the following: Al-
Shahrastani, while listing the murji’ah, included the sect called “Ghassaniyyah” which he describes as “the
Ghassaniyyah, the companions of Ghassan ibn Aban al-Kufi who believed that faith is knowledge of Allah and His
Messenger and acceptance of all that the Messenger brought, and that if a speaker were to say “I know that Allah
made Hajj to the Ka‘bah obligatory but I do not know where the Ka‘bah is, and it may be in India, he is a believer.””
(quoted in al-Raf’ p. 153) In Ghunyat al-Talibin, al-Jilani uses almost the exact same description of the beliefs of
“Hanafiyya” when describing their irja: “As for the Hanafiyyah, they are the companions of Abu Hanifah al-Nu‘man
ibn Thabit. They believe that faith is knowledge and acceptance of Allah and His Messenger and all that he brought
from His presence.” (quoted in al-Raf’ p. 167) Al-Jilani, while listing the groups of murji’ah, did not mention the
Ghassaniyyah and it is known Ghassan would falsely a�ribute his madhhab to Abu Hanifah: Al-Shahrastani said, “It
is strange that Ghassan would narrate his madhhab from Abu Hanifah and he counted him amongst the murji’ah. This
is most probably a slander against him.” (quoted in al-Raf’ p. 155) Ibn Hajar al-Makki said something similar. Al-
Jilani, therefore, by “Hanafiyyah” and the “companions of Abu Hanifah” most probably meant the Ghassaniyyah
who claimed to follow Abu Hanifah. It is also well-known that many of those who followed Abu Hanifah in the
peripheral ma�ers of jurisprudence were Mu’tazili in creed or followed another deviant creed. Al-Jilani’s statement
is therefore best understood not as referring to Abu Hanifah and his true companions/followers, but this deviant sect
called the Ghassaniyyah who claimed to be followers of Abu Hanifah.

—————————————–

Abu Hanifah lived at a time when many new deviations were emerging, like Rafidism, Jahmism and Muqatilism,
and he stood fast on the beliefs of the Ahl al-Sunnah, and condemned them in strong terms. For example, Al-Khatib
al-Baghdadi narrates: al-Khallal reported to us: al-Hariri reported to us that ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Nakha‘i narrated
to them: Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Mukram narrated to us: Bishr ibn al-Walid narrated to us: I heard Abu Yusuf
say: Abu Hanifah said: “Two groups of the worst of people are from Khurasan: the Jahmiyyah and the
Mushabbihah (antropomorphists),” and he probably said [instead of “Mushabbihah”] “Muqatiliyyah (followers of
Muqatil ibn Sulayman (d. 150 H)).” (Tarikh Baghdad 15:514-15) Dr. Bashshar ‘Awwad Ma‘ruf said: “Its isnad is sahih,
its narrators are trustworthy (thiqat).”

With the same chain, al-Khatib narrates: al-Nakha‘i said: Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Affan narrated to us: Yahya ibn
‘Abd al-Hamid ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Himmani narrated to us from his father: I heard Abu Hanifah say: “Jahm ibn
Safwan is a kafir.” (Tarikh Baghdad 15:515) Dr. Bashshar ‘Awwad Ma‘ruf said: “Its isnad is hasan.”

Imam Abu Hanifah’s opinion on Jahm is in fact quoted in the books of Rijal. Al-‘Asqalani said in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib
(vol 10:281): “Muhammad ibn Sima’ah (who is thiqah according al-Saymari and saduq according to al-‘Asqalani in al-
Taqrib) narrated from Abu Yusuf from Abu Hanifah that he said: ‘Jahm went overboard in negation until he said:
He [i.e. Allah] is nothing, and Muqatil went overboard in affirmation until He deemed Allah to be like His
creation.’” Al-‘Asqalani also quotes him saying: “Two disgusting opinions came to us from the east: Jahm the
negator [of Allah’s a�ributes] and Muqatil the anthropomorphist.”

This clearly illustrates Imam Abu Hanifah’s greatness in the eyes of the scholars of Rijal, and the fact Imam Abu
Hanifah stood against the distortions in ‘aqidah, of ta’til (negating Allah’s a�ributes) and tashbih (comparing Allah to
creation) in this early period. Some of his expressions in ‘aqidah were recorded by his students, and the most famous
statement on the creed of Abu Hanifah is Imam al-Tahawi’s Bayanu ‘Aqidati Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah which is
probably the most well-known and accepted formulae on Muslim creed throughout the history of Sunni Islam.

By muhammadunali • Posted in Imam Abu Hanifah and ʹAqidah