| Answer: The chief objection
raised against Imam Abū Hanīfah is that he did not give due regard to the
narratives ascribed to the Holy Prophet (sws) while forming opinion on
specific matters and would prefer his own understanding of the religious
sources and reasoning faculty. It is also said that he did not have a proper
knowledge of the Hadīth.
These objections in fact
are merely product of lack of understanding and seem to have been raised by
those who preferred to follow the apparent meaning of the sayings of the
Holy Prophet (sws) and deemed it unwise to get to the crux and spirit of
these sayings.
Imam Abū Hanīfah was a
jurist. Obviously his field of interest was a study of the sources of Islam
and inference of legal rulings. It is quite impossible for one to undertake
such a crucial subject without proper study of the understanding of the Holy
Prophet (sws) and his explanations to the sources. The Imam had accoutered
himself with proper knowledge of the Hadīth but he did not have much role in
reporting and compiling Hadīth. He would not see the traditions reported to
him with the eyes of those whose work was just to report or compile sayings
of the Holy Prophet (sws) rather he had to analyze these on the yardstick of
the basic sources of Islam viz. the Holy Qur’ān and the Sunnah as well as
common sense and established historical facts. Naturally he could accept
them only if found in conformity with these sources. This is what exactly
the scholars of the science of Hadīth would do while comparing the
traditions with one another and accepting the solid ones against the weaker
ones. But the Imam had before him the greater and more reliable sources, the
Holy Qur’ān and the practice of the entire Ummah to gauge the validity of
the reports. This I would say is the most plausible approach and should not
be condemned anyway if exercised considering the sayings ascribed to the
Holy Prophet (sws).
It is a well-known
historical fact that the referred Imam boasts a contribution towards the
formation and development of the discipline of Islamic Jurisprudence which
any other scholar could hardly claim. People used the word ‘man of opinion’
for him which is a true depiction of his stature. But unfortunately the term
has developed a negative meaning as it seems to reflect that he was anti
Hadīth who would reject the sayings of the Holy Prophet (sws) against his
reasoning thus deprecating the value of the Prophetic sayings. This,
however, cannot be justified as any critique of his works would testify that
he always gave due weight to the basic sources of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah
against individual reports. |