[oronozopiy]

Ibn Adi narrated: The son of the Muhaddith Abu Dawud said that the great scholar (of Basra) Ayyub assahdiyani, the great scholar (of Koofa) Sufyan ath-Thouri, the great scholar (of Hijaaz) Imam Maalik Ibn Anas, the scholar (from Egypt) Allais ibn’u sa’t, the great Scholar of Khurasaan Abdullah Ibn Mubarak – ALL said that Imam Abu Hanifa was ‘weak’ in Hadeeth.

The statement Abu Usamah mentioned from Ibn 'Adi's al-Kamil fi Du'afa al-Rijal is as follows:

سمعت بن أبى داود يقول الوقيعة في أبى حنيفة جماعة من العلماء لان امام البصرة أيوب السختياني وقد تكلم فيه وإمام الكوفة الثوري وقد تكلم فيه وامام الحجاز مالك وقد تكلم فيه وامام مصر الليث بن سعد وقد تكلم فيه وامام الشام الأوزاعي وقد تكلم فيه وامام خراسان عبد الله بن المبارك وقد تكلم فيه فالوقيعة فيه إجماع من العلماء في جميع الأفاق

I heard Ibn Abi Dawud say: "A multitude of 'ulama criticised Abu Hanifah. Thus, the Imam of Basra was Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani and he criticised him; the Imam of Kufa was al-Thawri and he criticised him; the Imam of Hijaz was Malik and he criticised him; and the Imam of Egypt was al-Layth and he criticised him; and the Imam of Shaam was al-Awza'i and he criticised him; and the Imam of the Khurasan was 'Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak and he criticised him. Hence, the criticism of him is ijma of the 'ulama in all regions."

There are three problems with this:

Firstly, Ibn Abi Dawud is Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud, the son of the famous Abu Dawud al-Sijistani, the author of the Sunan. His full name is 'Abd Allah ibn Sulayman ibn al-Ash'ath al-Sijistani. He was born in 230 Hijri and died in 316 Hijri, so Ibn Adi (277 - 365 Hijri) heard from him directly. However this Ibn Abi Dawud is not free from criticism. Ibrahim al-Asbahani said he is a "liar" (kadhdhab). His own father Abu Dawud said he is a "liar" (kadhdhab). It should be noted, in the nomenclature of the hadith-experts "lying" may mean lying and it may also mean error. Al-Daraqutni said he is "trustworthy (thiqah) but makes lots of mistakes" (see Lisan al-Mizan vol 4 pp. 190-5). Hence, this narrator is not free from criticism, so how can his criticism or his narration be accepted? Moreover, Abu Usamah in his first talk on Abu Hanifah actually mentioned the narration from Abu Dawud that his son is a liar, and now he uses him as evidence calling the chain "authentic", which clearly shows his dishonesty and bias.

Secondly, Ibn Abi Dawud does not give the chain to any of those he mentioned. And he did not hear directly from any of them. So the chain is broken (munqati') which means it is weak. Ibn al-Mubarak died in 181 Hijri, al-Thawri in 161 Hijri, al-Awza'i in 157 Hijri, Malik in 179 Hijri and al-Sakhtiyani in 131 Hijri; while Ibn Abi Dawud was born in 230 Hijri. Based on this, Abu Usamah's claim that this is "authentic" is an obvious attempt to pass off a clearly inauthentic chain (which he knows is not authentic) as sound.

Finally, there are reports from Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak, al-Layth ibn Sa'd, Malik and al-Thawri all praising Abu Hanifah found in for example Tahdhib al-Kamal by al-Mizzi and other books. (you can see Tahdhib al-Kamal here vol 29, see pages 417-445 - the late scholars, al-Mizzi, al-Dhahabi, al-Asqalani all agreed to narrate only the praise and tawthiq of Abu Hanifah and reject the criticism as the criticism was either weak or the rejected kind of criticism - see for more detail Makanat al-Imam Abi Hanifah fi l-Hadith by Shaykh Abd al-Rashid al-Nu'mani)

Imam Bhukari’s Sheik Abdullah bin Zubair Al-Humaidi said Abu Hanifa was weak in Hadeeth

Imam Al-Bukhari narrated in his “Tarikh Sagheer” p 174 from Nuyam ibn Hammad:

“Ibrahim ibn Muhammad Al-Fazari narrated to us: We were with Sufyan Ath-Thawri when we received the news of the death of Abu Hanifah, and he said: “Al-Hamdulillah, The One who relieved the Muslims from him, he was destroying the chains of Islam, one by one. None was born in Islam more ill-omened than him”

Here is a section from Abu Hanifah wa Ashabuhu l-Muhaddithun by Mawlana Zafar Uthmani, which answers both these quotes from al-Tarikh al-Saghir:

They mention thirdly from al-Tarkih al-Saghir (p. 174): “Nu‘aym ibn Hammad narrated to us, saying: al-Fazari narrated to us, saying: ‘We were with Sufyan al-Thawri when al-Nu‘man’s death was announced, and he said, ‘All praise to Allah! He was taking apart Islam branch by branch. No greater misfortune than him was ever born into Islam.’”

I say: “It is a grievous thing that issues from their mouth as a saying. What they say is nothing but falsehood!" (18:5). By Allah, there was not born into Islam, after the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and his companions, greater fortune and blessing than al-Nu‘man Abu Hanifa. The proof of this can be witnessed in the extinction of the schools of his attackers and the spread of the school of Abu Hanifah, and its increase in fame day and night. Allah and the believers reject all but Abu Hanifah. I do not blame al-Bukhari for this narration, since he only related what he heard. However, I blame for it his teacher Nu‘aym ibn Hammad, since, although he was hafiz of hadiths and some of them declared him trustworthy, nevertheless Hafiz Abu Bishr al-Dulabi said: “Nu‘aym narrates from Ibn al-Mubarak. Al-Nasa'i said, ‘He is weak,’ and others said, ‘He used to forge hadiths to strengthen the Sunnah, and stories on the demerits of Abu Hanifa all of which are false.” This was also said by Abu al-Fath al-Azdi: “They said: ‘He used to forge hadiths to strengthen the Sunnah, and fabricated stories on the demerits of Abu Hanifa all of which are false." This was mentioned in Tahdhib al-tahdhib (10:462-463.) It is mentioned in al-Mizan (3:240): “Al-‘Abbas ibn Mus‘ab said in his Tarikh, ‘Nu`aym ibn Hammad composed books to refute the Hanafis.” Indeed I, by Allah, clear Nu‘aym ibn Hammad of the charge that he forged Prophetic hadiths. However, there is no doubt of him being harsh against the Hanafis, bigoted against their imam, therefore neither his word nor his narration in respect to him will not be accepted.

If we were to accept the authenticity of what he narrated, Sufyan was a contemporary of Abu Hanifah and from his peers and his praise of the imam has also been narrated, as has passed that he said, “We were in front of Abu Hanifah like sparrows in front of a falcon,” (Qala’id of Ibn Hajar al-Makki) and when the imam offered his condolences upon the death of his brother, he stood up for him and honoured him and showed respect to him and sat him in his place and said to those who disapproved of this, “This man holds a high rank in knowledge, and if I did not stand up for his knowledge, I would stand up for his age, and if I did not stand up for his age, I would stand up for his scrupulousness, and if not, then for his jurisprudence.”

The quote from al-Subki that “one should not pay attention to the speech of al-Thawri against Abu Hanifah, Ibn Abi Dhi’b and others against Malik and Ibn Ma’in against al-Shafi’i,” due to it having arisen from contemporariness and aversion to one another etc., has preceded.

They mentioned fourthly that which is also in al-Tarikh al-Saghir by al-Bukhari (p. 158): “I heard al-Humaydi say: Abu Hanifa said: "I came to Makkah and took from the cupper three traditions (sunan) when I sat in front of him: He said to me to face the Ka‘ba, he began with the right side of my head [shaving], and he reached the two bones.” al-Humaydi said: “A man who does not have traditions from the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) nor from his companions concerning the rites [of Hajj] and other things, how can he be imitated in the laws of Allah in inheritance, , shares, Zakat, prayer, and the affairs of Islam?"” [al-Humaydi (d. 219) never met Abu Hanifah, so this chain is broken]

I say: Al-Humaydi wished to demean him, but he praised him without realising, for Abu Hanifah (Allah be pleased with him) was gracious and generous, grateful to whomever showed him kindness or taught him something, even a single letter. He was not one who kept hidden people's goodness towards him, and their favours upon him. So when he obtained something related to matters of religion from a cupper, he narrated his goodness, and he showed him up as his teacher, fulfilling his right. How strange this is from al-Humaydi, when his own teacher, al-Shafi‘i, said: “I carried from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani a camel-load of books,” and he would say: “Allah has helped me in hadith through Ibn ‘Uyayna, and in jurisprudence through Muhammad,” and it is to come. It is well-known that the knowledge of Muhammad ibn al-Hasan was complementary to the knowledge of Abu Hanifah. Imam al-Shafi’i also said: “Whoever seeks jurisprudence, let him stick to Abu Hanifah and his companions,” and he said: “All who seek jurisprudence, he is dependent on Abu Hanifah.” Despite this, al-Humaydi does not show gratitude for the Imam who is his teacher's teacher; he showed bad manners and rejected his favour.

The response to his statement: “A man who does not have traditions from the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)...” is that this incident i.e. the imam coming to Makkah and his learning the three traditions from the cupper probably took place in the youth and young age of the imam, since he went for Hajj with his father when he was young. It is not farfetched that a young man learnt something from rulings which he did not know previously from someone, especially since the imam’s preoccupation with knowledge was after his maturity as is mentioned in Radd al-Muhtar. It is also possible that this cupper was from the greatest of the noble ‘ulama and the elders of the great Tabi‘in, since that time was the early days of Islam and gaining knowledge was the highest mountain peak so the freed slaves and the slaves and the slave girls and the merchant and farmers and the people of professions excelled in memorising hadiths and narrations. Thus, the imam learnt these traditions from an ‘alim from the ‘ulama of the Tabi‘in whose occupation was a cupper, and there is undoubtedly no blame in this, for knowledge is not all acquired from one teacher in one day and professions and jobs do not prevent knowledge and do not prevent their performers from taking it; for many of the hadith-scholars were builders, carriers of wood, sellers and weavers, as is not hidden. From where does al-Humaydi know that that cupper was not one of the knowledgeable Tabi‘in, and that he either narrated these three traditions with their chain back to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), or suspended (mawquf) to a great Sahabi?

As for his statement: “How can he be imitated in the laws of Allah in inheritance, , shares, Zakat, prayer, and the affairs of Islam?” I say: If al-Humaydi did not imitate him, one greater than him did imitate him, I mean, our master, Imam al-Shafi`i whom al-Humaydi imitated, Yahya ibn Sa`id al-Qattan, Malik ibn Anas, Sufyan al-Thawri, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Waki` ibn al-Jarrah, `Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak, Yahya ibn Ma`in, and their likes. For al-Shafi‘i learnt from Muhammad [ibn al-Hasan] the jurisprudence of Abu Hanifah and benefited from his knowledge and recognised his being from those dependent on Abu Hanifah and there is no doubt in this; Malik would take the opinion of Abu Hanifah frequently as has passed although he would conceal it and not expose it (mentioned by al-Waqidi); Sufyan al-Thawri was similar as will come; and Ahmad sought hadith and knowledge first from Abu Yusuf al-Qadi and took jurisprudence from the books of Muhammad as will come. As for the others, their imitation of the imam is obvious. Then kings, sultans, caliphs, viziers, ‘ulama, hadith-scholars, pious people, jurist and worshippers imitated him, until Allah was worshipped according to the school of Abu Hanifah in Islam that which other than it was not worshipped according to. This was because of blessings of good manners upon which Abu Hanifa was grounded, because he did not look down upon taking the highest knowledge from a cupper, and so Allah made him the Imam of the Ummah, the greatest of the imams, and the guide of humanity.

Abu Hanifah wa Ashabu l-Muhaddithun pp.33-36