> The Hanafi Madhab...

[Malik]

Asslamu alaikum.

Brothers and Sisters in Islam. From where I am, I learned that most of the Sunni's practices here have influences from the Shafi'a Madhab. There is little known discipline here from the other 3 Madhabs. For me its kinda disappointing. So I am posting this thread because I want to know the different disciplines and fiqhs found in other school of thought specifically the madhab founded by Imam Hanafi. But if this was discussed already kindly direct me to the link please.

Can anyone share his thoughts about the Hanafi Madhab?

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by Malik

Asslamu alaikum.

Brothers and Sisters in Islam. From where I am, I learned that most of the Sunni's practices here have influences from the Shafi'a Madhab. There is little known discipline here from the other 3 Madhabs. For me its kinda disappointing. So I am posting this thread because I want to know the different disciplines and fiqhs found in other school of thought specifically the madhab founded by Imam Hanafi. But if this was discussed already kindly direct me to the link please.

Can anyone share his thoughts about the Hanafi Madhab?

akhee

you can go to this link to discuss more about the topic

Shariah and Usul al-Fiqh - Islamic-Life Forums

in a nut shell in terms of an usool standpoint

the four schools are divided into two main camps

1. ahlul-hadeeth
2. ahlul-ra'i

Imam abu Haneefah was the Imaam of the ahlul-ra'i. This became known as the school of the kufis or the school of kufa (a city in Iraq)

Imaam Maalik was the first of the rest of the schools to solidify the schools of ahlul-hadeeth, and then Shafi'ee an then Ahmad.

now the methodology of ahlul-ra'i was to use more of opinion rather than textual reports where as the ahlul-hadeeth was to really heavily on reports and very little with opinion, hence that is why they are called ahlul-ra'i i.e. people of opinions vs ahlul-hadeeth i.e. people of the narrations

the methodology of how ahlul-ra'i formulated their fundamentals was that they would view the fataawa of Abu Haneefa and then place principles around them thereby provifing the framework of hanafe usool based on the judgements of the early hanafis.

as for ahlul-hadeeth, the style of forming principles was the excact opposite, for them they developed the rules and then gave fatawa based on those rules. inshallah i can post more about it

[Aayah]

^ jazak Allah khair for that

I will be waiting more to be posted inshaAllah, I want to know more through examples of fatawaa if u can give any to find the difference between the two

[salman]

my two cents on this topic. First of all, the lay people (awam) need not to worry about issues like following a madhab or which madhab to follow, because awam has no madhab. If you want to be a student of knowledge then it is bit different and best thing is to learn the usool and fiqh from a madhab, which is more popular in your area, because it becomes easier to learn and adopt. I personally feel that it is much better to adopt the views of one of the latar schools (shafi'i and hanabli). There are number of benefits and advantages: 1) they are ahlul-hadith, 2) they are latar ones; hence, most solid, meaning closer to sunnah and having correct opinions in most cases and 3) they are much easier to adopt for people due to them being ahlul-hadith. Allahu A'lam

btw, I've nothing against the other 2 madaahib. It is just my love, and closeness to ahlul-hadith, due to their efforts of preserving the sunnah and sunni creed.

Here is thought of a brother and he put it very nicely:

It goes without saying that the ultimate basis for Shari'a is the Qur'an and Sunnah. Of course, there is also Ijma', Qiyas, and some other usul which vary between madhahib, but all the rest ultimately come back to Q&S.

Hanafi Fiqh is based in large part on the Hadith and Fatawa that were in circulation amongst the early Kufans, while Malik's Fiqh is dependent largely upon the Hadith and Fatawa of Hijaz, particularly al-Madina.

It should be noted taht it is true that the Hijaz, and particularly al-Madina, was the most important regional center for Hadith knowledge, but Hadith was in circulation through all the major centers of Islam, and all of it was not found in one particular place.

Al-Shafi'i is quoted as saying, "The Usul of Ahkam are 500 Hadiths, Malik had all of them except for 35, and Sufyan b. Uyaynah had them all but 19." (I believe al-Shafi'i is also on record as saying that the fundamental ayat of Ahkam are also about 500).

Obviously, it can be inferred from this that al-Shafi'i himself knew these hadiths. (As a sidenote, it is interesting that al-Hafiz Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi's `Umdat al-Ahkam consists of about 435 ahadith of ahkam, all of them Agreed Upon).

Al-Shafi'i learned from Malik, mastering his hadith and fiqh. As for his mastery of Fiqh, al-Shafi'i's reputation is such that there is no need for comment. As for his mastery of hadith, Imam Ahmad had heard al-Muwatta many times from teachers as illustrious as Abd al-Rahman b. Mahdi, but he found al-Shafi'i was precise in his narration of Muwatta, so he heard it again from him!

When al-Shafi'i appeared on the scene, he was truly a saviour for the Ahl al-Hadith. Although their fiqh had an underlying philosophy and a methodology, quite frankly, they were not as good at articulating it as their rivals from Ahl al-Ra'i. Al-Shafi'i changed that. It is no coincidence that it was no less than Abd al-Rahman b. Mahdi, the Imam of Ilal and Jarh wal-Ta'dil, who asked al-Shafi'i to write his Risala, and it was none other than Ali b. al-Madini, al-Bukhari's mentor in Hadith and Ilal, who urged al-Shafi'i to accede to Abd al-Rahman's request.

His Risala, as is well known, was the pioneering work in the field of Usul al-Fiqh, but less well known, it was also a groundbreaking work in Usul al-Hadith. In fact, al-Shafi'i's writings as a whole can be seen as an extrapolation and defense of the way of Ahl al-Hadith. He responds not only to Ahl al-Ra'i, but also to hadith rejectors. His writings are still essential for anyone interested in rebutting those who reject hujjiyat al-sunnah or hujjiyat al-hadith.

When al-Shafi'i came to Baghdad, Imam Ahmad was keen to learn and benefit from him, so much so that Yahya b. Ma'in became jealous of al-Shafi'i. It seems that some were surprised at the amount of time Imam Ahmad spent with al-Shafi'i, as he told his peers, "Take advantage of him, for if you miss a hadith with a high chain, you can always hear it later from a lower chain, but if you miss out on the intellect of this young Qurashi man, you will not find it with anyone else."

Add to this, the man is a Qurashi Muttalibi known to be a hujjah in the language. People who knew him said that whenever he spoke, you would say, there was no single word he could have chosen better than each word that he used. In fact, I remember reading once that a contemporary shaykh used to read al-Shafi'i's Umm - having no interest in fiqh - just for the sake of al-Shafi'i's language.

It is a credit to his madhhab that he more than any other Imam laid out his own madhhab and his own usul in writing. It is my belief that this is the reason why this eventually became the most popular madhhab amongst Ahl al-Hadith, surpassing even the Hanbali madhhab, which may seem at first glance to be the most natural choice. The reason was simple. Every muhaddith could go obtain the books of al-Shafi'i, transcribe them, and thus lay his foundation in Fiqh, and go about the long and tedious task of acquiring hadith. This was not so feasible with the Hanbali madhhab as Imam Ahmad did not write down his madhhab, and he even discouraged the writing down and compilation of his madhhab.

As for the Hanbali madhhab, what can one say about Imam Ahmad? He is a faqih, usuli, and muhaddith of the first class. In hadith, I feel I can say without exaggeration that he is the greatest and most knowledgeable Imam, perhaps even more so than al-Bukhari. Whatever the case, I can say confidently that he is stricter than al-Bukhari in grading hadiths. There were many Imams from the generation of Imam Ahmad and al-Bukhari such as Ishaq b. Rahuyah (or Rahawayh), Yahya b. Ma'in, Ali b. al-Madini, Abu Hatim, Abu Zur'ah, al-Nasa'i, etc. who essentially encompassed the whole of the hadith literature, a feat not possible before their generations. However, only of them went on to have a fully developed madhhab of his own.

What is more, al-Hafiz ibn Rajab al-Hanbali points out in his Radd Ala Man ittaba'a Ghayr al-Madhahib al-Arba'ah that a number of Imams of Hadith mastered Ilal, but Imam Ahmad stands out amongst them for his knowledge of the ilal of mawquf narrations!

Amongst all the fuqaha, there was no one who knew the madhahib of the salaf and the fuqaha better than Ahmad, because of his extensive knowledge of mawquf narrations and his devotion to Fiqh. Additionally, his students would come to him with the books and fatawa of the scholars such as Sufyan al-Thawri, Malik, Abu Hanifa, etc. and read them to him, issue by issue, asking him for his view on their every comment.

I cannot and would not claim infallibility for Imam Ahmad, but no other madhhab can claim to be built on such a comprehensive foundation as that of Ahmad's.

There are other reasons for choosing the Hanbali madhhab as well. For starters, you will find that Sh. al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah has many of his own Tarjihat in which he goes outside the madhhab, many of which are quite strong in their reasoning. In fact, you will find for a good number of issues he actually took a Hanafi position. Because, the ikhtiyarat of Sh al-Islam are incorporated into later Hanbali commentaries, you will find that the Hanbali madhhab serves as a diverse and rich fiqh curriculum.

And finally, there are the works of al-Muwaffaq ibn Qudamah (incidentally, a descendant of three great fuqaha: Salim b. Abd Allah b. Umar), who was truly muwaffaq. His works are impressive for their fiqh, while clear and lucid in their language. Ibn Taymiyyah said about him that he was the greatest faqih to come to al-Sham after al-Awza'i (أفقه من قدم على الشام بعد الأوزاعي). His Umdah is an excellent text to start with, accompanied by an excellent commentary, al-`Uddah, by one of his students. Sh. al-Islam's own commentary on al-Umdah is incomplete but very thorough and extremely beneficial. It seems it was one of his early works as he does not really go outside the madhhab, but it is quite impressive nonetheless and it definitely has the "nafas" of ibn Taymiyyah.

Finally, there is ibn Qudamah's masterpiece, al-Mughni, which is definitely my favorite fiqh work. For every issue, he gives you the madhahib of the Salaf, the four Imams, and other major fuqaha', accompanied by dalil and ta'lil, as well as reasons for his tarjih. It is a very impressive work.

There are other Hanbali scholars whose work impressed me greatly and definitely had a role in steering me to choose the Hanbali madhhab, amongst them ibn Rajab al-Hanbali. His commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari is definitely one of the most impressive works I have ever read. Whatever he has to say about Aqidah, Fiqh, or Hadith, it feels as if you are reading something written by one of the Salaf, not a scholar from the 800's! Of course, there is also ibn al-Qayyim. His I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in is an impressive (and as always, unique) contribution to Usul al-Fiqh, his Zad al-Ma'ad is a masterpiece on Sirah and Fiqh, and his Tahdhib Sunan Abi Dawud is also indispensable for Fiqh.

However, above all, it was the Imam himself who swayed me to study Hanbali Fiqh. Because of my great interest in hadith, I would go through his masa'il time and time again, and as time passed, I became more and more impressed with his approach to Hadith, Fiqh, and Usul. I also realized that his fiqh was far more grounded in the Fiqh of the Salaf than the fiqh of alot of those who parade around as "Salafis". This for me was a great draw.

In any case, to sum up, in my eyes, these two Imams stand out as giants towering over all the scholars who came after them. Words cannot express the great love, reverence, and admiration that I have for them.

Choices For Students & Laymen in Fiqh: Ijtihaad, Tarjeeh, Mathabi/Non-Mathabi Taqleed, or Ittibaa'?