_ living islam : Islamic tradition _ 
  https://www.livingislam.org/



Question about two works


Q: It seems that al-Fiqh-al-Akbar by Imam Abu Hanifa has been
questioned by salafis, and a refutation of it's authenticity has 
been produced based on its chain and content.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/sunnipress/index.php?showtopic=200

A: I heard the saying from my Shaykh: Idha shaa`a al-khabar huwa aqwa`u 
min al-waaqi`. "If the news spreads, it is stronger and more factual
than facts." He said this as a scoff of those who deny the news of 
the Mahdi in Islam. It is not meant in the sense that facts do not
matter in themselves but that, under certain conditions, they become
irrelevant.

A good example of this in the Law is the scholars' universal 
acceptance of certain hadiths and their reliance on them in the 
derivation of rulings and the devising of methodology even though the 
hadiths themselves are weak in their transmission, such as the hadith 
of Mu`adh being sent to Yemen and mentioning that he will do ijtihad 
if he does not find an explicit answer in the Qur'an and the Sunna.

The Hanafis have integrated the Hammad riwaya of the Fiqh al-Akbar 
into the corpus of reliable `aqida texts and have promoted it as 
paradigmatic even after very close scrutiny. In the final analysis, 
the question whether Imam Abu Hanifa actually authored it is 
secondary and what matters is that it is nur and true in itself. This 
is why the scholars did not focus on its authorship, while they 
have agreed over the fact that it is a beneficiary text.

After this, any later claimant trying to undo this agreement on the 
bases of "authenticity" is using haqq to achieve batil. He is also, 
as they say, head-butting the mountain: fear not for the mountain but 
fear for his head. This is not to say that isnad authentication is 
not paramount: however, when the Umma agrees on something, it is a 
greater proof yet because the Umma is protected from error in a way 
that an individual isnad is not. Still, we can also discuss isnad.

There has been a historical divide between the scholars of hadith and 
the Hanafis over the issue of irja' which made criticism of the 
latter by the former biased in certain ways. Imam al-Kawthari and, in 
his wake, his student Shaykh `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda elaborated on 
this in texts and long footnotes dispersed through their works, such 
as Abu Ghudda's notes on al-Lacknawi's al-Raf` wal-Takmil for 
example, as well as other scholars and their works. So such criticism 
has to be taken with a grain of salt which I have tried to show in my 
"Vindication of the Imam from the claim of 'Salafis' whereby Abu 
Hanifa was da'if." See:
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=880&CATE=1

See also:
http://www.geocities.com/abdulwahid/abuhanifah/al-imam.html

Another problem is that many great Hanafi scholars and texts evolved 
in areas that escaped the scrutiny of later scholars, even Hanafis, 
let alone non-Hanafis. For example, al-Dhahabi shows no knowledge of 
Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi, whom he mentions neither in Tarikh al-
Islam nor in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala'. This shows that Ibn Taymiyya's 
ignorance of the Fiqh al-Akbar cannot seriously constitute a proof of 
the latter not existing; also, in my book, Dhahbi was more knowledgeable.

The attack on the doctrinal content of the Hammad riwaya is actually 
the most important part of the critique whose URL was cited in the 
question, as it reveals the motivations of the naysayers, which are 
entirely in line with their anti-Ash`ar/anti-Maturidi program. This 
in itself is enough cause to send such naysayers on their way. It 
also explains why they prefer to promote the Fiqh al-Absat riwaya, 
since it contains a passage they love to quote in promotion of their 
anthropomorphism.

There's more to say but this is enough for now in sha Allah.


GF Haddad
2009-01-22