Uṣūl al-Fiqh according to the Ḥanafī School

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

They said: We have already studied from you the sciences of ḥadīth and its principles in detail and breadth — you have laid out for us the issues and the rules, simplified their understanding, examined the differences among the leading imāms and the reliable preservers, and compared their positions in authentication and criticism, highlighting the discipline, precision, and balance that characterised the earlier generations, and contrasting that with the looseness and disorder of the later ones. For all this, we thank you sincerely for your guidance and beneficence, praying that our Lord recompenses you with the best and most complete of rewards.

I said: Let us praise our Master, who has favoured us with knowledge and understanding not by our own merit but by His grace, and let us ask Him for increase — in piety and rectitude, in goodness in this world and in the next, and in attainment of the Gardens of Bliss. Indeed, He is the Ever-Providing, the Most Generous.

They said: We have heard mention of a new trend in scholarship — a discipline called Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth according to the Ḥanafī school. We would like you to explain it to us.

I said: What an unfortunate question! You have accompanied me all this time, yet you have not understood my position on these waves of confusion that rise like gusts or tempests — but soon die down and fade away. Can you not sense in such innovations the stench of sectarianism and the foul odour of partisanship? Do you not perceive how they swerve from the path of sound learning and trespass upon the way of truth and correctness?

They said: Yet some Ḥanafī scholars have spoken on this subject.

I said: Novel opinions and strange ideas may indeed attract attention and captivate the general public, and their harm may spread to the learned, who fail to realise the deeper corruption — how such innovations distort meanings and concepts, corrupt intellects and perceptions, and abolish established standards and measures.

They said: We have learned from you sound thought and correct judgement in the sciences, arts, and disciplines; therefore, alert us to these deviant innovations so that we may beware of them.

I said: The call to formulate Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth or to study it according to the Ḥanafī school is, in itself, evidence of ignorance concerning the true meaning of ḥadīth, fiqh, and uṣūl.

They said: Explain this ignorance clearly, lifting the veil of obscurity from it.

I said: I shall do so — understand from me these two principles fully:

First: Ḥadīth and fiqh are two distinct subjects. Ḥadīth is narration and history; fiqh is reflection and opinion. Ḥadīth has its own criteria for verification and authenticity, while fiqh has its own methods for establishing correctness and freedom from error. Whoever confuses the two has deviated and mixed matters wrongly. I have previously written an article on the distinction between ḥadīth and philosophy — review it carefully and ponder it deeply.

Second: Every discipline and craft possesses its own foundations and rules, specific to it and independent of other affiliations or inclinations — they are not to be bound by schools of thought or personal tastes. It would be absurd and disgraceful for the discerning and intelligent to study grammar according to the methodology of physicians, or medicine according to the grammarians, or mathematics according to jurists, or fiqh according to mathematicians — and so on.

They said: We have understood what you said and grasped your concern. Increase us in clarification.

I said: Know that the soundness of a ḥadīth depends on two things:
First, that it be transmitted by trustworthy narrators generation after generation.
Second, that if trustworthy narrators differ in its wording or chain — in omission or addition — we weigh their reports according to their precision and number. The weaker report is termed shādh, and sometimes munkar.

So if Mālik and Ibn ʿUyaynah differ in a ḥadīth from al-Zuhrī, we prefer the report of Mālik due to his greater reliability in transmitting from al-Zuhrī. However, if Ibn ʿUyaynah is supported by other trustworthy transmitters from al-Zuhrī such as ʿUqayl, Yūnus, Maʿmar, and Shuʿayb, then we prefer the ʿazīz (supported) narration over the gharīb (solitary) one.

This is the standard method accepted by all ḥadīth scholars and historians, Muslims and others alike. Among the leading imāms of the Ḥanafī school, too, it is confirmed that they adhered to this standard. Sufyān al-Thawrī reported that Abū Ḥanīfah would adopt only those ḥadīths which were transmitted reliably by trustworthy narrators. Abū Yūsuf al-Qāḍī said: “Hold fast to those aḥādīth which are known to the public, and beware of the shādh among them.”

They said: Then unveil for us the error of those who authored Uṣūl al-Ḥadīth ʿalā al-madhhab al-ḥanafī.

I said: They have erred in both essential matters.

They said: What two matters do you mean?

I said: In the authentication of a ḥadīth, and in preferring one report over another when there is disagreement.

They said: Show us how they erred in each.

I said: As for the first, they imagined that the conditions for a ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth in the Ḥanafī school differ from those of the muḥaddithūn. For instance, the ḥadīth scholars regard irsāl (a missing link between the tābiʿī and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم) as a defect, while they claim that the Ḥanafīs do not.

But this difference does not arise from madhhab-based fiqh. It stems rather from the distinct aims of the disciplines: the people of ḥadīth and narration exert themselves to ensure the continuity of transmission, because if the chain is interrupted, the omitted person is unknown — whether he is upright or not, precise or negligent, careful or forgetful. Since irsāl implies disconnection, most rejected mursal reports.

Some, however, accepted them when the mursal was a well-known Companion, or when the narrator was one of the major Successors whose practice was to omit only when they had received the report from multiple trustworthy sources that imparted certainty. This was indeed the position of the leading imāms of Madīnah and Kūfah in the earliest generations. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ al-Rāzī said: “Whoever is known to transmit from those whose narrations are unreliable, such a person’s mursal reports are not acceptable to us; but the discussion concerns those who transmit only from trustworthy authorities known to them as reliable.”

This is a sound opinion. Yet the soundest of all is to be even more scrupulous in verifying continuity in the reports of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم — for narrating from him is not like narrating from anyone else. This is the view of the two imāms, Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī and Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj, and of those who followed their path among the masters of this discipline. May Allah shower them with His mercy and be pleased with them.

As for the second matter: they supposed that differences among trustworthy narrators do not affect the validity of their reports, and that shudhūdh (anomalousness) is not a defect. They even accept the shādh and reject the maḥfūẓ.

They said: Do they have any proof for this acceptance and rejection?

I said: Yes — they reject a ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth if it contradicts the Qurʾān, or a mutawātir or mashhūr sunnah, or an established general principle of religion, or a consensus (ijmāʿ), or the dictates of sound reason. Conversely, they may accept the weaker (marjūḥ) report if it is supported by any of these evidences.

They said: And you do not agree with them in this?

I said: No.

They said: Why not?

I said: Because this approach has nothing to do with the science of ḥadīth. I have explained and elaborated this point fully in my article on Uṣūl al-Fiqh.

—

Disclaimer: This article was translated by AI. Original post: https://t.me/DrAkramNadwi/7056