Imam Abu Hanifa - His Life, Opinions and Fiqh

We incline to this view and accept that Abu Hanifa met some Companions, but did not relate from them.
So was he a Tabi‘i or not? Scholars disagree about the definition of a Tabi‘i. Some say that it applies to
anyone who met a Companion, even if he did not keep his company; simply having seen him is enough to
make a man a Tabi‘i according to that view. By that criterion Abu Hanifa is a Tabi‘i. Some scholars, however,
say that it is not enough to simply have seen the Companion but it is also necessary to have kept his company
and learnt from him and so by that reckoning Abu Hanifa could not be said to be one of the Tabi‘un.
Whatever the case, scholars are unanimous about the fact that he met a number of the Tabi‘un and sat with
them, studied with them, related from them and learned their fiqh at an age which allowed learning and
transmission. Some of them were known for transmission, like ash-Sha‘bi, and many were famous for
opinion. He took from ‘Ikrima, the transmitter of the knowledge of Ibn ‘Abbas, Nafi‘, the bearer of the
knowledge of Ibn ‘Umar, and ‘Ata’ ibn Abi Rabah, the faqih of Makka, with whom he had a lengthy
relationship. He used to debate with him about tafsir and learn from him.
We read in al-Intiqa’: “Abu Hanifa said, ‘I asked ‘Ata’ ibn Rabah, “What do you say about the words of
Allah Almighty, ‘We restored his family to him, and the same again with them’ (21:84)?” He said, “He gave
him his family and the like of his family.” I answered, “Is it permitted to attribute to a man what is not from
him?” He asked, “What is your position?” I replied, “Abu Muhammad, it means the reward of his family and
the like of their reward.” He said, “It is like that, but Allah knows best.”’” If this is true, it indicates two
things. One is that Abu Hanifa sat with ‘Ata’ ibn Abi Rabah, studied with him and took from him. ‘Ata’ died
in 114 AH and so he must have gone on hajj and studied with the Makkan scholars while he was Hammad’s
student. The second is that ‘Ata’ used to teach tafsir of the Qur’an in Makka and that the school of Makka had
inherited the Qur’anic knowledge of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas.
The shaykhs to whom he was connected, each of whom had a specific intellectual quality, deserve
consideration, in order to ascertain the sum of the sources from which he took.
The most prominent of his shaykhs was Hammad ibn Sulayman. He was an Ash‘ari by clientage since he
was a client of Ibrahim ibn Abi Musa al-Ash‘ari. He grew up in Kufa and learned his fiqh from Ibrahim an-
Nakha‘i, the most knowledgeable of the proponents of opinion. He died in 120 AH. He not only studied with
an-Nakha‘i but also studied fiqh with ash-Sha‘bi. Both of them took from Shurayh, ‘Alqama ibn Qays and
Masruq ibn al-Adja‘. They, in turn, had learned the fiqh of the two Companions, ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud and
‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.
The fact that these two Companions lived in Kufa meant that they left the people of Kufa much fiqh. That
was the bedrock of Kufan fiqh. It is from their fatwas and those of their students who followed their path that
this great legal inheritance was moulded. Hammad learned it, as said, from Ibrahim and ash-Sha‘bi but it is
clear that the fiqh of Ibrahim dominated him. Ibrahim was a proponent of the fiqh of the people of opinion
whereas ash-Sha‘bi was closer to the people of tradition even though he lived in Iraq.
As already mentioned, Abu Hanifa stayed with Hammad for eighteen years and learned the fiqh of the
people of Iraq whose core was the fiqh of ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud. He also learned the fatwas of Ibrahim an-
Nakha‘i so that Shah Waliyullah ad-Dihlawi says, “The source of Hanafi fiqh is found in the statements of
Ibrahim an-Nakha‘i.” This is what he says in Hujjatu’llah al-Baligha: “Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased
with him, was the strongest in holding to the school of Ibrahim and his contemporaries and only exceeded it as
much as Allah willed. A very important consideration when making deduction in his school was precise
analysis of the manner of extrapolation. If you wish to learn the truth of what we have said, there is a
summary of the positions of Ibrahim and his contemporaries in The Book of Traditions, the Jami‘ of ‘Abdu’r-
Razzaq and the Musannaf of Abu Bakr ibn Shayba. The analogy used in the school of Abu Hanifa does not
deviate from this procedure except in a very few places and even in those few it does not leave what the
fuqaha’ of Kufa believed.” (p. 146)
When Hammad died, Abu Hanifa continued to study and research, teach and learn as do all true scholars,
conforming with the tradition: “A scholar continues to seek knowledge. When he thinks that he knows, he is
ignorant.” We mentioned his learning in Makka from ‘Ata’ ibn Abi Rabah the school of Ibn ‘Abbas which
came through ‘Ikrima. He also took the knowledge of Ibn ‘Umar and the knowledge of ‘Umar from Nafi‘, the
client of Ibn ‘Umar. Thus he amassed the knowledge of Ibn Mas‘ud and ‘Ali from the school of Kufa and the
knowledge of ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbas from those Tabi‘un with whom he studied.
We can state, therefore, that he learned the fiqh of the whole Muslim community with all its various
methods, even though the thinking of the people of opinion was stronger in him so that he is considered the
shaykh of the people of opinion. Abu Hanifa, however, did not confine himself to those fuqaha’. He also went