, a nse? Islamicns Vol. IX No. IMAM ABU HANIFA AND THE DOCTRINE OF KHALQ AL-QUR'AN A Rejoinder to Dr. Ziaul Haque Aspur- Ranma Moun Dr. Ziaul Haque’s paper entitled Ahmad saintScholar of Baghdad, published in Hamdara No, 8, Autumn,1985), misrepresents the stand of Imm aby Hanifah in regard to the Mu‘tazilite doctrine of the crea tedness of the Holy Qur'éh. To quote the author: “This theory of Jahm (cteatednes: et the Quran) was accepted by the Kharijites (especially 1badites) Imamites, Mu'tazilites and Hanafites. Abii Hanitah, his son Hammag and his grandson Ismia'il had accepted it.” The author further main. tains, on the authority of the French Orientalist, Louis Massignon, that on the advice of the Hanafite Bishr Marisi, the Caliph issued a decree “obliging all doctors of the Law to subscribe to the idea of the created Qur'an.” For one thing, the writer has not mentioned the source of this highly questionable and misleading assertion, which is contrary to the generally accepted canons of scholarship. Secondly, his assertion is not only in bad taste, but also at variance with the known views of Imam Abii Hanifah and his disciples; as testified by a host of distinguished traditionists, historians and jurists. Thirdly, Massignon’s insinuation that Bishr al-Marisi propounded the doctrine of Khalg l-Qur’an as a Hanafite, which is uncritically accepted by Dr. Ziaul Haque, is erroneous and contrary to historical evidence, as we shall shortly explicate. ibn Hanbal: The Islamicus (Vol, The Critique of Abu Hanifah as Reported by Khatib . History of Khatib a-Baghdal (a. 468 A.) in his monument Ao Baghdad, has devoted more than 40 pages to a verosty ‘and other Abi Hanifah’s erudition, piety, foresight, Ferree tures Virtues. This is followed by certain “panes ‘who are either - made against the Imam, reportedly42 Vv Hamdard Istamious ty Muy hose integrity and trust-worthiness unknown figures oF W ‘ Sigg able distinguihsed himseyg . im Abi Hani Imam Abii Hanifa Since y virtue of his Keen intellect and insighy "O% hy wet , his ding of the principles of Jy,” tes, ‘and understan slamig °°? smowledge yell as his piety and humanity, he became inh, Prudenc | malicious criticism, made by his adversatig °! an contemporaries PI unfair ant ji . deuactor who were jealous of his eminence and akon nt of calling him a Jew and an. They went to the Se of the Mu'tazilites, a infida, believer in the heret ic Khailb reports avi denigrate his reputation. Though Khatib reports all the Criticiony ‘ade against the Imam, he also takes pains to refute the allegations — a number of eminent scholars have taken exception y uncritical manner in which Khafib has reproduced these Criticisms, It has been pointed out, for example, that the criticisms Aguing, Imnim Abit Haifa, as reported by Khaib, are highly suspect in ge they are unexplicated and uncritically accepted. ‘The lsnda, relay to the chin of reporters and transmitters, on which the critic’ are based, is vtiated by the inclusion of unknown and unrelahc characters, some of whom are known fabricators and liars, It is a well known principle of im al-Jarh wa al-Tadi (the discipline relating to the critical scrutiny of reporters of Hadith) that a criticism can be regarded as legitimate only if it is fully exp, cated, in that the Jsnad on which it is based must be thoroughly serutinized and cross-checked, If the Jsnad contains unknown ot untrustworthy narrators, it will forfeit its claim to authenticity. This principle, which is widely accepted among the scholars of Hadith, is discussed at considerable length in the standard literature on the subject.’ Khatib himself subscribes to this principle in his significant work ALKifaya. However, he fails to adhere to it in his biographical notices contained in his History of Baghdad, parti- cularly in regard to Imam Abi Hanifah. A number of eminent scholars, including Dhahabi and Ibn al-Jawzi, have chided Khatib for his uncritical reliance on weak and questionable [snd and his Partisanship. Ibn alJawzi reports Ismia‘ll al-Asbahani, who was a highly respected traditionist, as saying: “I do not like three scholars of Hadith for their partiality and unfaimess; they are Hakim, Abi Nuaym and Khatib.” Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 A.H.) takes Khatib to task for his uncritical reliance on questionable [snad, in regard to the alleged criticisms against Imam Abi Hanifa, in the43 stamicus Vol. IX No.3 pet joionir cae ied ii ce csi of narrators, eae ieee in regard to the siege criticisms agains uu Hanifah, is for the most A ved on unknown persons of questionable integrity uch @ chain of narrators cannot be relied upon for the denig. Seon of (common) Muslim, not to speak of a leader of prusiims (such as maim ADE Hanifah).” gince the chain of narrators and reporters, relied upon by sat in regard to the reported criticisms of Imam Abi Hanifah, is pect and unereditable, there is no mention of these criticisms in fe standard biographical literature. Dhahabi in his celebrated qadhkirat al-Huffaz describes only the commendable qualities and traits of the Imam, and none of the criticisms reported by Khatib, fh fact, he has written a separate tract on the Iniim, entitled Horaqib a-Tmam Abi Hanifa, which is full of compliments paid to the Imim by his distinguished contemporaries and successive gen- erations of scholars, Ibn Hajar al‘Asqalani in his monumental ahdhib al-Tahdhib makes no mention of the strictures passed against the Imam by his adversaries. Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Din al- Nawawi in his Tahdhib al-Asma’ wa'l-Lughat devotes more than seven pages in praise of the Iniam, without reproducing a word of Khatib’s reported criticisms, Similarly, Vafi‘ in hisMir‘at alJinan and Ibn alImfad Hanbali in his Shadharat al-Dhahab make no mention of the criticisms reported by Khatib.* Imam Abii Hanifa and the Doctrine of Khalq alQur’an Now we tum to the doctrine of Khalq al-Qur‘an and its un- founded ascription to Imam Abii Hanifa. There is incontrovertible evidence, in the reported statements of the Imam himself and those of his distinguished disciples, that he never held the doctrine of the createdness of the Qur'an. In fact, he regarded the doctrine as heretical, as we shall shortly substantiate, Secondly, the testimony of several generations of eminent traditionists, historians and jurists brings into relief the fact that neither the Imam nor any of his disciples ever held this heretical belief that the doctrine of Khala al-Qur’an was falsely and maliciously attributed to the Imam in order to denigrate his reputation.44 V ymicus he we Ly, the statements an. we examine Of Ing begin ia doctrine of Khalq al-Qurin, Auge At it rating © rally believed to have been author a me which is us s: The Qur’én is the word of 47 Y ty eae expt sor oad, waite and recite it is orea, ao ve i whic ryeated.® Bayhagi 7eports Abit Vigye oy t ty cure ema A Hania had nothing My - in| dd, 8 TTT ig o-ur’an. In fact, declared that ony e of Qur'an is created is a heretic.’ Khafjp repo Why eves that — von Mubarak went to see the Imam 7 ere once ‘Abd wv the nature of the CODLTOVETSY Current jy nya inquired or bal All fbn Mubarak replied that gy o ae by a certain Jahm ibn Safwan, who mej ven nis created. On hearing this, the Imm repn shat the Qu the Qur'an: “Dreadful is the word that cometh toe They speak naught but ale.” (XVII), gett f their et iano - 7 of ris that Imam Abi Hanifa regarded Jahm ibn Safwan a wri on account of his belief in the doctrine of Khalg aur infide Gn Abi Hanifa's disciples, such as Abii Yisuf, ata ng Muhammad al-Shaybani, among others, concurred > the Imam in seelaing a believer in the doctrine of Khalg al-Qur'an as a here reed that such a person should not be allowed ties 4 ed They dec a a prayers® Abii Yisuf was emphatic in his declaration that thy proponents of the said doctrine are beyond the pale of Islins Abii daar Tafwi (d. 321 A.H.), describing the belies held by Imam Abii Hanifa and his disciples, reports that they all held that the Qur'an, being the word of Allah, is uncreated.!° It may te added that the Tmam’s son Hammad was a student of Abii Visut, and like his illustrious father and teacher, repudiated the doctrine of Khalq al-Qur‘an. Now weturn to the testimony of eminent scholars and historians to show that the ascription of the heretical doctrine of Khalg al Qur'én to Imam Abii Hanifa and his disciples is totally unfounded, Khatib himself reports Ahmad ibn Hanbal as saying: “We do not think it is correct to say that Abii Hanifa maintained that the Qur'an is created” (5 51s TANIJ gi) Sti pob | JI Laszqerp|) Khatib then quotes Abi Sulayman Jiizjani and Mu‘ala ibn Mansiiras saying that neither Abi Hanifa nor. any of his disciples believed in the said doctrine, As a matter of fact, Bishr al-Marisi and Qidl Abii Di'dd propounded the doctrine and falsely attributed it to thejamicus 45 Vol. IX No.3. omaard 1 am and is disciples in order to malign them,t mim fad Dt. Ziail Haque carefully read Khafib’s account, he would Hat ned from making such an incredible statement regarding pave Oe Hanifa, Perhaps a litle digression may be allowed at thin ‘am Dr. Ziaiil Haque’s paper shows that he has not made a june ay of the life and times of Imam Abmad iba Hanbat, Cake instance, he maintains that the Imam was highly Proud of Thu’ rab ancestry and once, when he was asked as to which Arab aaa ne belonged, he replied that he really belonged to the tribe of oor people. Regrettably, the author has misunderstood the said passage in Ibn Hajar's Tahdhib al-Tahdhib. Contrary to his assertion, the Imam never displayed any pride in his Arab descent, although he belonged to the highly respected Arab tribe of Shayban. In fact, his biographers describe him as an exceedingly unassuming person ( @ lt butuUr ). His close friend Yahya ibn Matin says about him: “T have not Seen anyone like Ahmad ibn Hanbal, My friendship with him covered a span of fifty years, but he never boasted about any virtue or goodness relating to his character.”"! 2 To come back to the testimony of eminent scholars relating to tine of Khalq al-Qur'an to Imam The testimony of Ibn al-Athir is particularly succinct, He says: “To Imam Abi Hanifa have been ascribed such doctrines as Khalq al-Qur’an, those of the Qadrites and the Murjites. There is no need to mention the Persons who are responsible for the ascription of such beliefs to the Imam. He clearly stands above all such doctrines. The fact that Allah caused his reputation to spread far and wide, his erudition and scholarship to virtually encompass the world, and his system of jurisprudence to have enjoyed such pre-eminence, testifies to his unblemished character, Had there been no tacit secret of Allah (in regard to the wide dissemination of his figh), half or thereabout of the followers of Islim would not have rallied behind his banner and adopted his system of jurisprudence. This clearly vindicates the legitimacy of his system of jurisprudence and the soundness of his beliefs.’ ? A contemporary Egyptian scholar, Abt Zahra, who has written critical biography of the Imam, makes a fair assessment of the ® a . point in question in the following words:— Vou, va ilamio¥s ik da Ham’ yg credence to such reports ‘ givin a 8 do tate in a the doctrine of Khalg a-Quyg?t™iy ‘a the ascription | they are based on the reporteg « ino sought to malign him, As we have her narrations Which are high ve deserve better acceptability. Cong. Mie “cept the reports which maintain that aug yy We eee doctrine of Khalq al-Qur‘an ang that pee in erat. The ascription of this doctrine tay forced to mefiment of the ImaKination of his ay was who mid detractors”. 0 Ay Trae sttonen ai AaAINSE sue SOL Was, the Unity "Sates ang ises in this regard: A sigan ieee tseiples had nothing to ac with Hania, his ie of the createdness of the Qur'an, what fae heretical dost ct ascription to them? The answer is simple: jon’ oa ieee Imim Abi Hanifa’s universally-acknowledged quali, and ae heart made him a legendary figure in his own lifetine ast fat that he had the distinction of being a Tabi‘, coupled vit, the wide aeoeptance and popularity of his system of jurisprudener made him a target of popular jealousy and ill-will. It was on accoany of this jealousy that once he was falsely implicated in a seandal ang had to suffer a night’s imprisonment for no fault of his, !§ The fact that the Imam was a target of the jealousy and malice of some short-sighted people, who seem to have been dwarfed by the giant stature of the Imam, was known to several of his distin. guished contemporaries. ‘Thus, Sufyan al-Thawr! is reported to have said that Imm Abii Hanifa was envied for his erudition and leam- ing.‘ Mus‘ir ibn Kid@m maintained that no one in Kifa was more envied than two persons; Abt Hanifa for his (erudition in) figh, and Hasan ibn Salih for his piety."7 It was on account of this jealousy and malice that all sorts of baseless beliefs and opinions were falsely attributed to the Imam. Sometimes, it was only in the course of personal encounters that the Imam managed to clear the cobweb of misunderstanding spun round him by his adversaries, Serious misunderstandings between the {mam on the one hand, and such eminent scholars and savants ofthe rae as Imim Jafar al-Sidiq, Sufyan al-Thavt tie ee Hasan ibn ‘Ali, and Mugatil ibn Hayyan, Cad : eared through personal encounters and dialogues. If Imm Ata1 omaord Islamicus Vol. IX Nog it was brought to the notice of « nce, it was ©! a wee Of “Abd Allah - someone evtczed Imam ALG Hanita, whereupe Mubarak pp satowine verse he rested «people became jealous when they saw that A * Allat you the virtues, with which noble souls have var esto on been endowed,» 9 sabd Allah ibn Mubarak is also reported to have Said the follo wing: “there adomed the land and in i _ eae those in it the Imam of the With his Hadith and his legal knowleg verses of the Psalms in the Scripture, Among the Eastemers and Westerners and none equal to him. I saw that those finding fault with him were fool the truth and weak in argument,”2° lge of Hadith, like the at Kiifa there is ish, opposed to Imam Abii Hanifa. was well aware of the fact that he was a target of popular jealousy. Dhahabi reports Waki’ as. saying that one day he happened to visit the Imam. The Imam, with his head down, was lost in reflection. Then he lifted his head and recited the following verses: “Even if people are jealous of me, I will not blame them. Before me men of learning have been made targets of jealousy. Let them carry on with themselves, as I will carry on with myself. The greatest among us have passed away, resentful of what they had to face.””21 Bishr al-Marisi and the Doctrine of Khalq al-Qur’an. Dr. Ziul Haque, relying uncritically on the authority of Massig- ishr al- Mars .d the doctrine of Khalgq non, describes Bishr al-Marisi, who advocate ee ie al-Qur’an, as a Hanafite. Nothing could be ae fo hoe The heretical doctrine of the createdness of NE TT first. propounded by Ja’d ibn Dirham A i Ae af Jahm ibn Safwan an : can eee e in. the doctrine to the influence Jahm owed his interest in the doin! OT ined that attr and Indian philosophical traditions.48 Vay og fslarious raméord an beings cannot be ascribeg e used for hum: js an attribute of creatures; jf can, ich re : - ot i accord © ot Hence, the Qur'an, a8 the word of KN be speeemy tg the ms uted isi (d. 833 A.D.) was 42? th al-Marisi ( c of dey: oe 1 bin Ghiy® time he attended the seminary of tps. mi ‘i i ted in dogmatics and Polemics tt are! interes! a , thin rut, but ring the period by the Mu‘tazilites. Inny,.0) a jonable ani he began to maintain that the Quygn y al Yusuf tried to reason with him and adviseg a created. Imi heretical belief, but in vain. Thereupon he tured to give UP is his seminary. He squarely condemned him ang Bisht ou nis ews. He used to tum his face aside if he happened repudiate ie to meet Bishr 09 i ra Qutaybah ibn S‘aid declared Bishr a5 a ei aaah described him a8 an innovator and a misgudes trom whom no traditions are to be reported, since he hlg person, ‘al doctrine of Khalq al-Qur’an.** When Hariin alRashig the ae of the heretical views of Bishr, he vowed to have him a vvbereupon the latter went into hiding and remained there wnt the end of Hardin's caliphate. - Bishr alMarisi and Abi Da’iid sought to vilify and malign Imam ‘Abi Hanif by maliciously attributing to him the docttine of Khalg al-Qur’in, As indicated in the foregoing, Imam Abii Yosut condemned and repudiated his views and declared him an infidel, Massignon’s misleading identification of Bishr as a Hanatite, and Dr. Zidul Haque’s concurrence with him is unfortunate, 15 heretic Sapam Abi heretic. NOTES and REFERNCES 1, Khatib al-Baghdadi: AL-Kifaya (Hyderabad: Da'irat_ al ‘Mu‘arif al-Uthman- ‘yah. 1970), p. 142; Abii Amr Uthmén al-Shahrzitri: Mugaddima ibn Salah (Multan: Fariqi Kitubkhana, 1357 AH. ). pp. 51-53; Jalal al- Din al-$uyiti: Tadrib a-Rawi (Karachi: Mir Muhammad Kutubkhana, 1972). pp. 305-318, Ton alJawal: Al-Muntazam (Hyderabad: t al-Ma‘arif al-Uthmani- Yes 1940), vol VII p. 269; Muhammad Zahid alKawthasl: Toni al Khatib (Multan: ALMaktaba. al-Imdadiya. n.d.), p. 11,49 para Itanieus Vol. IXNo.s tpn tsar abHaytamisALMhovraralHisin (Karachi: Said ang Company, & Tyan AHL). B 695 Shams al: nat Salihi alDimashai: Ugiid alJimin (Hyderaba: Thya aMa‘arit al-Nu' maniyih, 1974), P. 405, 4. HobiburRahmin Sherwani: Imm Abi Honife our unke Nagideen (Karachi: Nr Muhammad. n.d.). pp. 56-57 Aba Hanifa: Al-Figh al-Akbar (Hyderabad: Daira 1953), ; Abii Bakr Ahmad al-Bayhagi Kitab al-Asma w bs.Sifat( Allah: ante ‘Ahmad). p. 188. 7. Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi: Mandgib al-Imim asl Hani . Baited by Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari and Abul Wafa al Afghani (Egypt: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi, n.d.), p. 27 8, Bayhagi. op.cit., P. 188; Dhahabi: Menagib, p. 43; Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari: Buliigh al-Am@ni (Karachi: HM, Safa Company, 1403 A.H.), p.53 9. Bayhaqi. op.cit.. p. 188. 10, Abu Ja‘far al-Tahawi: ‘Agidah ol-Tohawi (Gujranwala: Madrasah Nusratul- ‘Ulam, 1983). pp. 33-34 11. Tarikh Baghdad, vol. X11, pp. 377-378, Dhahabi reports Ahmad ibn Hanbal to the same effect. See Manaqib, p. 27 12, Abu Nua‘im Asfahani: Hilyah al-Awliya, vol. IX. p. 181 18. Ibn al-Athir: Khawatim Jami‘ al-Usiil, Shaikh Table Patni has quoted the said passage towards the end of his book Majma‘ al-Bihdr. (I am grate- ful to Mawlana Habibur Rahman al-Azami for providing the Arabic text. of the said passage.) 14, Muhammad Abi Zahra: Hayat Imam Abii Hanifa. Urdu translation by Ghulam Ahmad Hariti (Faisalabad: Malik Sons, 1980), pp. 377-378 15 Muhammad Hamidullah: Imam Abi Hanifa ki Tadwin-e-Qaniin-e-tslami (Sindh: Urdu Academy, 1983),pp. 40-41 16. Qadhi Abu ‘Abd Allah Saimuri: Akhbar Abi Hanifa wa Ashabihi (Hydera- bad: Thya al-Ma‘arif al-Numaniya. 1974). p. 54 11. Tid. p. 54 18. Faqit Muhammad Jehlami: Hadaiq al-Hanafiyah (Lahore: Maktaba Hasan Suhail.n.d.), pp. 110-133. 19. Ibn Hajar al-Haytami: Al-Khayrat al-Hisan, p. 68. eer ‘hrist (Beirut: Dar al-Ma'rifah, 1978). p. 284; The 20. Ibn al-Nadim: Al-Fihrist (Beirut onde Fihrist of al-Nadim. Translated by Bayard Dodge (New York an Columbia University Press. 1970). vol. I.p. 500. eS ; Saymuri: Akhbar AbTHanifah, p. 56. 21. Dhahabi: Manaqib, p. 30; Saym60 Hamdard totarnions _ 2 _ — go. thn Hajar al-Aaqalans Hath al Birt, ol. KI. D. 294; Marnie 7 usatmiinon bt ‘ringa-bandiyon ka Afiina (Delhi: Maktaa Abran Gi, - ‘urhay mi, pp. 74-78 ae sa sand al-Qahir al paynaitdi: ALFarg baynal Firag (Keypt: r4q Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari: Husn fata’ aly, h al-Tadaayy et 1908). P- 192; 1403 AH.) Pp. 20-21;¢ 1;*Abdul-Hayy Lav, tach may id Company. 1M. ‘) Fawiaid al-Bahiyyah (Karachi; Nir Muhammad Karkhing Ad), p. 645 Ibe Khallikin's Biographical Dictionary Kutub, 1am, ¢ (London: Allen and Co.. n.d. ). vol. I. p eomitea - 260; Muh, hamina, x d HG, Deslan abit Zahea: Iola Madhahib, Urdu translation by G. a abad: Malik Sons. n.d.), p. 254. - Hay in al-Dhahabi: Maan al-I‘tidal (Egypt: Shams al-Dit 1925 AH), vol. 1, p- 150; Abd al-Hayy: Al-Fawi (Paiag. Maktaba : al-Sa‘ id al-Bahiyya, Te 54. Dhahabi, opicit., p- 150.