Brief overview of the madhhab
Imam Abu Haneefah is the great faqeeh and scholar of Iraq, Abu Haneefah al-Nu’maan ibn Thaabit al-Taymi al-Kufi. He was born in the year 80 AH, during the lifetime of some of the younger Sahaabah and saw Anas ibn Maalik when he came to them in Kufa. He narrated from ‘Ata’ ibn Abi Rabaah, who was his greatest Shaykh, and from al-Shu’bi and many others. He was concerned with seeking reports and he traveled for that purpose. With regard to fiqh and examining and analyzing reports, he was the ultimate and people depended on him in that, as Imam al-Dhahabi said: “It would take two volumes to tell the story of his life, may Allaah be pleased with him and have mercy on him.” He was an imam who was eloquent and well spoken. His student Abu Yoosuf described him as follows: “He was the most well-spoken of the people and the most clear in expressing himself. He was pious and very protective with regard to transgression of the sacred limits of Allaah. He was offered worldly gains and a great deal of wealth, but he turned his back on it. He was whipped to force him to accept the position of judge or controller of the bayt al-maal (treasury of the Islamic state) but he refused.
Many people narrated reports from him, and he died as a martyr of dropsy in 150 AH at the age of seventy. (Siyar A’laam al-Nubala’, 6/390-403; Usool al-Deen ‘inda al-Imam Abu Haneefah, p. 63).
The Hanafi madhhab is one of the four well-known madhhabs, and it was the first of the fiqhi madhhabs. It was said that “The people are dependent on Abu Haneefah with regard to fiqh.” The origin of the Hanafi madhhab and all the other madhhabs is that these four imams – I mean Abu Haneefah, Maalik, al-Shaafa’i and Ahmad – made the effort to understand the evidence of the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and they issued fatwas to people based on the evidence that had reached them. Then the followers of these imams took their fatwas and conveyed them and issued other fatwas based on them, and derived principles from them, and they set out guidelines for understanding the texts and reaching conclusions. Thus the fiqhi madhhab was formed, and the Hanafi, Shaafa’i, Maaliki and Hanbali madhhabs, and other madhhabs such as those of al-Awzaa’i and Sufyaan, but these latter madhhabs were not destined to continue.
As you can see, what these schools of fiqh are based on is following the Qur’aan and Sunnah. With regard to the ra’y and qiyaas adopted by Imam Abu Haneefah, what this means is not opinion based on whims and desires, rather it is an opinion based on the evidence, or analogies, or following the general principles of sharee’ah. The salaf used to describe ijtihaad in difficult issues as ra’y (lit. opinion). Many of them used to say when commenting on a verse of the Book of Allaah, “This is my opinion (my ijtihaad) concerning it,” but that does not refer to opinion based on whims and desires, as stated above.
Imam Abu Haneefah followed ra’y and qiyaas a great deal in matters other than hudood punishments, expiations and other shar’i issues, and the reason for that is that he had fewer ahaadeeth at his disposal than other imams, because he came before the other imams and was very strict about accepting ahaadeeth, as false reports were so widespread in Iraq at that time and there was a great deal of tribulation. It should be noted that not all the opinions and views of the Hanafi madhhab that is named after Imam Abu Haneefah are the words of Abu Haneefah himself, or can be correctly attributed to him. Many of those views go against what Imam Abu Haneefah himself said, but they were regarded as part of his madhhab because they were worked out according to the guidelines of the madhhab which is derived from the other texts of the imam. Similarly the Hanafi madhhab may adopt the view of a student of the imam such as Abu Yoosuf and Muhammad, and it also includes the ijtihaad of students of the imam, which subsequently became part of the madhhab. This does not apply only to the madhhab of Abu Haneefah, rather the same may be said of all the well-known madhhabs.
If it is said: If the four madhhabs are based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah, why do we find differences of opinion between them on matters of fiqh? The answer is: Each imam issued fatwas on the basis of the evidence that reached him. A hadeeth may have reached Imam Maalik on the basis of which he issued fatwas, that did not reach Abu Haneefah, so he issued fatwas stating something different, and vice versa. Similarly a hadeeth may have reached Abu Haneefah with a saheeh isnaad so he issued fatwas on that basis, and the same hadeeth may have reached Imam al-Shaafa’i with a different isnaad that was da’eef (weak), so he did not issue fatwas based on it, or he may have issued a fatwa saying something that went against the hadeeth based on the conclusion he reached. This is why differences arose among the scholars, but ultimately the point of reference is the Qur’aan and Sunnah.
In fact, Imam Abu Haneefah and other
imams followed the texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah, even if some of their fatwas were not based on that, the reason being that all four imams stated that if a hadeeth was saheeh, then that was their madhhab, that is what they followed, on what they based their fatwas and from what they derived their evidence.
Imam Abu Haneefah said: “If the hadeeth is saheeh then that is my madhhab.” And he said: “It is not permissible for anyone to follow what we say if they do not know where we got it from.” According to another report he said: “It is haraam for the one who does not know my evidence to issue a fatwa based on my words.” And according to another report he added: “We are human, we may say something today and retract it tomorrow.” And he said: “If I say something that goes against the Book of Allaah or the report of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then ignore what I say.”
Imam Maalik (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “I am only human, sometimes I make mistakes and sometimes I get things right. Look at my opinion and whatever is in accordance with the Qur’aan and Sunnah, take it, and whatever is not in accordance with the Qur’aan and Sunnah, ignore it.” And he said: “There is no one after the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) whose words cannot be taken or left, apart from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).” (“Everyone’s statement can be taken or rejected except for the companion of this grave”)
Imam al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “There is no one who will not be unaware of some of the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Whatever I say or whatever guidelines I establish, if there is a report from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which is different to what I said, then what matters is what the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, and that is my opinion.”
Imam Ahmad said: “Do not follow me blindly and do not follow Maalik or al-Shaafa’i or al-Awzaa’i or al-Thawri blindly. Learn from where they learned.” And he said: “The opinion of al-Awzaa’i and the opinion of Maalik and the opinion of Abu Haneefah are all mere conjecture and it is all the same to me. Rather evidence is to be found in the reports – i.e., in the shar’i evidence.”
In conclusion, the Muslim cannot but acknowledge the status and position of these imams, but that should not lead us to give precedence to their views over the Book of Allaah and the saheeh reports from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), because in principle we should follow the Qur’aan and Sunnah and not the opinions of men; any man’s opinion may be taken or left, except the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him),as Imam Maalik (may Allaah have mercy on him) said.
See also al-Madkhal ila Diraasat al-madaaris wa’l-Madhaahib al-Fiqhiyyah by ‘Umar al-Ashqar.
“And whatsoever the Messenger ((peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)) gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it)” [al-Hashr 59:7].
issues concerning which the four imams differed
The points concerning which the four imams differed are many, and it is not possible to comment on them in all topics of fiqh in an article such as this answer, although it is possible to find out about them from the books which deal with differences of opinion among the madhhabs, such as al-Mughni by Ibn Qudaamah, Bidaayat al-Mujtahid by Ibn Rushd, and similar books.
But it is possible here to shed light on some of the reasons for differences of opinion among the fuqaha’ in general terms. Some of the reasons for their differences of opinion, for example, include the following:
1.Contradiction of the shar‘ i evidence in the eyes of the mujtahid.
The fuqaha’ differed in their methods of evaluating which reports were more sound, or reconciling between different reports. The scholars of the Standing Committee said, explaining the reasons for the differences of opinion among the scholars:
Contradiction of the evidence: the fuqaha’ had different points of view with regard to evaluating which reports were more sound, or reconciling between different reports. For example, with regard to the hadith which says that it is not allowed to offer any prayer after ‘Asr until the sun has set, and the hadith which says that the one who enters the mosque should not sit down until he offers two rak‘ahs to “greet the mosque” (tahiyat al-masjid). The scholars differed concerning the application of that to one who enters the mosque at a time when praying is disallowed. Some of them gave precedence to the hadiths which say that praying at that time is disallowed, and others gave precedence to the hadith about greeting the mosque, and each side had evidence to support choosing which hadith should be given precedence.
End quote from Fataawa al-Lajnah ad-Daa’imah, 1 (5/31)
2.differences related to the Arabic language,
such as the difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of words that may, linguistically, have two or more meanings, such as the verse in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “And divorced women shall wait (as regards their marriage) for three menstrual periods [quroo’]” [al-Baqarah 2:228]. The word quroo’ (translated here as “menstrual periods”), has two meanings; it may refer linguistically to the end of the menses, whereupon the woman becomes pure, or to the beginning of the menses. This text indicates that divorced women should wait for three quroo’. It may be that what is meant is the end of the third menses, or it may be that what is meant the beginning of the third menses. This has been discussed previously in fatwa no. 170581. Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said in as-Sawaa’iq al-Mursalah (2/565):
For example, the differences that may arise as a result of the word having more than one meaning, or being ambiguous, or something that may be interpreted either according to the apparent meaning when used in general terms, which is called the real meaning, or may be interpreted according to the apparent meaning when used in specific terms, which is called the metaphor, such as their difference of opinion as to what is meant by quroo’: does it refer to the beginning or end of the menses? Some understood it as referring to the beginning of menses and others understood it as referring to the end of menses.
3.Differences of opinion concerning evidence that is general and whether it is valid or not
For example: the deeds of the people of Madinah, as transmitted through reports. Imam Maalik (may Allah have mercy on him) paid a great deal of attention to the deeds of the people of Madinah, and he thought that their deeds constituted valid proof regarding the religion of Allah, may He be exalted, and that it was not permissible to go against their consensus.
4.Differences due to varying levels of knowledge and understanding of shar‘i texts
The scholars of the Standing Committee said: As for the reasons for differences of opinion among the scholars, there are many, such as the fact that none of them had complete knowledge of everything, hence a scholar may be unaware of something of which others are aware, and he may understand from a text something that others do not understand from it, when he is not aware of any unambiguous proof.
End quote from Fataawa al-Lajnah ad-Daa’imah 1 (2/178)
5.Differences due to the Sunnah (i.e., evaluation of hadith)
Such as the difference of opinion as to whether a hadith is saheeh (sound) or da‘eef (weak). Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said in as-Sawaa‘iq al-Mursalah fi’r-Radd ‘ala al-Jahamiyyah wa’l-Mu‘attilah (2/556), when explaining the reasons for the differences of opinion:
The third reason: belief that a hadith is da‘eef at a time when others may have a different view of that hadith based on their own examination of it. So one of the scholars may think that a narrator is da‘eef (weak) and not to be trusted, whilst another thinks that he is trustworthy and qawiy (strong). The correct view may be that of the one who regards the narrator as da‘eef, because he is aware of a reason of which the one who regards the narrator as trustworthy was unaware. Or the correct view may be that of the other one because he knows that that reason does not undermine the reports or good character of that narrator. End quote.
Or some of them may stipulate some conditions for aahaad reports that were not stipulated by others. Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said in as-Sawaa‘iq al-Mursalah (2/559):
The fourth reason: stipulation by some of them of conditions with regard to aahaad reports that differ from those stipulated by others. For example, some of them stipulated that the narrator should be a faqeeh, if he narrates something that is contrary to analogy; some of them stipulated that the hadith should be widely narrated and known if it discusses an issue that is widespread among the people; some of them stipulated that the hadith should not include any addition to the text of the Qur’an, lest that lead to abrogation of a Qur’anic text as a result.
6.Differences with regard to usooli principles
Such as their difference of opinion with regard to what is meant by a specific text: is it to be understood according to the general meaning of the text or is it made specific by a later text? Such as their difference of opinion regarding texts that speak of commands and prohibitions (and the degree of obligation or prohibition), and their difference of opinion with regard to the apparent meaning of the wording and how it is to be understood, and so on.