As opposed to this group, there were some, who condemned Abu Hanifah in
every way and pointed out his defects and they also fabricated traditions against
him. We cannot mention more that what we have accessed. How can we mention
all of them? But we shall mentioned some of them.
Abde Barr says:1 “Among those condemned by Abu Hanifah is Abu
Abdullah Muhammad bin Ismail Bukhari, author of Saheeh. In his book, under
the discussion of weak and invalid traditions: Nuaim has narrated from Fuzari: I
was with Sufyan bin Uyyana when they brought reports of the death of Abu
Hanifah. Sufyan said: May God curse him, as he has destroyed Islam in every
way and no child was born in Islam more full of mischief than him.”
Ibne Jarud says: “Most traditions of Noman bin Thabit, Abu Hanifah were
imaginary and there is dispute in his being a Muslim.”
A similar statement is narrated from Malik regarding Abu Hanifah:
“He is the worst child born in Islam and if he had attacked this Ummah with
a sword, it would have been easier, and his harm would have been lesser.”
It is narrated from Yusuf bin Athbat:
“Abu Hanifah rejected four thousand or more traditions from the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.a.).”
It is narrated from Malik:
“No child more harmful than Abu Hanifah was born among Muslims.”
It is narrated from Abdur Rahman bin Mahdi that:
“After the mischief of Dajjal, I don’t know of any mischief greater than the
mischief of Abu Hanifah.”
It is narrated from Abdullah bin Idris:
“Abu Hanifah was deviated and he deviated others.”
It is narrated from Ibne Abi Shaibah that he said regarding Abu Hanifah:
“I regard him a Jew.”
It is narrated from Ahmad bin Hanbal:
“Abu Hanifah issued false statements and traditional reports cannot be
narrated from the followers of Abu Hanifah.”
As opposed to this group, there is another group of scholars who attribute
the following report to the Prophet:
“A scholar of Quraish would fill up the layers of the earth with wisdom.”
They believe that this report implies Muhammad bin Idris Imam of the Shafeis.2
Muzni thinks that: He saw the Prophet in dream and asked him about Shafei:
He said: “One, who my love and Sunnah, he should refer to Muhammad bin Idris
Shafei Mutallabi, because he is from me and I am from him.”3
Ahmad bin Nasr said:
“I saw the Prophet in dream and asked: O Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.),
whom do you order us to follow from your Ummah in this time, so that we can
follow him be confident of his statement; and that we may adopt his faith? He
replied: Muhammad bin Idris Shafei; as he is from me and Almighty Allah is
pleased with him, his followers and those who follow his religion till Judgment
Day. I asked: Who else can I refer to? He replied: Ahmad bin Hanbal, what a nice
jurist he is with piety and abstemiousness.”4
Malikis have also expressed the same views: For example, they have
attributed this tradition to Prophet:
“It is near that people would drive the camels fast and bear discomforts of
journeys,5 but will not find anyone wiser than the scholar of Medina.”6
They think that this report implies Malik bin Anas. As if Medina was not the
center of Islam and there was no other scholar before and after Malik. As if Ahle
Bayt (a.s.) were not present, whom Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) mentioned as equals
of Quran and as his successors, and said:
“I leave among you two heavy things: Book of Allah and my progeny, my
Ahle Bayt.”
As if they have not inherited the knowledge of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). As if
Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) was not the sole point of reference for knowledge during
his lifetime. As if Malik was not the student of His Eminence.
It goes to such an extent that some7 claim consensus that the implication of
the above mentioned fabricated traditional report is Malik bin Anas, ignoring the
statement of Muhammad bin Abdur Rahman: “Ahmad is superior to Malik bin
Anas.”8
And ignorant of the statement of the leader of Hanbalis:
“Ibne Abi Zoab is superior to Malik Ibne Anas.”9
And the statement of Atiyya bin Asbat:
“If the earth is filled by people like Malik, the wisdom of Abu Hanifah has
superiority over them.”10
And from the statement of Shafei and Ibne Bukair:
“Laith bin Saeed Fahmi – elder of Egypt – is more learned than Malik.”11
The Malikis have narrated a dream about their leader and said that Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.a.) praised Malik in dream. Some of these baseless dreams are
mentioned in Hilyatul Awliya12 and other books.
Hanbalis also, for propagation of their school and their leader, exceed all
limits of exaggeration and forged unbounded falsehoods to such an extent that
every exaggeration is less before that [and falls short of it] some of which are as
follows:
Madini says: “Almighty Allah bestowed honor to this religion through two
persons and there is no third one: Abu Bakr Siddiq in the wars of apostates13 and
Ahmad bin Hanbal in times of hardships(14)(15) and it is said that after Messenger of
Allah (s.a.w.a.), no one established Islam as much as Ahmad bin Hanbal.”
Maimooni says: I said to Madini: “O Abul Hasan, Abu Bakr was not alone
whereas Ahmad did not have any associates.”16
In Al-Muntazam,17 Ibne Jauzi has mentioned statements regarding prejudice
of Abu Bakr Khatib Baghdadi, author of Tarikh Baghdad towards the school of
Ahmad and his followers, to such an extent that he has accused him of
shamelessness and lack of religion.
Muhammad bin Muhammad Abu Muzaffar Barwi (d. 567 A.H.) expressed
prejudice against Hanbalis and said:
“‘If I had been able, I would have applied Jizya on Hanbalis.’ Due to this the
Hanbalis assassinated him through poison along with his wife and young son.”18
Yes, among them were also those, who did not follow their base desires and did not refrain from speaking the truth, like Firozabadi, author of Qamus; and
Ajluni, Firozabadi at the conclusion of his book, Safarus Saada19 and Ajluni in Kashful Khifa20
have said regarding Abu Hanifah and Shafei:
“No authentic narration is found in support of their slander; whatever is
mentioned is fabricated and false.”
Ibne Darwish Hoot says in Asniul Matalib:21
“No authentic or weak text (Nass) is recorded about any of the leaders of Ahle Sunnat.”