Do Hanafis prefer Qiyas over Hadeeth?

Introduction

The miscconception is specifically about Qiyaas and the solitary reports [الخبر الواحد / احد], rather than the Sunnah or Ahadeeth as a whole. In this post, when we use the word 'Hadeeth', we are referring to Ahad Ahadeeth.

In reality, the view of preference of Qiyaas over the Hadeeth cannot be attributed to Imam Abu Haneefah, his immediate students and the vast majority of Hanafi scholars. It is true that some of the Hanafi scholars did hold the opinion of preferring Qiyaas over Hadeeth under certain conditions. However, most of the prominent Hanafi scholars have rejected this view, and clarified that it cannot be attributed to Abu Haneefah and his prominent students.

The post is structured such that first we will mention the views of the Imam and his immediate students, then the names of the majority of the scholars of the Madhhab for they are too many to quote individually. After them, the names of those who held the minority opinion, and then finish it off by discussing the reasoning behind the majority and the minority, and the answer to the aforementioned groups.

Abu Haneefah and his Students

(1) Abu Haneefah

In Tareekh Ibn Ma'een (4/63) by the narration of Ad-Doori, Yahya ibn Dhurays said:

I was present with Sufyaan [ath-Thawri] when a man came to him and said, 'Why do you bear grudge against Abu Haneefah?' Sufyaan said, 'What is with him?' The man said, I have heard him saying, 'I take by the book of Allaah, and what I do not find in it, I take from Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah. And if I do not find it in either the Book of Allaah or the Sunnah of His Messenger then I take from the sayings of his companions, taking the opinion of whoever I deem fit and leaving that of others and I do not go for any opinion other than theirs. And when it comes to Ibraheem and ash-Sha'bi and Ibn Seereen, al-Hasan, 'Ata', Sa'eed ibn al-Musayyib and others who did ijtihaad then I also engage in ijtihaad as they did.

Likewise, 'Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak narrated, I heard Abu Haneefah saying:

"When [a report] comes from the Prophet (peace be upon him), then it is upon the head and the eye (i.e., accepted with full submission). If it comes from the Companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him), we choose from among their statements. And if it comes from the Tabi'een, we contend with them (i.e., we exercise our own judgment)."

Similar statements have been reported from him by Abu Yoosuf, Abu Hamzah as-Sukkari, Nooh al-Jami, Al-Hasan ibn Ziyad Lu'lu'i and 'Abd al-Kareem ibn Hilal.

These statements prove two things: Abu Haneefah preferred Hadeeth over Qiyaas unconditionally, whether the narrator was a jurist or not, and he considered saying of individual companions as proof.

Likewise Wakee' ibn al-Jarrah is reported to have heard Abu Haneefah say;

"Urinating in the mosque is better than some types of Qiyaas."

Narrated by Al-Khateeb in al-Faqeeh wa'l Mutafaqqih (1/509). In Tareekh Baghdad, explaining this statement Al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi said, "Abu Haneefah meant qiyaas that goes against clearly reported text."

In al-Hujjah (1/392), discussing the issue of forgetfully eating during Ramadan, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ash-Shaybaani mentions the hadeeth that says it does not nullify fasting and then quoted Abu Haneefah:

"Had it not been for what has been related in these ahadeeth, I would rule for making up for that day of fasting."

His student Zufar ibn al-Huthayl stated: "Do not pay heed to the speech of the opponents. Abu Haneefah and our companions do not speak about an issue except on the authority of Quraan and Sunnah, and the authentic reports. Only after turning to these two they resort to Qiyaas." Narrated by al-Muwaffaq in Manaqib Abi Haneefah (1/83).

This is the testimony of someone who was Abu Haneefah's contemporary and student. And we have seen a statement from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan to the same effect. Naturally, they were the ones who knew him better than others.

Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said about Imam Abu Haneefah: "Abu Yoosuf, Muhammad (ibn al-Hasan) and Zufar are the most knowledgeable about him." Majmoo al-Fataawa (4/92)

Moreover, he said: "Whoever thinks that Abu Haneefah and other Imams of the Muslims deliberately opposed sound reports by Qiyaas or anything else, has erred about them and is either speaking by conjecture or by desire." Majmoo al-Fataawa (20/304-305)

(2) Abu Yoosuf

Abu Yoosuf used to prefer the sayings of even the companions let alone those of the Prophet over Qiyaas. It is well known among the Hanafis that the statements of companions come under the Sunnah. Abu Bakr al-Jassas stated:

"Abu al-Hasan [al-Karkhi] used to say: In many discussions I found Abu Yoosuf saying, "Qiyaas entails so and so but I have left Qiyaas in favour of the narration." And this narration is [such] a statement of a companion which is not opposed by saying of another companion.

End quote from Al-Fusool Fi al-Usool (3/361)

Abu Yoosuf himself wrote regarding a matter in Al-Kharaj (pg. 275-278):

"When the ruler or his deputy sees a person committing theft, taking an intoxicant or committing adultery it is not right for him to give ḥadd punishment unless the matter is proven with due witness evidence. This is Istihsaan based on reports that have reached us. Whereas qiyaas requires meting out of hadd punishment in such a case, (our opinion is based on) reports from Abu Bakr and 'Umar that have reached us."

(3) Muhammad ibn al-Hasan

In his work al-Hujjah 'ala Ahl al-Madeenah (1/204), he writes on the issue of laughter in prayers invalidating wudhu:

"Had it not been for narrations the qiyaas implied what the people of Madeenah say (i.e. Wudhu is not invalidated by laughter in prayers). However, resort to Qiyaas is not valid when there are narrations on a subject."

In fact, there are numerous instances in al-Hujjah 'ala Ahl al-Madeenah and Al-Asl where Muhammad ibn al-Hasan has commented on the subject discussing various issues.

(4) Zufar ibn al-Huthayl

Al-Kardari reported in al-Manaqib (2/182-283) from Zufar ibn al-Huthayl that he said:

"We resort to ar-Ra'y [i.e. ijtihaad and opinion] as long as there is no hadeeth [on the subject]. But when there is a hadeeth we leave the opinion and stick to the hadeeth."

Hanafis who preferred Hadeeth over Qiyaas

From the well known and major scholars of the Madhhab, those who held the same opinion as the Imam and his students:

1. Abu al-Hasan al-Karkhi, as reported in Kashf al-Asraar (2/707) of al-Bukhaari, Jaami' al-Asraar (3/673) of Al-Kaaki, at-Taqreer (4/190) of Al-Babarti
2. Abu al-Yusr al-Bazdawi, as in ibid.
3. 'Abd al-'Azeez al-Bukhaari, in his Kashf al-Asraar (2/708)
4. Ahmad ibn as-Sa'ati an-Nazzar, in his Badi' an-Nidhaam (pg. 178)
5. Al-Muwaffaq ibn Ahmad al-Makki, in his al-Manaqib (1/93)
6. Muhammad ibn Mahmood al-Khwarazmi, in his Jaami' al-Masaneed (pg. 53)
7. Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Kaaki, in his Jaami' al-Asraar (3/673-675)
8. 'Abd al-Qaadir ibn Muhammad all-Qurashi, in his l-Jawaahir al-Mudhiyyah (4/538-539)
9. Sa'd ad-Deen Mas'ood ibn 'Umar at-Taftazaani, in his Al-Talweeh (2/11)

Note: The discussion regarding the madhhab of At-Taftazaani is long for some claim he was Hanafi and some say he was Shaafii. It is argued that at-Taftazaani was Shaafi'i, but held proficiency in the Hanafi madhhab as well.

10. 'Abd al-Lateef Ibn Malak, in his Sharh al-Manaar (pg. 625)
11. Ibn Nujaym, in his Fath al-Ghaffaar (2/83)
12. Taqi ad-Deen ibn 'Abd al-Qaadir at-Tameemi al-Ghazzi, in his Tabaqaat al-Saniyyah (1/124-125)
13. Muhammad al-Izmeeri, in his Hashiyah 'ala Mira't al-Usool (2/213)
14. Mullah 'Ali ibn Sultaan al-Qaari, in Mirqaat al-Mafaatih (1/41) and Fath al-Baab al-'Inayah (1/32)
15. 'Abd al-Haqq ad-Dehlawi, in his Fath ar-Rahman Fi Ithbaat Madhhab an-Nu'man (1/23)
16. 'Ala ad-Deen al-Haskafi, in Ifadhah al-Anwaar (pg. 180)
17. Abu al-Hasan as-Sindi al-Kabeer, in his Hashiyah 'Ala Sunan an-Nasaa'i (7/254)
18. Ash-Shah Wali Allaah ad-Dehlawi, in his Hujjatullah al-Baalighah (1/161)
19. As-Sayyid Murtadha Az-Zabeedi, in his 'Uqood al-Jawaahar al-Muneefah (1/7)
20. Ibn 'Aabideen ash-Shami, in Nasamat al-Ashhar (pg. 180)
21. 'Abd al-Haleem al-Lucknawi, in Qamar al-Aqmar (2/16)
22. 'Abd al-Hayy al-Lucknawi, in Zafar al-Amani (pg. 543)
23. Al-Marjaani, in Hashiyah at-Tawzeeh (3/45-50)

From the contemporaries, there is:

24. Anwar Shah al-Kashmeeri, in Faydh al-Baari (3/229-231)
25. Shabbeer Ahmad al-'Uthmaani, in Muqaddimah Fath al-Mulhim (1/37-38)
26. Zafar Ahmad ath-Thanawi, in his 'Ila' as-Sunan (14/87)

Hanafis who preferred Qiyaas over Hadeeth

As mentioned, it is true that a number of Hanafi scholars preferred Qiyaas over Ahad Hadeeth, though it was conditional. They were:

1. The narrator of the report is not a jurist (faqeeh). If he is a jurist, qiyaas does not take precedence over hadeeth.

2. The report goes against all qiyaas to a purpose. If it contradicts one of the multiple qiyaas based conclusions, it is not preferred against.

Among the scholars who did prefer qiyaas over report, albeit with the above conditions, are Eesa ibn Abaan, al-Jassas, Abu al-Hasan al-Bazdawi, ad-Dabusi, as-Sarakhsi and ash-Shashi.

Conclusion: Reason for Difference

It is important for the reader to remember that differences in the science of principles [الاصول] is primarily divided into two groups, that of the majority (Shaafi'is, Maalikis and the Hanbalis) and the minority (Hanafis). This is because of the unique way the Hanafi madhhab has, which is unlike that of the other three madhhaaib. The Hanafi approach differs because to deduce the principles, they relied on the masaa'il (legal matters) from the Imams of the Madhhab. This is in contrast to the other three madhhaaib who relied on analogies and reasoning to establish their principles, then they based the legal matters on them. The Hanafis took the legal matters of their Imams, and deduced the principles from them. Their unique way is called "The way of the Jurists" [طريقة الفقهاء].

The main reason for some scholars holding the minority opinion in this subject is that they relied on a matter narrated from Imam Abu Haneefah, wherein they argued for the principle and conditions they mentioned. However, there is that only one matter has been narrated from the Imam which allows for their interpretation to hold valid. Otherwise there is no other matter which supports their position. Due to this, the majority of the scholars did not take their interpretation, rather they argued against them, showing weakness in their interpretation, and proving that the most correct opinion is that which is narrated definitively from the Imam and his students.

The majority argue based on the clear texts of the Imam, and the fact that a report, even if it is a single report, is stronger and more reliable qiyaas when the two conflict. Some scholars claim that qiyaas is stronger because a hadeeth may involve problems with narrators or meaning, while qiyaas is based on careful reasoning by the jurist. However, this is rejected since such problems of meaning also exist in the Quraan and mutawaatir (mass transmitted) reports, yet everyone agrees that they are preferred over qiyaas.

A hadeeth is ultimately based on the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him), who does not err, once its chain of transmission is reliable, whereas qiyaas depends on many human judgments, each of which can be mistaken. Even if the chain is not fully connected or even weak, it is preferred over qiyaas because there is still a strong possibility [غلبة الظن] that the report is authentic. A person is not necessarily more certain about his own reasoning than about a reliable report, because personal reasoning can be more prone to error. Therefore, the hadeeth must be accepted over qiyaas due to the probability of it being more reliable than the qiyaas.

Conclusion: Answer to the Opponents

In conclusion, I said earlier that in reality, this still does not support the claims of the two groups we mentioned. As for the Haddaadiyyah, they argue that the Hanafis reject the Sunnah as a source, or that they prefer their own opinions and ideas over the Sunnah. In support of their falsehood, however, they cannot produce any evidence from the sources so they resorted to quoting from the minority group because it is only their views they can twist to fit their agenda. Regardless of their twisting, we mentioned how this is only regarding Ahad Hadeeth and Qiyaas, and is conditional. The Hadaadiyyah do not claim this, rather they argue it is unconditional due to the "corruption of the Hanafis" because they are "Ahl ar-Ra'y". But as seen in the field of evidence and argument, they have no feet to stand on.

That leaves us with the Hadeeth Rejectors who quote these imams as well. But as is the case with the Haddaadiyyah, their claim is not supported either since the very foundations clash, for they argue that there is no Sunnah, or they argue that there is Sunnah, but it is lost, or similar to these two for they are not a unified group, each has their own argument. All it takes is for one to look into the reality of the difference and realize that there is no proof for them in it, rather it is against them for they attach themselves to these scholars, using them for legitimacy when they have clearly outlined in their works that rejection of the Sunnah is disbelief, and that they have argued and agreed upon the Sunnah as source in the Sharee'ah.

[Discussion, sources and points taken and summarized from the esteemed work "دراسات في أصول الحديث على منهج الحنفية" of 'Abd al-Majeed at-Turkmaani]

And Allaah is the Guide towards the Right Path