Books Attributed to Imam Abū Ḥanīfa: A Historical and Analytical Overview

NOTE TO THE READER:
This article is based on notes and discussions from our class with Mawlana Zeeshan Chaudri. It’s not intended to be a thoroughly researched or evidence-based academic paper. My aim is simply to document what we’ve studied and also share it with other interested readers.

Imām Abū Ḥanīfa (80–150 AH) is the founder of the Ḥanafī madhhab and needs little introduction. Several works are attributed to him, yet the authorship of these texts has been a subject of debate among scholars. In this brief article, I will share some of the key points discussed in our class with Mawlānā Zeeshan regarding the attribution of these works to Imām Abū Ḥanīfa and the controversies surrounding them. This overview is intended to provide a simple and accessible introduction to the topic and is not an exhaustive study.

The Five Books Attributed to Imām Abū Ḥanīfa

The five works that are most commonly attributed to Imām Abū Ḥanīfa are:

1. Kitāb al-Waṣiyya
2. Fiqh al-Akbar I (also known as Fiqh al-Absaṭ, transmitted by Abū Muṭīʿ al-Balkhī)
3. Fiqh al-Akbar II (transmitted by Ḥammād b. Abī Ḥanīfa)
4. Al-ʿĀlim wa al-Mutaʿallim
5. Risāla ilā ʿUthmān al-Battī

Of these five works, one—Risāla ilā ʿUthmān al-Battī—is generally accepted as being correctly attributed to Imām Abū Ḥanīfa. Two of the remaining works are reliably traced back to his students, though it remains a matter of debate whether they reflect Imām Abū Ḥanīfa’s own words or those of his students. The last two works, Kitāb al-Waṣiyya and Fiqh al-Akbar II, are considered highly questionable in terms of their attribution to the Imām.

Kitāb al-Athār

In addition to the five works mentioned, Kitāb al-Athār is often discussed in relation to Imām Abū Ḥanīfa. Some Ḥanafī scholars claim that this work was originally authored by the Imām, but the majority believe it was compiled by his students, particularly Imām Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan (132–189 AH) and Imām Abū Yūsuf (113–182 AH). It is also alleged that Imām Zufar (110–158 AH), another prominent student of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa, had his own version of Kitāb al-Athār. Shaykh Abū al-Wafāʾ Afghānī suggested that the existing versions are recensions of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa’s original work, but there is no conclusive evidence to support this view. The considerable differences between the versions attributed to Imām Muḥammad and Imām Abū Yūsuf, further complicate this issue. As a result, the safer scholarly approach is to refrain from attributing Kitāb al-Athār directly to Imām Abū Ḥanīfa.

The Controversy Surrounding Fiqh al-Akbar

One of the most debated texts associated with Imām Abū Ḥanīfa is Fiqh al-Akbar. In fact, two separate works bear this title:

1. Fiqh al-Akbar I (narrated by Abū Muṭīʿ al-Balkhī, d. 199 AH)
2. Fiqh al-Akbar II (narrated by Ḥammād b. Abī Ḥanīfa, d. 176 AH)

Though both works share the same title, Fiqh al-Akbar, they are distinct in both content and transmission. Orientalist scholars have differentiated between the two by assigning the version narrated by Abū Muṭīʿ the title Fiqh al-Akbar I and the one transmitted by Ḥammād b. Abī Ḥanīfa, the son of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa, as Fiqh al-Akbar II. The latter of the two, Fiqh al-Akbar II, is more widely attributed to Imām Abū Ḥanīfa. My respected teacher, Muftī ʿAbdul Raḥmān Mangera, supports this attribution in the introduction to his translation of Al-Fiqh al-Akbar, while another of my teachers, Mawlānā Zeeshan Chaudri, the same teacher discussing this topic with us, believes it is not a correct ascription. Additionally, Dr. Ibrahim Harvey, in his article Mistaken Identity: An Investigation into Abū Ḥanīfa’s al-Fiqh al-Akbar, also raises doubts regarding the attribution of this work to the Imām (perhaps important to point out here that I have yet to read the article myself).

Regardless of whether Fiqh al-Akbar was written by Imām Abū Ḥanīfa, its content has been accepted by Māturīdī scholars as sound from a theological perspective. Thus, the issue of authorship is largely a historical one rather than a question of doctrinal validity.

Kitāb al-Waṣiyya

Another work with a doubtful ascription is Kitāb al-Waṣiyya. Like Fiqh al-Akbar II, the authenticity of this text as a work of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa has been questioned by scholars. Despite these doubts, Kitāb al-Waṣiyya is still studied within the Ḥanafī school. However, scholars exercise caution when attributing it to Imām Abū Ḥanīfa himself.

Theology and ʿAqīda: The Role of Kalām

The involvement of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa in the discipline of ʿilm al-kalām (speculative theology) is another area of scholarly debate. It is commonly believed that the Imām engaged in kalām early in his life but later distanced himself from it. This presents a challenge because ʿilm al-kalām became a formal discipline only later, and many early scholars condemned it as madhmūm (blameworthy).

In the early generations of Islam, particularly during the era of the Ṣaḥāba (Companions of the Prophet) and the Tābiʿīn (Successors), theological discussions were kept brief and focused on the essential tenets of faith. Their approach to matters of belief was one of simplicity and submission, as encapsulated by the phrase ʿalaynā al-taslīm—meaning “we submit” or “we accept.” This principle reflected their commitment to accepting what was explicitly stated in the Qurʾān and Sunnah without engaging in deeper philosophical or speculative debates.

The early generations believed that there was no need to delve into complex theological arguments or question the mysteries of divine revelation. Their focus was on maintaining a clear and unwavering faith in the fundamental principles, without the risk of overcomplicating or misinterpreting the sacred texts.

This approach is well illustrated by the famous ḥadīth from Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī:

“The adulterer does not commit adultery while he is a believer, and the thief does not steal while he is a believer…” Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Hadith number 6810, Kitāb al-Ḥudūd.

This statement raises the theological question regarding the nature of a believer’s faith and the implications of committing such sins. However, when confronted with this ḥadīth, Imām al-Zuhrī (d. 124 AH) responded by simply saying, “We accept it.” His response is significant because it demonstrates the early scholars’ approach of not engaging in speculative theology. Instead of attempting to reconcile or explain the deeper theological implications, Imām al-Zuhrī’s answer reflects the humility and respect they showed towards revelation.

Imām al-Zuhrī, like many early scholars, understood that delving too deeply into abstract theological discussions might lead to unnecessary confusion or division among the Muslim community. Their primary concern was to preserve the integrity of faith and to avoid engaging in debates that could complicate matters of belief, especially when such matters had not been explicitly addressed by the Qurʾān or the Prophet Muḥammad (ﷺ).

This ethos of restraint was driven by a profound sense of submission to divine will, which they considered paramount in their faith. They would often refrain from philosophical interpretations of theological issues, sticking instead to what had been transmitted through clear texts. This way of thinking remained dominant until the advent of later theological schools, such as the Ashʿarī and Māturīdī traditions, which would engage in ʿilm al-kalām to address the emerging doctrinal challenges of their time.

Kalām in Later Scholarship

Although early scholars opposed engaging in ʿilm al-kalām, it became a necessary tool for later Islamic theologians, especially those from the Ashʿarī and Māturīdī schools. These scholars used kalām to defend the principles of Sunni Islam against emerging heresies. By this time, the term “kalām” had evolved to include theological discourse meant to explain and defend the creed.

Imām Abū Ḥanīfa’s engagement with kalām can be viewed within this evolving framework. If one explains a ḥadīth such as the one mentioned above, is that not a form of kalām? This highlights the changing nature of theological discourse in Islam. While early scholars condemned kalām in general, later scholars distinguished between kalām madhmūm (blameworthy theology) and kalām maḥmūd (praiseworthy theology), thereby legitimising certain forms of theological debate.

The Risāla of ʿUthmān al-Battī: An Authenticated Work

The Risāla ilā ʿUthmān al-Battī is widely regarded as a genuine work of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa. Scholars have used a four-point criterion to evaluate the authenticity of texts, and this work meets all four conditions:

1. Authorship Mentioned by Early Sources: Early and contemporary scholars mention that Imām Abū Ḥanīfa authored this text.
2. Attestation of the Contents: There are chains of transmission (asānīd) for the text, and ideally multiple chains attest to its contents.
3. Citations of the Text: Other scholars quote from this work, lending further credibility to its attribution.
4. Temporal Consistency: The content of the text reflects the intellectual atmosphere of the time, avoiding anachronisms.

In contrast, a more recent example of a problematic attribution is the 2008/09 publication of a tafsīr attributed to Abū Sulaymān al-Ṭabarānī (d. 360 AH). The discovery of references to individuals who lived after al-Ṭabarānī proved that the work was not authored by him, illustrating the importance of applying rigorous standards when assessing the authenticity of texts.

Al-ʿĀlim wa al-Mutaʿallim: A Work Attributed to a Student of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa

Al-ʿĀlim wa al-Mutaʿallim is another work often attributed to Imām Abū Ḥanīfa, though it is more likely the work of one of his students, Abū Muqātil al-Samarqandī. This text, structured in a question-and-answer format, is more elaborate than the Risāla ilā ʿUthmān al-Baṭṭī. Although traditionally listed as one of the Imām’s works, its attribution is uncertain.

Abū Muqātil was known for his piety and deep understanding of fiqh. However, he was dismissed by some muḥaddithūn (hadith scholars) as an unreliable transmitter of ḥadīth. Despite this, the content of the text must be evaluated based on its alignment with established principles of ʿaqīda and the teachings of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa.

Usūl and Furūʿ in ʿAqīda

When evaluating theological works like Al-ʿĀlim wa al-Mutaʿallim, it is crucial to differentiate between usūl (fundamental principles) and furūʿ (secondary details) in ʿaqīda.

• Usūl: Core tenets of faith that must be established with the highest level of evidence, such as belief in paradise and the oneness of Allah.
• Furūʿ: Secondary discussions related to the creed, such as the nature of the Prophet’s (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa sallam) miʿrāj (ascension) or whether the Qurʾān is created or uncreated.

For example, belief in the miʿrāj is a fundamental (usūl) principle, while discussions on whether it occurred bodily or in a dream fall under secondary details (furūʿ). A text like Al-ʿĀlim wa al-Mutaʿallim can be accepted as long as it aligns with the broader ʿaqīda established through other, more authoritative works.

Fiqh al-Akbar I: The Transmission of Abū Muṭīʿ al-Balkhī

Abū Muṭīʿ al-Balkhī (d. 199 AH) was a prominent student of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa and an active qāḍī in Balkh. He is linked to the transmission of Fiqh al-Akbar I, a work attributed to Imām Abū Ḥanīfa, though its authorship remains a matter of scholarly debate.

Abū Muṭīʿ belonged to a group of scholars known for their role in “commanding good and forbidding evil,” which refers to their bravery in correcting political authorities, including the caliphs, despite potential repercussions. While this trait is expected of all scholars, those in this category were distinguished for their courage in confronting rulers directly.

Regarding Abū Muṭīʿ’s theological stance, some critics labeled him a “Jahmī,” associating him with the beliefs of the Jahmiyya sect. This label, however, was not necessarily accurate. It is important to understand that the term “Jahmī” became a derogatory label during the theological turmoil of the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries, particularly during the Mihna (the Inquisition) concerning the createdness of the Qurʾān. This period saw a peak in the backlash against Ḥanafī scholars, including those who were accused of holding the view that the Qurʾān was makhlūq (created), such as ʿĪsā b. Abān. These labels often served to discredit scholars based on perceived theological associations.

During this period, accusations of heretical beliefs, such as Murji’ism (the belief that actions are not part of īmān), became prevalent. Abū Muṭīʿ and other Ḥanafī scholars were often criticised for their association with this theological position, which led to their marginalisation in certain circles. Furthermore, scholars known as Aṣḥāb al-Ra’y (those who employed reasoning in jurisprudence) were often classed as weak narrators, even without clear evidence of narrating weak aḥādīth. Theological positions were increasingly used to discredit scholars’ reliability as narrators of ḥadīth.

For instance, during the controversy over the Qurʾān’s createdness, theological disagreements became a primary reason for dismissing narrators. Abū Ḥātim and Abū Zurʿa famously dismissed the great ḥadīth scholar al-Bukhārī for saying that while the Qurʾān is uncreated, “my recitation of the Qurʾān is created.”

Does Theology Affect Ḥadīth Transmission?

A common question is whether a scholar’s theological views compromise their reliability in transmitting ḥadīth. An example often cited is ʿIkrima, who was accused of being a Khārijī but whose narrations are still accepted in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Holding to certain theological positions does not automatically disqualify a narrator; rather, the key is to analyse whether those beliefs affected the accuracy of their transmissions.

In Abū Muṭīʿ’s case, despite being dismissed by some muḥaddithūn, he was still considered a reliable transmitter of fiqh due to the broader acceptance of his work in the Ḥanafī tradition. Whether Fiqh al-Akbar I is his work or Imām Abū Ḥanīfa’s remains debated, but the text has undergone the rigorous criteria needed to evaluate its authenticity and is still studied by scholars today.

Fiqh Akbar II: Transmission of Ḥammād b. Abī Ḥanīfa

Fiqh Akbar II is one of the works attributed to Imām Abū Ḥanīfa, but its authorship has been the subject of considerable scholarly scrutiny. While Fiqh Akbar I is widely accepted as originating from Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 150 AH/767 CE), the attribution of Fiqh Akbar II has led to controversy, especially regarding its theological content, language, and historical context.

Early Citations

The early attribution of Fiqh Akbar II to Abū Ḥanīfa begins with scholars like ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Bukhārī (d. 730 AH/1330 CE), who was among the first to connect Fiqh Akbar II with Abū Ḥanīfa, citing it as a foundational text in Hanafi theology. Roman Harvey, in his work Mistaken Identity, challenges this attribution, arguing that Fiqh Akbar II does not appear in the early historical record. The first references to a text titled Fiqh Akbar point to Fiqh Akbar I, often referred to by scholars as the absat (simplified) version.

Harvey notes that all early citations from the work attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa align with Fiqh Akbar I. The earliest references to the content of Fiqh Akbar II only emerge with ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Bukhārī, who was the first to treat the two texts as one, assuming they came from the same source without recognizing their differences.

This has raised critical questions regarding the authenticity of Fiqh Akbar II. Given that early scholars consistently cite Fiqh Akbar I, the sudden appearance of a more detailed, advanced theological text attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa centuries later raises doubts about its origins.

Key Arguments

One of the central arguments against the authenticity of Fiqh Akbar II is the anachronistic use of language and advanced theological terminology. As AJ Wensinck argued, the detailed discussions found in Fiqh Akbar II, such as affirming that the Qur’ān is ghayr makhlūq (uncreated) while simultaneously negating that Allah speaks with sound or letters, are not reflective of the theological style of the 2nd/8th century.

In early Islamic theology, the focus was on general affirmations of Allah’s attributes, with only simple negations of physicality. For instance, in Fiqh Akbar II, we find detailed refutations such as “Allah is not a jism” (body), “He does not have a limit,” and “He does not speak with tools or sound.” These kinds of nuanced negations did not exist in the early aqīdah discussions of the mid-2nd/8th century, which primarily focused on affirming core beliefs like Allah’s oneness and transcendence without diving into such specific refutations.

Harvey explains that when detailed terminologies appear earlier than expected, one would normally find subsequent scholars expanding upon them. However, in the case of Fiqh Akbar II, we find a gap in history—its terminology does not reappear in the scholarly discourse until centuries later. This leads to the suggestion that the text is too advanced for the time of Abū Ḥanīfa and instead fits better in the theological milieu of the 4th/10th century, a period marked by the rise of Ashʿarī theology (Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī, d. 324 AH/936 CE).

Mawlānā Shiblī Nuʿmānī, in his Sīrat al-Nuʿmān, was one of the earliest modern scholars to point out the anachronistic language of Fiqh Akbar II. He noted that despite its ascription to Abū Ḥanīfa, it did not leave a noticeable impression on early Hanafī theology. The first known commentary on the text did not emerge until the 8th/14th century, with Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī (d. 1014 AH/1606 CE) and Muḥammad al-Mighnāṣāwī writing on it centuries after its supposed composition.

Other scholars, including Josef van Ess and Ulrich Rudolph, have also remarked on the fact that the advanced theological discussions within Fiqh Akbar II—such as Allah not being a body (jism) and having no limits (ḥadd)—were out of place for the early period of Islamic theology. These arguments further challenge the traditional attribution of the text to Abū Ḥanīfa.

Harvey also highlights how scholars such as Ināyatullāh Iblāgh, Wahbī Ghāwji, Muftī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Mangera, and Rustam Mahdī have attempted to defend the authenticity of Fiqh Akbar II by citing early references to a work titled Fiqh Akbar and chains of narrations. However, Harvey argues that their defense relies on general attributions and does not adequately address the charge of anachronism.

For example, take the issue of the Prophet’s parents dying upon disbelief, a statement explicitly found in Fiqh Akbar II. While later Hanafī scholars have defended this position, it was unknown in the early 2nd/8th century discourse attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa. If Fiqh Akbar II were genuinely from his time, one would expect earlier scholars to have cited this position, but they do not.

Contradictions in Early Reception

An important point made by Harvey is the inconsistency in early references to the theological positions attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa. Abū al-ʿAlāʾ Ustawāʾī (d. 432 AH/1040 CE), for example, does not cite the explicit statement from Fiqh Akbar II that the Qur’ān is ghayr makhlūq even though he discusses the question of whether Abū Ḥanīfa believed in the created or uncreated nature of the Qur’ān. This omission suggests that he was quoting from Fiqh Akbar I, which holds a more neutral position on the matter, rather than the detailed affirmation found in Fiqh Akbar II.

Further support for this claim comes from Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Naṭīfī (d. 446 AH/1054 CE), who also cites from Abū Muṭīʿ al-Balkhī’s text without mentioning the explicit theological positions found in Fiqh Akbar II. This gap between early sources and later references further solidifies the theory that Fiqh Akbar II was not known to early Hanafī scholars.

Additionally, al-Isfirāyīnī (d. 471 AH/1078 CE) references a chain of transmission for the Fiqh Akbar via Nusayr ibn Yaḥyā (d. 268 AH/882 CE), which is also found in the transmission of Abū Muṭīʿ al-Balkhī. This supports the argument that early scholars were referring to Fiqh Akbar I, not the later Fiqh Akbar II attributed to Ḥammād.

Who Really Wrote Fiqh Akbar II?

Once the attribution to Abū Ḥanīfa is questioned, the issue of who authored Fiqh Akbar II arises. Harvey suggests that the most likely candidate is a figure known as Abū Ḥanīfa Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Bukhārī, who was active in the 4th/10th century. Ibn Abī al-Wafā confirms his existence and notes that he was a transmitter of theological positions that were later attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa.

The theory posits that al-Bukhārī’s text was mistakenly attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa by later scholars. While not definitively proven, this theory carries weight given the anachronisms and the text’s sudden appearance in the 8th century.

In conclusion, the reception history of Fiqh Akbar II indicates that it is likely a later work that was attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa by mistake. The earliest references to Fiqh Akbar point to Fiqh Akbar I, and only later do we see the conflation of the two works. Scholars like ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Bukhārī, Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī, and others helped cement Fiqh Akbar II as part of the Hanafī theological corpus, even though its authenticity remains in question.

Conclusion

The attribution of works to Imām Abū Ḥanīfa remains a topic of scholarly debate, with only a few texts, like Risāla ilā ʿUthmān al-Battī, being widely accepted. Controversial texts such as Fiqh al-Akbar II and Kitāb al-Waṣiyya raise questions about their authenticity. Despite these uncertainties, the content of these works, particularly within the Ḥanafī and Māturīdī traditions, continues to play a significant role in theological discussions, which demonstrates the lasting influence of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa’s intellectual legacy.

---

Class date: September 2024, Whitethread London