Sources for the Life of Imam Abū Ḥanīfa

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.

The life of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 150 AH) has long been the subject of study, reverence, and scholarly discussion. However, much of what has been passed down about his life and character comes from a combination of historical accounts and hagiographical traditions, the latter of which often blur the line between historical accuracy and spiritual edification. Understanding the sources that inform our knowledge of this towering figure in Islamic jurisprudence requires careful distinction between primary, secondary, and even lost sources, which are no longer extant.

The Role of Hagiography

Hagiography, by definition, presents the lives of saints or revered figures with the primary aim of imparting spiritual lessons. These works are not subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny as historical or hadith-based reports, as their purpose is more focused on spiritual inspiration than on historical accuracy. While they are invaluable for understanding the perception of a figure’s virtues and spiritual significance, over-reliance on hagiographical accounts can lead to a murky understanding of actual historical events. In such cases, it becomes difficult to distinguish between historical facts and embellished stories aimed at glorifying the subject.

Categories of Sources

The sources for Imām Abū Ḥanīfa’s life can be classified into three broad categories:

1. Primary sources: These are the earliest accounts that include detailed chains of transmission (asanīd), linking the report directly back to the actual event or statement. Such sources are critical for evaluating the reliability of the information they provide.
2. Secondary sources: These works often cite material from the primary sources but may not include the original chains of transmission. An example is the book al-Khayrāt al-Ḥisān by Ibn Ḥajar al-Haythamī (d. 974 AH), which is widely regarded but does not provide asanīd. This does not necessarily discredit the information within the book, but one would need to trace the material back to its original source to verify the chains of transmission and assess their reliability.
3. Lost sources: Some early works on the life of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa are no longer extant. These works are often referenced in later sources, allowing us to infer their content and significance.

The Historical Context: Musnad and Manaqib Works

During the 3rd century AH, there was an ongoing conflict between the Ḥanafīs and the Ahl al-Ḥadīth. The latter group accused Imām Abū Ḥanīfa of neglecting the ḥadīth of the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) in favor of qiyās (analogical reasoning) and ra’y (personal judgment). In response to these criticisms, two types of literature were produced:

1. Hadīth musnads: These collections contained ḥadīth allegedly narrated or transmitted by Imām Abū Ḥanīfa. The purpose of these works was to defend the Imām against accusations that he had ignored or downplayed the importance of ḥadīth.
2. Manaqib (hagiographies): These were works that presented the life of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa in a positive and reverential light, focusing on his virtues, character, and scholarly contributions.

Musnad Works: Evaluating the Hadith Attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa

One of the most prominent efforts to compile the ḥadīth attributed to Imām Abū Ḥanīfa is found in Jāmi’ Masānīd al-Imām al-Aʿẓam, compiled by Imām al-Khwarizmī (d. 655 AH). This monumental work includes fifteen of the earlier musnads, presenting the ḥadīth said to have been taught by the Imām. However, these works did not escape criticism.

Abū Bakr ibn Abī Dāwūd (d. 316 AH) and Ibn ʿAdī (d. 365 AH) rigorously examined the ḥadīth attributed to Imām Abū Ḥanīfa in these early musnad works. Abū Bakr ibn Abī Dāwūd concluded that Abū Ḥanīfa had only transmitted around 150 ḥadīth, and that he made errors in half of them. Similarly, Ibn ʿAdī estimated that the Imām had transmitted around 300 ḥadīth, but he asserted that Abū Ḥanīfa had made mistakes in all but 10 to 20 of them. These criticisms highlight the intense scrutiny applied to the hadīth corpus attributed to the Imām by some of his detractors from the Ahl al-Ḥadīth school.

Manaqib Works: The Early Biographies of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa

By the beginning of the 4th century AH, a new interest in the life of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa emerged. Numerous biographies, known as manaqib, were written to document the life and virtues of the Imām. Some of the earliest biographers include:

• Zakariyya b. Yaḥyā al-Ḥārithī (d. 298 AH)
• Ibn al-Salt (d. 302 AH)
• Ṭaḥāwī (d. 321 AH)
• Ibn Ka’s (d. 324 AH)
• Ibn ʿUqda (d. 332 AH)
• ʿAbdullāh al-Ustādh al-Ḥārithī (N/A)

Unfortunately, none of these early biographies have survived intact, with the exception of Akhbār Abī Ḥanīfa wa-Aṣḥābihi by ʿAlī al-Saymārī (d. 436 AH). This is the earliest extant manaqib work on Imām Abū Ḥanīfa. It is filled with reports from Aḥmad ibn al-Salt, a key early source whose name appears on nearly every page of the book.

The Work of Mawlana ʿUbayd Akhtar Raḥmānī

Mawlana ʿUbayd Akhtar Raḥmānī has contributed a significant scholarly article that attempts to chronologically document the works dedicated to recording the virtues and life of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa. He identifies Abu Yaḥyā Zakariyya ibn Yaḥyā (d. 298 AH) as the first known author to compile a biography of the Imām. While Zakariyya’s work is not extant, it is referenced in the bibliographical index Kashf al-Ẓunūn by Ḥājjī Khalīfa (d. 1067 AH), the renowned Ottoman scholar and bibliophile.

Ḥājjī Khalīfa’s Kashf al-Ẓunūn is an encyclopedic work that provides information on over 15,000 Arabic, Persian, and Turkish books up to his time. In this work, he notes Zakariyya’s biography of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa, stating: “ولأبي يحيى زكريا بن يحيى البيسابوري كتاب في مناقبه” (“Abu Yaḥyā Zakariyya ibn Yaḥyā al-Bisābūrī has a book on the virtues of Abū Ḥanīfa”). This mention helps establish Zakariyya as an early figure in the development of manaqib literature dedicated to the Imām.

Today, the need for these bibliographical works is somewhat reduced, as many libraries have begun to index their collections electronically. This allows scholars and students to navigate through vast amounts of material more easily than in previous generations, when works like Kashf al-Ẓunūn were essential tools for researchers.

The Narrator Aḥmad ibn al-Salt

A key figure in the early documentation of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa’s life is Abū al-‘Abbās Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Salt al-Himmanī, a narrator who has been a subject of significant scrutiny and debate among hadith scholars. According to his own account, Aḥmad ibn al-Salt was the nephew of Jubāra ibn al-Mughalis (d. 241 AH), a Kufan scholar who was not held in high esteem due to concerns regarding his reliability as a transmitter. Ibn al-Salt is said to have hailed from ash-Sharqiyya, a quarter in Baghdad, and passed away either in 302 or 308 AH.

One of Ibn al-Salt’s major contributions to Islamic scholarship was a substantial book on the biography and virtues of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa. Unfortunately, this book has not survived, but significant portions of it have been preserved in the works of later scholars, who quoted extensively from it. As a result, while his original work is lost, his contributions continue to shape much of what is known about the life of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa, especially through citations found in biographies like Akhbār Abī Ḥanīfa wa-Aṣḥābihi by ʿAlī al-Saymārī (d. 436 AH).

The Problem with Ibn al-Salt: Criticisms and Controversies

Despite his substantial role in documenting the life of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa, Ibn al-Salt faced severe criticism from hadith scholars regarding his reliability as a narrator. One of the most damning accusations comes from Imām al-Dāraquṭnī (d. 385 AH), who, when asked about a transmitter named Mukram ibn Aḥmad (who narrated from Ibn al-Salt), responded that “it is all fabricated by Aḥmad ibn al-Salt.” However, it is important to note that not all of Mukram’s asanīd trace back through Ibn al-Salt, indicating that Mukram may have sourced material from others as well.

Three notable hadith scholars met Ibn al-Salt in person: Ibn ʿAdī (d. 365 AH), Ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354 AH), and al-Ṭabarānī (d. 360 AH). Of these three, both Ibn ʿAdī and Ibn Ḥibbān accused him of being a liar, while al-Ṭabarānī, interestingly, passed no judgment on him as a transmitter of hadith. Other prominent scholars also took issue with Ibn al-Salt’s reliability:

• Abū Nuʿaym (d. 430 AH) remarked that Ibn al-Salt would narrate things he had not heard.
• Abū al-Fawāris (d. 413 AH) went as far as to accuse him of fabricating hadith.
• ʿAbd al-Bāqī ibn Qāniʿ (d. 351 AH), a well-known Ḥanafī critic of hadith, also considered Ibn al-Salt unreliable. His criticism carries additional weight because, as a Ḥanafī himself, he would have had less inherent bias against a narrator who favored Ḥanafī scholarship.

Despite these serious accusations, none of Ibn al-Salt’s contemporaries specifically mentioned his connection to the biography of Abū Ḥanīfa, raising further questions about the authenticity and reliability of his works on the Imām.

Two Key Issues Regarding Ibn al-Salt: The Form of His Work and His Name

In addition to the question of his reliability, two important issues have arisen in the later evaluation of Ibn al-Salt:

By the time of al-Dāraquṭnī, Ibn al-Salt’s reports had been incorporated into a composition by his student, Mukram ibn Aḥmad (d. 345 AH). Early sources tell us very little about the exact form of Ibn al-Salt’s work. It remains unclear whether Ibn al-Salt himself ever compiled a formal “book” of his reports, or if his material was later organised and transmitted by others. All the later authors who refer to his “book” do so without claiming to have actually seen it, making it impossible to definitively establish whether such a work ever existed in the traditional sense.

There is some confusion regarding the exact name of Ibn al-Salt, which may have been intentionally altered to obscure his identity. Al-Dāraquṭnī referred to him as Aḥmad ibn al-Mughalis al-Himmanī, a variation on the name by which he is usually known. Since Ibn al-Salt’s reports appealed to Ḥanafī scholars, there are indications that later scholars may have attempted to obscure or conceal his identity by using different names. This practice is not without precedent; Sufyān al-Thawrī (d. 161 AH) and Ibn Ḥibbān were known to refer to controversial narrators using their kunyā (epithet), such as when Sufyān al-Thawrī referred to the unreliable narrator Muḥammad ibn al-Sāʾib al-Kalbī (d. 146 AH) simply as Abū al-Naḍr.

In his lifetime, Ibn al-Salt was consistently referred to as Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Salt, as evidenced by the fact that all three scholars who met him called him by this name. However, in later sources, various forms of his name appear, likely in an attempt to distance him from the controversies surrounding his narrations. Imām al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (d. 463 AH), in his seminal work Tārīkh Baghdād, includes Ibn al-Salt under three different names: Aḥmad ibn al-Salt ibn Mughalis, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Salt ibn Mughalis, and Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Mughalis. Soon after this, a new figure by the name Aḥmad ibn ʿAṭiyya emerged in the transmission circles. Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī regarded this name as a fabricated transmitter, likely created to circulate Ibn al-Salt’s reports without directly attributing them to him. Others suggest that “Aḥmad ibn ʿAṭiyya” was simply another alias for Ibn al-Salt himself.

Later Scholars’ Reception of Ibn al-Salt

Interestingly, later Ḥanafī scholars had little to say about Ibn al-Salt, and his reputation seems to have faded in the centuries following his death.

• Al-Khwarizmī (d. 655 AH), in his Jāmi’ Masānīd al-Imām al-Aʿẓam, defended Imām Abū Ḥanīfa against attacks from al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī but did not significantly engage with the criticism of Ibn al-Salt. Instead, he quoted some of al-Khaṭīb’s remarks about Ibn al-Salt from Tārīkh Baghdād.
• Taqī al-Dīn al-Tamīmī (d. 1010 AH), while admitting that Ibn al-Salt greatly exaggerated in his book on Abū Ḥanīfa, did not believe that al-Khaṭīb was justified in accusing him of forging hadith.
• Ibn Qutlubughā (d. 879 AH), a prominent Ḥanafī scholar, omits any mention of Ibn al-Salt in his work Tāj al-Tarājim.
• Tashkubrīzāda (d. 968 AH), in his Ṭabaqāt al-Fuqahā, and Laknawī (d. 1304 AH), in Fawā’id Bahiyya, also ignore him.

Aḥmad ibn al-Salt remains a pivotal yet controversial figure in the historiography of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa. While his work has been foundational in preserving early material about the Imām, his reliability as a transmitter has been questioned by many prominent hadith scholars. Moreover, the ambiguity surrounding the form of his work and his varying names only adds to the complexity of evaluating his contributions. Despite these challenges, Ibn al-Salt’s material continues to influence later biographical works, even if later scholars chose to distance themselves from his legacy.

Imām al-Ṭaḥāwī (d. 321 AH)

Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Salāma al-Ṭaḥāwī was a senior Ḥanafī scholar and one of the most prominent figures in the transmission of the Ḥanafī legal tradition. His family background is noteworthy, as his uncle, al-Muzanī, was a renowned Shāfi‘ī scholar. While Imām al-Ṭaḥāwī’s work on Imām Abū Ḥanīfa is no longer extant, it is frequently quoted in later sources, implying that a significant portion of his contributions has been preserved through citations. This makes al-Ṭaḥāwī’s book an invaluable but indirect source for information about the life and virtues of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa.

ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibn Ka’s al-Nakha‘ī (d. 324 AH)

Another important early biographer of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa is ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibn Ka’s al-Nakha‘ī, who was deemed a trustworthy narrator. His credibility as a narrator elevates the value of his work as a source for the life of Abū Ḥanīfa. Although his book is no longer available, it is quoted in key sources such as al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī’s Tārīkh Baghdād and al-Saymārī’s Akhbār Abī Ḥanīfa wa-Aṣḥābihi.

The value of al-Nakha‘ī’s work is further enhanced by the fact that he was part of a generation that had access to earlier, now-lost works. This is evident in other significant collections like Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī, which also referenced numerous early works that are no longer extant today. The common misconception is that when a book is lost, the knowledge it contains is lost as well. However, scholars often quoted from such works, thus preserving their contents. In Tārīkh Madīna al-Salām, Imām al-Khaṭīb praises Ibn Ka’s, stating, “كان ثقة فاضلًا” (“He was a trustworthy and virtuous man”).

Faḍā’il Abī Ḥanīfa by Ibn Abī al-‘Awwām (d. 345 AH)

Another key work on the virtues of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa is Faḍā’il Abī Ḥanīfa by Ibn Abī al-‘Awwām. Although there is some dispute over whether the author was the grandfather or the grandson of the same name, the importance of the work is undisputed. Bahra’ijī mentions the date of death as 335 AH, but al-Maʿarrī (d. 442 AH) reports that Ibn Abī al-‘Awwām was still narrating hadith in 344 AH, suggesting that he may have passed away around 345 AH.

The book was published and edited in 2010 by Shaykh Laṭīf al-Raḥmān al-Bahra’ijī, making it accessible to modern scholars. Ibn Abī al-‘Awwām’s primary sources for the manāqib of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa included figures like Abū Bishr Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Dawlabī (d. 310 AH), who also compiled a book on the virtues of Abū Ḥanīfa, and Muḥammad ibn Ja‘far ibn ʿAyyān (d. 293 AH).

ʿAbdullāh ibn Muḥammad al-Ḥārithī (d. 340 AH)

Known primarily for his Musnad, ʿAbdullāh ibn Muḥammad al-Ḥārithī also authored a manāqib work on Imām Abū Ḥanīfa titled Kashf Athār Sharīfa fī Manāqib Abī Ḥanīfa, which was published by Shaykh Laṭīf al-Raḥmān al-Bahra’ijī in two volumes. Although the work is valuable for its extensive material on the Imām, al-Ḥārithī has been criticised for his role as a transmitter. He has been accused of fabricating reports, and many of his sources, particularly Ibn ʿUqdah (d. 333 AH), are regarded as unreliable. Despite these issues, Ibn ʿUqdah himself is noted to have compiled a Musnad and a manāqib work on Imām Abū Ḥanīfa. However, the work is further marred by the inclusion of hostile reports against Imām al-Shāfi‘ī, which are considered inappropriate.

Akhbār Abī Ḥanīfa wa-Aṣḥābihi by Abū ‘Alī Ḥusain ibn ‘Alī al-Saymārī (d. 436 AH)

Abū ʿAlī Ḥusain ibn ʿAlī al-Saymārī’s work, Akhbār Abī Ḥanīfa wa-Aṣḥābihi, is one of the most important early sources for the life of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa. Like Ibn Abī al-‘Awwām, al-Saymārī drew extensively from earlier works, which makes his book a crucial repository for reports that may otherwise have been lost. One of the key sources cited in his work is Abū Bakr Mukram ibn Aḥmad (d. 345 AH), who was a student of Ibn al-Salt. However, al-Dāraquṭnī accused Mukram’s book of containing forged reports, which raises questions about the reliability of the material transmitted by al-Saymārī.

Imām Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr (d. 463 AH)

Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr was one of the first non-Ḥanafī scholars to write a positive work on Imām Abū Ḥanīfa, titled al-Intiqāʾ fī Faḍā’il al-Aʾimma al-Thalātha: Mālik wa-l-Shāfiʿī wa-Abī Ḥanīfa. This work, which discusses the virtues of the three prominent jurists, Imām Mālik, Imām al-Shāfi‘ī, and Imām Abū Ḥanīfa, is considered a reliable and valuable source for the life of Abū Ḥanīfa. Interestingly, the book does not include any mention of Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, as at this time, Imām Aḥmad’s legal methodology was still being formalised through the su’ālāt genre, in which his students collected his responses to legal questions. The book was initially worked on by Imām Zāhid al-Kawtharī and later received a comprehensive taḥqīq by his student Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattāḥ Abū Ghuddah.

Abū al-Mu’ayyad al-Muwaffaq al-Makkī (d. 568 AH)

One of the later sources for the life of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa is the work of Abū al-Mu’ayyad al-Makkī. His book is notable for its isnād chains that trace back to earlier works, including reports about the virtues and significance of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa. This trend of narrating his virtues, although sometimes based on weaker reports, was adopted by later scholars such as al-Khwarizmī in his Jāmiʿ al-Masānīd. Al-Makkī’s book was published alongside the manāqib of al-Bazāzī (d. 827 AH), and it has been heavily relied upon by scholars like Imām Zāhid al-Kawtharī. However, much of the attention to the isnād chains in these later works has been minimal, as scholars often focused more on the content and virtues of the Imām rather than the technical scrutiny of the chains of transmission.

Conclusion

The life of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa has been the subject of numerous works spanning centuries, with each generation of scholars contributing to the preservation of his legacy. From the early biographical efforts of scholars like al-Ṭaḥāwī, Ibn Ka’s, and Ibn Abī al-‘Awwām to the later contributions of figures like al-Saymārī, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, and al-Makkī, the story of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa’s life has been preserved in various forms. Although some of these works are now lost, their impact remains through the citations of later scholars. The differing methodologies and perspectives of these scholars, ranging from critical assessments of isnād to more hagiographical approaches, offer a comprehensive view of the scholarly and spiritual significance of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa. Despite the controversies surrounding some narrators, the wealth of material available provides a rich volume of sources from which to study and appreciate the legacy of this foundational figure in Islamic law.

---

Class date: September 2024, Whitethread London