Flawed Principles in Ḥanafī Uṣūl al-Fiqh and Their Impact on Islamic Rulings

Many people might develop the suspicion that we are essentially inviting complete denial or disregard of fiqh books and rules based on usul, whereas this is not the truth. Our purpose is that:

1. These principles and rules be presented based on the Book and Sunnah, and
2. Correct and incorrect rules can be identified.

So that no religious rulings are based on any incorrect principle, and many issues of religion are not declared invalid. For this reason, below we mention some incorrect rules of usul al-fiqh on the basis of which, in many places, the true spirit of Shariah has been affected.

It is possible that this discussion may seem brief to some, so keep in mind that detailed discourse on any “principle” requires a separate treatise or book. Here, a brief expression of thought is given only so that a general reader can understand that if the principles of any school of jurisprudence do not conform to the Book and Sunnah, then the branches based on them also become questionable.

The Four Principles of Islamic Sharia? The Hanafi Position

1. According to Hanafi jurisprudence, the Quran, Sunnah, consensus (Ijma), and analogy (Qiyas) are all established principles of Sharia.

However:

– Consensus and analogy are not independent sources of Sharia, but are subordinate.
– For consensus to be valid, its source must be the Book and Sunnah. It does not itself have the authority to create a new ruling.
– Analogy is only an ijtihadi tool for a mujtahid in times of necessity; it cannot be presented to the general public as “مطلق حجت”.
– The Companions of the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with them) also rejected certain analogies on multiple occasions.

In fact, there are only two fundamental principles of Shariah: “أطِيعُوا اللّٰهَ وَأطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ”. Other things (Qiyas, Masalih Mursalah, Urf, Istihsan, etc.) are subordinate to the Book and Sunnah; if found contrary to them, they will be rejected.

Dividing the Book of Allah into 20 Parts

1. The Usul scholars (specific Hanafi Usulis) have divided the Book of Allah into 20 categories, such as Haqiqah (literal), Majaz (metaphorical), Aam (general), Khaas (specific), etc. After this, they discuss topics like divorce, wills, and slaves, but instead of presenting Quranic verses, they emphasize self-created or hypothetical issues more. Such examples can easily be found in books
   Reference: (Usul al-Shashi, Noor al-Anwar, Hasami, Talwih wa Tawdih)

   .

However, the Quran itself has not prescribed such a division for this detail, nor is there evidence of this division from the Companions or the Four Imams. Therefore, such exaggerated divisions open the door to many unrelated discussions.

The Absence of Usuli Writings by Imam Abu Hanifa and His Two Disciples

1. There is no established formal foundational composition from Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Abu Yusuf, and Imam Muhammad. Only their details and subsidiary issues were compiled by later people and presented as “Principles of Hanafi.”

Shah Waliullah (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
“Most followers think that the principles mentioned in the book Al-Bazdawi, etc., are the principles of Imam Abu Hanifa and his companions, whereas most of these principles are derived from their subsidiary rulings. And these principles are by no means proven as a tradition from them.”

Calling the Quran both word-for-word and in meaning…

1. Among some Hanafi usoolis, this is also found: “القرآن اسم للنظم والمعنیٰ جمیعاً”, then along with this, they also say that “The Quran is created in terms of words, while in meaning it is uncreated (Divine Speech).” There is a contradiction within this statement itself.

Similarly, in Persian, an opposing stance was taken regarding the permissibility of recitation based on the Quranic text.

even states here that “It is possible that the words of the Quran are a veil between Allah Almighty and the servant.” Whereas the Quran is a means of guidance from Allah Almighty, not a veil!

“The specific part of the Book of Allah is clear by itself”

1. Another rule was formulated that the specific part of the Book of Allah is clear by itself. There is no need for the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) explanation to interpret it.
   Reference: (Noor al-Anwar p.15, Hassami, etc.)

– This is directly against the Quran, because Allah Himself said: O Prophet! We have revealed the Quran so that you may clarify to the people what they differ about.

– The purpose of this rule is generally to reject certain hadiths that say “We do not need explanation; the specific part of the Quran is clear.”
– For this reason, hadiths about intention for ablution, hadiths about the adjustment of the pillars in prayer, etc., are rejected.

The rule of obligation based on “Amr”… but violated

1. In Hanafi fundamental books, it is stated that “اَمر للوجوب” (نور الانوار ص31) meaning when Allah or the Noble Messenger ﷺ gives a command, it signifies obligation, unless there is some indication towards recommendation. This principle is exactly according to the Book and Sunnah, but the Hanafis have violated it in numerous issues:

For example, circumambulation (tawaf), putting water in the nose, and many matters in prayer about which there is a clear command, but they call it Sunnah or recommended, even though there is no indication present there.

“A command does not require repetition”

1. Another general principle: “A command does not require repetition”
   Reference: (Noor-ul-Anwar p.23)

   . However, there are many commands in Shariah that require continuity and repetition:

– “اُذکروا اللہ” (Keep remembering Allah)
– “واشکروا لی” (Keep thanking Me)
– “واعبد ربک” (Continue worshipping your Lord)

etc. In summary, “a command does not require repetition” is not correct until it is restricted by some specific commands.

Calling a command “specific”… and then recommending and permitting?

1. At some places, it is said that “command is specific” (because it comes with a definite meaning), but then the same jurists say that this command sometimes implies obligation, sometimes recommendation, and sometimes permissibility. This is a clear contradiction: if the command was truly specific, then only one meaning would remain; where does the scope for recommendation and permissibility come from?

Does the prohibition of lawful acts require the continuation of their lawfulness?

1. This is also a strange rule found in some jurisprudential books that “if a prohibition is issued regarding a lawful act, it means that the act will continue to remain lawful.” However, it is clear that if there is a prohibition on an act, how can continuing that act be permissible? For example, if there is an explicit prohibition on fasting on the day of Eid, then obviously it does not remain lawful.

Reality and Metaphor

1. In Usul al-Fiqh, generally a lengthy chapter is established on “Reality and Metaphor.” Dozens of branches arise from it, and many hypothetical issues are linked with it. However, this division is not proven from the Prophet ﷺ, the Companions, or the Four Imams.

This term came under discussion in the later stages of Arabic linguistics and rhetoric. Engaging in endless debates over it is completely unnecessary, and some have even considered its formulation as a product after the third century Hijri.

Disregarding the meaning of the Book and Sunnah…

1. A tendency among some Hanafi jurists is that they do not consider the meaning of the Book and Sunnah (when contradictory) as highly authoritative, but they do consider the meaning of the texts of their own jurisprudential books authoritative. This approach itself is questionable.

Is solitary narration only indicative of probability?

1. Many Hanafi fundamental books state that “certainty is not obtained from solitary reports; it is speculative evidence, and from it, obligation or definitive ruling cannot be established.” Similarly, if a solitary report contradicts the Quran in any way, that report will be rejected.

– This point is also noteworthy. Many agreed-upon narrations in the Sahih Sitta are solitary reports, yet the Ummah has accepted them with certainty.
– Imam Shafi’i, Ibn Hazm, Shawkani, and many other scholars have strongly regarded solitary reports as proof, from which certainty can also be obtained.

“A solitary report cannot contradict the Quran”

1. Under this principle, many authentic hadiths have been discarded, even though such narrations represent the statements of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and can specify or restrict the general rulings of the Quran or the absolute rulings.

– Well-known examples include issues such as the minimum amount of dowry and the determination of the nisab of theft for a thief, which can be understood through the harmony of the Book and Sunnah.
– By frequently using this principle, many Prophetic rulings have been set aside. Some followers, by adopting this approach, have come close to a liberal mindset that says, “If the argument of our Imam appears to be in accordance with the Quran, then accept the hadith; otherwise, there is no harm.”

 Is a Mursal Hadith a Proof, but…?

1. Some Hanafi scholars of principles consider a Mursal hadith absolutely as proof, saying, “If it were not established with the narrator, he would not have reported it on his own.” However, in the principles of hadith, there are clear conditions that a Mursal hadith will only be accepted when supported by other indications or trustworthy narrators.

 Should the narration of a “non-jurist Companion” be rejected? 

1. This is a very dangerous principle of the Hanafis that if the hadith of a “non-jurist companion” contradicts our reasoning, then it will be abandoned on the assumption that the companion must have narrated metaphorically and might not have fully understood the meaning.
   Reference: Noor al-Anwar (p.183)

   and others mention this.

– As a result, the narrations of great personalities like Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) and Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) are easily rejected.
– Such a principle is neither established from the Companions nor from the four Imams. It is an invention of later biased jurists, which practically suspends or doubts countless hadiths.

Are there “unknown” persons among the Companions?

1. Some Hanafi fundamentalists say that there are unknown persons among the Companions, therefore their narrations will not be accepted.
   Reference: Noor al-Anwar (p.184)

   They have declared Wabisa ibn Ma‘bad, Mu‘qal ibn Sinan, and Fatimah bint Qais (may Allah be pleased with them) as unknown. Whereas all of these are very reliable personalities whose narrations exist in hadith books with authentic chains.

If the narrator’s own actions contradict the narration…?

1. One incorrect rule is that if a companion’s own action contradicts the hadith he narrated, then the hadith should be abandoned. However, it is quite possible that the companion forgot the hadith on some occasion or preferred another position based on different evidence. Among the muhaddithin, it is established that the narration of the narrator takes precedence over his action; because there can be many reasons for abandoning an action.

“A Sahih Hadith Can Be Contrary to the Quran”

1. Reference: Noor al-Anwar (p.189)

   and others mention that some sahih ahadith can be contrary to the Quran. Examples: Prayer is not valid without Surah Al-Fatiha, judgment with one witness and one type, narration of Fatimah bint Qais (RA).

– However, sahih ahadith can never be contrary to the Quran; rather, they are explanations of the Quran. Conflict arises only where the hadith is weak or fabricated, or the follower has accepted a contradiction due to his own deficient understanding.

Is the Tradition of a Medallis Narrator Accepted in All Cases?

1. Some Hanafi scholars have also opined that the narration (ʿanʿanah) of every narrator who practices tadlis is acceptable.
   Reference: (Noor al-Anwar p.192)

   . However, the consensus of the muhaddithin is that the ʿanʿanah of a narrator who practices tadlis is not acceptable without investigation. This is also a principle that was established to try to include many weak narrations.

Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Shaybani: Considered Weak

It is known that even Imam Muhammad ibn Hasan, may Allah have mercy on him, has been criticized for being weak in hadith.

. Despite this, many issues of Hanafi fiqh have been established based on his narrations.

 “اذا تعارضا تساقطا”

1. If there is a contradiction between two verses of the Qur’an, then “both verses are abrogated” (تساقطا).
   Reference: (Noor al-Anwar p.197)

   . This goes against the sanctity of the Qur’an and the belief that “falsehood does not approach it.” It is our faith that there is no contradiction between the verses of the Qur’an. Contradictions arise due to the flawed reasoning of followers.

Another Contradiction: Following a Companion is Obligatory, but…

1. Reference: Noor al-Anwar p.220

   states that “The statement of a Sahabi is obligatory to follow” and it will be preferred over Qiyas. However, in another place in the same book, it is said that “If the statement of a non-jurist Sahabi contradicts Qiyas, it will be rejected.”

   Reference: (See Rule No. 15)

   . In the same book, completely contradictory principles are found, which is a clear contradiction. Then practically, the Hanafis preferred Qiyas over the statement of a Sahabi wherever they wished.

Conditions for the Consensus of the Ummah

1. The Hanafi Usulis’ rule is that the consensus of the Mujtahids on an issue is proof of the consensus of the Ummah. This is correct, but there are some conditions for it:
   – It must be proven with certainty that all scholars are unanimously agreed on an issue, which is practically very difficult.
   – The source of this “consensus” must also be the Quran and Sunnah.
   – The news of reaching consensus must also be mutawatir (widely transmitted).

In many places, followers claim consensus thoughtlessly, which is impossible to prove.

The True Reality of Qiyas

1. In Hanafi jurisprudence, generally, a very broad scope is given to Qiyas (analogical reasoning): Qiyas is applied everywhere, sometimes even given precedence over texts, and the statement “this issue is against Qiyas,” etc., is common.

In reality:

– Qiyas or Ijtihad may be necessary for the Mujtahid himself, but it cannot be considered a permanent source.
– In acts of worship, Qiyas is not the “origin”; there, only the text of Shariah (definitive methods) is authoritative.
– It is not permissible to fabricate new rulings from the Quran and Sunnah through Qiyas and impose them on the Ummah.
– The door to Qiyas is always open, but it is essential that a qualified scholar performs Qiyas in harmony with the Book and Sunnah.

Allama Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him,

states that every solution exists in the Book and Sunnah. Qiyas is only necessary when a text remains hidden from the scholar. Then, if the Qiyas aligns with that text, it is correct; otherwise, it will be rejected.

Summary of the discourse

1. Many major principles of Hanafi jurisprudence have been presented in the books of Usul al-Fiqh in such a way that following them causes the clear evidences of the Quran and Sunnah to be overlooked.
2. Some principles are completely contradictory to each other, which also leads to confusion in the books of Usul.
3. It is absolutely incorrect to abandon issues that are extensively proven from the Quran and Hadith merely on the basis of speculation.
4. The Book and Sunnah are the true foundation of the religion of Islam; all other things (Qiyas, reasoning, customs, Istihsan, etc.) are subordinate to them.
5. When the principles themselves are weak and self-made, numerous defects arise in the rulings based on them.

The demand of the religion of Islam is that we remove the lens of prejudice and give precedence to the clear evidence of the Quran and Hadith. If any principle or rule is in accordance with the Book and Sunnah, it should be accepted gladly, and if it contradicts them, it should be abandoned. May Allah Almighty grant us the ability to correctly understand and follow the Book and Sunnah. آمین۔