Imām Ibn al-Mubārak and His Criticism of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah
Compiled by: Abu Hamzah SalafiIn this article, we will examine the debate concerning the relationship between Imām ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Mubārak رحمه الله (d. 181 AH) and Imām Abū Ḥanīfah رحمه الله (d. 150 AH).
Some Ḥanafī works, such as al-Jawāhir al-Muḍiyyah (ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Qurashī al-Ḥanafī, d. 775 AH), and certain partisan Ḥanafī scholars like Anwar Shah Kashmīrī, claimed that:
① Ibn al-Mubārak was a student of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and took pride in his knowledge.
② Ibn al-Mubārak is counted among the Ḥanafīs.
However, the reality is that Imām Ibn al-Mubārak himself, on numerous occasions, strongly criticized Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, distanced himself from him, and toward the end of his life advised abandoning his narrations.
In this article, each reference will be presented with its Arabic text, followed by its chain and grading, demonstrating that the alleged “praise” attributed to Ibn al-Mubārak in certain Ḥanafī books is based upon weak and fabricated reports, whereas his authentic statements are critical of Abū Ḥanīfah.
◈ Ibn al-Mubārak’s Criticism of the Book “al-Ḥiyal”
النص:
قال عبد الله بن المبارك:مَنْ نَظَرَ فِي كِتَابِ الْحِيَلِ لِأَبِي حَنِيفَةَ أَحَلَّ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ، وَحَرَّمَ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ.
Reference: Tārīkh Baghdād: 13/379
Translation:
Ibn al-Mubārak رحمه الله said:“Whoever examines the book al-Ḥiyal of Abū Ḥanīfah will render lawful what Allah has forbidden and forbid what Allah has made lawful.”
Status of Narrators:
- Muḥammad ibn ʿUbaydullāh al-Ḥanāʾī: Trustworthy
- Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdullāh al-Shāfiʿī: Trustworthy
- Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl al-Sulamī: Trustworthy, ḥāfiẓ
- al-Rabīʿ ibn Nāfiʿ: Trustworthy, authoritative
This chain is authentic.◈ Criticism of Abū Ḥanīfah’s Ḥadīth Knowledge
النص:
سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ الْمُبَارَكِ يَقُولُ:كَانَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ مِسْكِينًا فِي الْحَدِيثِ.
Reference: al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl: 2/450
Translation:
Ibn al-Mubārak رحمه الله said:“Abū Ḥanīfah was poor in ḥadīth.”
This was narrated by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Ḥātim with an authentic chain.
Imām al-Albānī رحمه الله also authenticated it:
بِسَنَدٍ صَحِيحٍ
Reference: Irwā’ al-Ghalīl: 1/207
◈ “Abū Ḥanīfah Was an Orphan in Ḥadīth”
النص:
سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ الْمُبَارَكِ يَقُولُ:كَانَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ فِي الْحَدِيثِ يَتِيمًا.
Reference: al-Majrūḥīn: 3/66
Reference: al-Kāmil: 7/13
Translation:
Ibn al-Mubārak رحمه الله said:“Abū Ḥanīfah was an orphan in ḥadīth.”
This narration is established through multiple authentic chains.◈ Instruction to Abandon His Narrations
النص:
سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ الْمُبَارَكِ، يَقُولُ:اضْرِبُوا عَلَى حَدِيثِ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ.
Reference: al-Ḍuʿafā’ al-Kabīr: 3/432
Reference: al-Sunnah li-Aḥmad: 1/230
Translation:
Ibn al-Mubārak رحمه الله said:“Strike out (abandon) the ḥadīth of Abū Ḥanīfah.”
Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal رحمه الله also reported that shortly before his death, Ibn al-Mubārak advised abandoning Abū Ḥanīfah’s narrations.
◈ Accusation of Irjā’
النص:
سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ الْمُبَارَكِ – وَذُكِرَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ – فَقِيلَ: هَلْ كَانَ فِيهِ مِنَ الْهَوَى شَيْءٌ؟ قَالَ: نَعَمْ، الْإِرْجَاءُ.
Reference: al-Maʿrifah wa al-Tārīkh: 2/790
Translation:
Ibn al-Mubārak رحمه الله was asked: “Was there any deviation in Abū Ḥanīfah?”He replied: “Yes — Irjā’.”
This chain is authentic.◈ “He Was Not Worthy of Being Called a Scholar”
النص:
قِيلَ لِابْنِ الْمُبَارَكِ: أَكَانَ أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ عَالِمًا؟قَالَ: مَا كَانَ بِخَلِيقٍ لِذَاكَ...
Reference: al-Majrūḥīn: 2/67
Translation:
Ibn al-Mubārak رحمه الله was asked: “Was Abū Ḥanīfah a scholar?”He replied: “He was not deserving of that…”
◈ Severe Comment on Qiyās
النص:
سَمِعْتُ ابْنَ الْمُبَارَكِ يَقُولُ فِي مَسْأَلَةٍ لِأَبِي حَنِيفَةَ:قَطْعُ الطَّرِيقِ أَحْيَانًا أَحْسَنُ مِنْ هَذَا.
Reference: al-Sunnah li-Aḥmad: 1/259
Translation:
Commenting on a legal ruling of Abū Ḥanīfah, Ibn al-Mubārak رحمه الله said:“Sometimes highway robbery is better than this.”
◈ His Public Disassociation
النص:
قَدْ كُنَّا نَأْتِيهِ زَمَانًا وَنَحْنُ لَا نَعْرِفُهُ، فَلَمَّا عَرَفْنَاهُ تَرَكْنَاهُ.
Reference: al-Intiqā’: p.149
Translation:
“We used to attend him for a period while not knowing him. When we came to know him, we abandoned him.”Refutation of Reports Claiming Praise
Several narrations attributing praise of Abū Ḥanīfah to Ibn al-Mubārak are fabricated or weak, due to:① Presence of known liars such as Muḥammad ibn Saʿīd al-Būrqī
② Fabricators like ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥasan al-Rāzī
③ Weak narrators such as al-Walīd ibn Shujāʿ
④ Unknown narrators in their chains
Leading scholars such as al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī and al-Dhahabī explicitly declared some of these narrators to be kadhdhāb (liars) and waḍḍāʿ (fabricators).
Therefore, these reports are invalid and unreliable, whereas the critical statements of Ibn al-Mubārak are established with authentic chains.
Final Summary
① Ibn al-Mubārak strongly criticized the book al-Ḥiyal.② He described Abū Ḥanīfah as weak and orphaned in ḥadīth.
③ He instructed abandoning his narrations.
④ He attributed Irjā’ to him.
⑤ He publicly declared his abandonment of him.
⑥ Reports praising Abū Ḥanīfah attributed to Ibn al-Mubārak are either fabricated or weak.
Thus, the claim that Ibn al-Mubārak remained a devoted adherent of Abū Ḥanīfah is not supported by authentic historical evidence.
