Were Imām Abū Ḥanīfah a Tābiʿī? – A Detailed Research Study
Source: Fatāwā ʿIlmiyyah (Tawḍīḥ al-Aḥkām), Vol. 2, p. 403
Was Imām Abū Ḥanīfah (رحمه الله) a Tābiʿī? And is there any authentic chain proving that he met a Companion of the Prophet ﷺ?
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh. Ammā baʿd:
Among scholars there is strong disagreement over this matter:
Before reviewing both positions, two key principles must be remembered:
① Condition of Ṣaḥīḥ or Ḥasan isnād:
Any report presented as proof must have a chain that is ṣaḥīḥ li-dhātihī or ḥasan li-dhātihī. Otherwise, it is not valid as evidence.
② Preference for authentic evidence:
A single authentic proof outweighs numerous weak or unestablished reports, regardless of their quantity.
Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (d. 463 AH) wrote:
“Al-Nuʿmān ibn Thābit Abū Ḥanīfah al-Taymī, the imām of the people of opinion and jurist of Iraq, saw Anas ibn Mālik and heard from ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ…”
(Tārīkh Baghdād, 13/323–324, no. 7297)
Many later scholars relied on this report — e.g., Ibn al-Jawzī in al-ʿIlal al-Mutanāhiyah (1/128, ḥadīth no. 196).
Clarification:
Some mistakenly attributed Ibn al-Jawzī’s words to Imām al-Dāraqutnī — this is incorrect (al-Lamaḥāt, 2/293).
Imām Abū al-Ḥasan al-Dāraqutnī (d. 385 AH):
When asked if Imām Abū Ḥanīfah heard from Anas ibn Mālik (RA), he replied:
“No, nor did he narrate from him. Abū Ḥanīfah did not meet any of the Companions.”
(Tārīkh Baghdād, 4/208, no. 1895)
This also appears in Masāʾil al-Sahmī lil-Dāraqutnī (p. 263, no. 383) and al-ʿIlal al-Mutanāhiyah (1/65, no. 74).
Note:
In al-Suyūṭī’s Tabyīḍ al-Ṣaḥīfah fī Manāqib al-Imām Abī Ḥanīfah (p. 10), this statement is distorted; the original wording in reliable sources is decisive.
Between the reports of al-Khaṭīb and al-Dāraqutnī, the statement of al-Dāraqutnī — being earlier and from a master of asmāʾ al-rijāl — is stronger.
Report:
Muḥammad ibn Saʿd (scribe of al-Wāqidī) narrated:
“I heard Abū Ḥanīfah say: Anas ibn Mālik came to Kūfah… I saw him many times.”
(ʿUqūd al-Jumān, p. 49; Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ, 1/168; Manāqib Abī Ḥanīfah, pp. 7–8)
Weakness:
Thus, it is not valid as evidence.
Some manāqib books like Akhbār Abī Ḥanīfah by al-Ṣaymarī and Jāmiʿ al-Masānīd by al-Khawārizmī contain fabricated stories of his being a Tābiʿī, narrated by liars, unknowns, and criticised narrators — such as Aḥmad ibn Ṣalt al-Ḥimānī.
See al-Tankīl and al-Lamaḥāt for details.
Ibn ʿAdī al-Jurjānī (d. 365 AH) recorded:
“I heard Abū Ḥanīfah say: I have not seen anyone better than ʿAṭāʾ…”
(al-Kāmil, 7/2473; new edition 8/237)
Sources:
Narrators:
ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Bagawī, Maḥmūd ibn Ghīlān, Ibn al-Muqriʾ, ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd al-Ḥimānī — all are trustworthy or ḥasan al-ḥadīth.
If Imām Abū Ḥanīfah had seen any Companion, he would never have said that he had not seen anyone better than ʿAṭāʾ — because every Companion is superior to every Tābiʿī.
هٰذا ما عندي والله أعلم بالصواب
Source: Fatāwā ʿIlmiyyah (Tawḍīḥ al-Aḥkām), Vol. 2, p. 403
Question:
Was Imām Abū Ḥanīfah (رحمه الله) a Tābiʿī? And is there any authentic chain proving that he met a Companion of the Prophet ﷺ?
Answer:
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh. Ammā baʿd:
Among scholars there is strong disagreement over this matter:
- Some claim Imām Abū Ḥanīfah was a Tābiʿī.
- Others hold that he was not a Tābiʿī.
Before reviewing both positions, two key principles must be remembered:
Two Fundamental Principles:
① Condition of Ṣaḥīḥ or Ḥasan isnād:
Any report presented as proof must have a chain that is ṣaḥīḥ li-dhātihī or ḥasan li-dhātihī. Otherwise, it is not valid as evidence.
② Preference for authentic evidence:
A single authentic proof outweighs numerous weak or unestablished reports, regardless of their quantity.
View 1: Imām Abū Ḥanīfah Was a Tābiʿī
Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (d. 463 AH) wrote:
“Al-Nuʿmān ibn Thābit Abū Ḥanīfah al-Taymī, the imām of the people of opinion and jurist of Iraq, saw Anas ibn Mālik and heard from ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ…”
(Tārīkh Baghdād, 13/323–324, no. 7297)
Many later scholars relied on this report — e.g., Ibn al-Jawzī in al-ʿIlal al-Mutanāhiyah (1/128, ḥadīth no. 196).
Clarification:
Some mistakenly attributed Ibn al-Jawzī’s words to Imām al-Dāraqutnī — this is incorrect (al-Lamaḥāt, 2/293).
View 2: Imām Abū Ḥanīfah Was Not a Tābiʿī
Imām Abū al-Ḥasan al-Dāraqutnī (d. 385 AH):
When asked if Imām Abū Ḥanīfah heard from Anas ibn Mālik (RA), he replied:
“No, nor did he narrate from him. Abū Ḥanīfah did not meet any of the Companions.”
(Tārīkh Baghdād, 4/208, no. 1895)
This also appears in Masāʾil al-Sahmī lil-Dāraqutnī (p. 263, no. 383) and al-ʿIlal al-Mutanāhiyah (1/65, no. 74).
Note:
In al-Suyūṭī’s Tabyīḍ al-Ṣaḥīfah fī Manāqib al-Imām Abī Ḥanīfah (p. 10), this statement is distorted; the original wording in reliable sources is decisive.
Comparative Evaluation:
Between the reports of al-Khaṭīb and al-Dāraqutnī, the statement of al-Dāraqutnī — being earlier and from a master of asmāʾ al-rijāl — is stronger.
Analysis of the First Group’s Evidence:
Report:
Muḥammad ibn Saʿd (scribe of al-Wāqidī) narrated:
“I heard Abū Ḥanīfah say: Anas ibn Mālik came to Kūfah… I saw him many times.”
(ʿUqūd al-Jumān, p. 49; Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ, 1/168; Manāqib Abī Ḥanīfah, pp. 7–8)
Weakness:
- The narrator Sayf ibn Jābir is majhūl al-ḥāl; no reliable taʿdīl exists for him (al-Tankīl, 1/179; Tabṣirat al-Nāqid, pp. 218–219; al-Lamaḥāt, 2/277).
- This report is not in Ibn Saʿd’s al-Ṭabaqāt but appears in al-Asmāʾ wa-l-Kunā (4/174) via Abū Aḥmad al-Ḥākim with another unknown narrator, Abū Bakr ibn Abī ʿAmr.
Thus, it is not valid as evidence.
Fabricated Reports:
Some manāqib books like Akhbār Abī Ḥanīfah by al-Ṣaymarī and Jāmiʿ al-Masānīd by al-Khawārizmī contain fabricated stories of his being a Tābiʿī, narrated by liars, unknowns, and criticised narrators — such as Aḥmad ibn Ṣalt al-Ḥimānī.
See al-Tankīl and al-Lamaḥāt for details.
Authentic Evidence for the Second View:
Ibn ʿAdī al-Jurjānī (d. 365 AH) recorded:
“I heard Abū Ḥanīfah say: I have not seen anyone better than ʿAṭāʾ…”
(al-Kāmil, 7/2473; new edition 8/237)
- The chain is completely ṣaḥīḥ (al-Asānīd al-Ṣaḥīḥah fī Akhbār al-Imām Abī Ḥanīfah, p. 290).
- Multiple authentic reports confirm that he said: “I have not seen anyone better than ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ.”
Sources:
- Tārīkh Baghdād, 13/425
- Musnad ʿAlī ibn al-Jaʿd, 2/777 (ḥadīth 2062, 1978)
- al-ʿIlal al-Ṣaghīr by al-Tirmidhī, p. 891
- al-Qirāʾah Khalf al-Imām by al-Bayhaqī, pp. 134, 157
Narrators:
ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Bagawī, Maḥmūd ibn Ghīlān, Ibn al-Muqriʾ, ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd al-Ḥimānī — all are trustworthy or ḥasan al-ḥadīth.
Implication:
If Imām Abū Ḥanīfah had seen any Companion, he would never have said that he had not seen anyone better than ʿAṭāʾ — because every Companion is superior to every Tābiʿī.
Final Research Summary:
- Imām Abū Ḥanīfah (رحمه الله) was not a Tābiʿī.
- No authentic chain proves he met any Companion.
- The view of al-Dāraqutnī is stronger and supported by sound evidence.
هٰذا ما عندي والله أعلم بالصواب
