Compiled by: Abu Hamzah Salafi
This article is a critical analysis of a narration presented regarding the scholarly status of Imam Abu Hanifah through the reference of Imam Hasan bin Salih (whom the Hadith scholars have declared an innovating Kharijite).
The objective is to demonstrate the following points:
① The narration mentioned in Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr’s book al-Intiqāʾ is extremely weak in its chain of transmission.
② Even if, for argument’s sake, it were to be considered authentic through some other route, it still remains a statement of Hasan bin Salih, a Kharijite innovator, whose own innovation contradicts Imam Abu Hanifah.
◈ The Hanafi Evidence
The statement of Imam Hasan bin Salih is presented:
الإنتقاء في فضائل الثلاثة الأئمة الفقهاء
Hasan bin Salih said:
Translation:
Imam Hasan bin Salih said: Imam Abu Hanifah was a knowledgeable, intelligent, and firm scholar in his matter, and whenever a Hadith from the Prophet ﷺ became established with him, he would not turn away from it.
◈ The Response
This narration is reported in al-Intiqāʾ of Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr with a weak chain.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr himself explicitly stated that all narrations of virtues were taken through a single intermediary, and that intermediary is doubtful (details to follow).
Moreover, the one who made this statement (Hasan bin Salih bin Hayy) was himself a Kharijite innovator.
Hafiz al-Dhahabi (Tadhkirat al-Huffaz 1/203):
Translation:
Despite the stature and leadership of Hasan, he held Kharijite beliefs.
Hafiz al-Dhahabi (Mizān al-Iʿtidāl 1/469):
Translation:
There was innovation in him, a slight inclination toward Shiʿism, and he used to abandon the Friday prayer.
Meaning: Even if Hasan bin Salih praises Imam Abu Hanifah, such praise carries no significant weight, because the narration of an innovator in support of his own sectarian stance is not accepted — this principle is unanimously agreed upon by the Hadith scholars.
◈ Explanation of Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr
al-Intiqāʾ fī Faḍāʾil al-Thalāthat al-Aʾimmah al-Fuqahāʾ (1/137):
Translation:
The chapter mentioning what has reached us of the praise of the scholars for Abu Hanifah and their preference for him.
All of this was compiled by Abu Yaʿqub Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Makki in his book on the virtues and reports of Abu Hanifah, and it was narrated to us by Hakam bin Mundhir.
◈ This establishes:
① All narrations regarding the virtues of Abu Hanifah are taken from the unknown book of Abu Yaʿqub al-Makki.
② Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr received all of this solely through Hakam bin Mundhir.
◈ The Reality of Hakam bin Mundhir
Ibn Hazm (Rasāʾil Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi):
Translation:
This Hakam bin Mundhir was the head of the Muʿtazilah in al-Andalus — their leader, their senior, their teacher, their theologian, and their ascetic.
Meaning: The individual through whom all these virtues are transmitted was himself the leader of the deviant Muʿtazilite sect.
Conclusion:
The chains presented for the virtues of Abu Hanifah are extremely weak and unacceptable as evidence.
◈ Narration of Ibn Bashkuwal (al-Ṣilah fī Tārīkh Aʾimmat al-Andalus, p. 146):
Translation:
Hakam bin Mundhir was among the people of knowledge and intelligence, sharp-minded.
◈ Clarification
This praise is not Ibn Bashkuwal’s own; rather, he quoted it from a Sufi narrator named Jaʿfar bin ʿAbdullah al-Khuzāʿī.
However, the Hadith scholars have criticized this narrator with the statement: “فيه غفلة” (there is heedlessness in him).
al-Dhahabi (Tārīkh al-Islām):
Translation:
He was the shaykh of the Sufis of his time, but there was heedlessness in him.
The criticism of ghaflah means:
✔ The narrator makes frequent mistakes.
✔ He commits errors and shows laxity in narration.
✔ His commendation is not considered reliable.
Therefore, this vague commendation of Hakam bin Mundhir is unreliable.
✔ This book reached later scholars only through Hakam bin Mundhir, the leader of the Muʿtazilah.
✔ The Sufi narrator who praised Hakam bin Mundhir was himself heedless and prone to error, rendering his commendation unacceptable.
✔ Imam Hasan bin Salih (the narrator) was declared a Kharijite innovator by the Hadith scholars; therefore, his praise of Abu Hanifah holds no weight.
Final Verdict:
All these reports are weak in their chains, invalid according to the principles of Jarḥ wa Taʿdīl, and false due to reliance on narrations of innovators.
This article is a critical analysis of a narration presented regarding the scholarly status of Imam Abu Hanifah through the reference of Imam Hasan bin Salih (whom the Hadith scholars have declared an innovating Kharijite).
The objective is to demonstrate the following points:
① The narration mentioned in Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr’s book al-Intiqāʾ is extremely weak in its chain of transmission.
② Even if, for argument’s sake, it were to be considered authentic through some other route, it still remains a statement of Hasan bin Salih, a Kharijite innovator, whose own innovation contradicts Imam Abu Hanifah.
◈ The Hanafi Evidence
The statement of Imam Hasan bin Salih is presented:
الإنتقاء في فضائل الثلاثة الأئمة الفقهاء
Hasan bin Salih said:
Translation:Imam Hasan bin Salih said: Imam Abu Hanifah was a knowledgeable, intelligent, and firm scholar in his matter, and whenever a Hadith from the Prophet ﷺ became established with him, he would not turn away from it.
◈ The Response
This narration is reported in al-Intiqāʾ of Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr with a weak chain.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr himself explicitly stated that all narrations of virtues were taken through a single intermediary, and that intermediary is doubtful (details to follow).
Moreover, the one who made this statement (Hasan bin Salih bin Hayy) was himself a Kharijite innovator.
Hafiz al-Dhahabi (Tadhkirat al-Huffaz 1/203): Translation:Despite the stature and leadership of Hasan, he held Kharijite beliefs.
Hafiz al-Dhahabi (Mizān al-Iʿtidāl 1/469): Translation:There was innovation in him, a slight inclination toward Shiʿism, and he used to abandon the Friday prayer.
Meaning: Even if Hasan bin Salih praises Imam Abu Hanifah, such praise carries no significant weight, because the narration of an innovator in support of his own sectarian stance is not accepted — this principle is unanimously agreed upon by the Hadith scholars.
Weakness of the Chain and the Reality of Hakam bin Mundhir
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr clearly stated in al-Intiqāʾ that all statements regarding the virtues of Imam Abu Hanifah were transmitted through a single route.◈ Explanation of Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr
al-Intiqāʾ fī Faḍāʾil al-Thalāthat al-Aʾimmah al-Fuqahāʾ (1/137): Translation:The chapter mentioning what has reached us of the praise of the scholars for Abu Hanifah and their preference for him.
All of this was compiled by Abu Yaʿqub Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Makki in his book on the virtues and reports of Abu Hanifah, and it was narrated to us by Hakam bin Mundhir.
◈ This establishes:
① All narrations regarding the virtues of Abu Hanifah are taken from the unknown book of Abu Yaʿqub al-Makki.
② Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr received all of this solely through Hakam bin Mundhir.
◈ The Reality of Hakam bin Mundhir
Ibn Hazm (Rasāʾil Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi): Translation:This Hakam bin Mundhir was the head of the Muʿtazilah in al-Andalus — their leader, their senior, their teacher, their theologian, and their ascetic.
Meaning: The individual through whom all these virtues are transmitted was himself the leader of the deviant Muʿtazilite sect.
Conclusion:The chains presented for the virtues of Abu Hanifah are extremely weak and unacceptable as evidence.
Unreliable Commendation
Hanafi and Barelvi circles sometimes present vague commendations of Hakam bin Mundhir.◈ Narration of Ibn Bashkuwal (al-Ṣilah fī Tārīkh Aʾimmat al-Andalus, p. 146):
Translation:Hakam bin Mundhir was among the people of knowledge and intelligence, sharp-minded.
◈ Clarification
This praise is not Ibn Bashkuwal’s own; rather, he quoted it from a Sufi narrator named Jaʿfar bin ʿAbdullah al-Khuzāʿī.
However, the Hadith scholars have criticized this narrator with the statement: “فيه غفلة” (there is heedlessness in him).
al-Dhahabi (Tārīkh al-Islām): Translation:He was the shaykh of the Sufis of his time, but there was heedlessness in him.
The criticism of ghaflah means:
✔ The narrator makes frequent mistakes.
✔ He commits errors and shows laxity in narration.
✔ His commendation is not considered reliable.
Therefore, this vague commendation of Hakam bin Mundhir is unreliable.
◈ Summary and Final Conclusion
✔ All narrations of Abu Hanifah’s virtues reported in al-Intiqāʾ originate from the unknown book of Abu Yaʿqub al-Makki.✔ This book reached later scholars only through Hakam bin Mundhir, the leader of the Muʿtazilah.
✔ The Sufi narrator who praised Hakam bin Mundhir was himself heedless and prone to error, rendering his commendation unacceptable.
✔ Imam Hasan bin Salih (the narrator) was declared a Kharijite innovator by the Hadith scholars; therefore, his praise of Abu Hanifah holds no weight.
Final Verdict:All these reports are weak in their chains, invalid according to the principles of Jarḥ wa Taʿdīl, and false due to reliance on narrations of innovators.
