Talk:Abu Hanifa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Move

Imam is superfluous and has been removed from the other traditional Sunni fiqahs. gren グレン 13:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest moving to "Abu Hanifa an-Nu'man", the transliterated title of the Arabic Wikipedia article. --Yodakii 16:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

As you wish... I just figured Britannica had a good handle on things (although they have Hanifah which doesn't really matter). I'm not too particular. IT beats what we have now. I'll let you decide... when you do will you change the move template here accordingly and add to requested moves page? gren グレン 18:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you think I should? If there aren't any other opinions on this it looks like consensus. Anyway, I'll get back to this on my break. --Yodakii 01:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this article really noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves or is that just the template? Sorry, I'm still finding my way around here. anyway...I'll just try to move the article. --Yodakii 15:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Info

This was removed:

---

The Sheikhs of the Mu'tazilites and their Imams and the Hanafi ulema generally reject the hadith narrated by Abu Huraira. Moreover, in his commentary on Muslim's Sahih, Volume IV, Nadwi emphasizes this point:

"Imam Abu Hanifa said, 'The companions of the Prophet were generally pious and just. I accept every hadith with evidence narrated by them, but I do not accept the hadith whose source is Abu Huraira, Anas ibn Malik, or Samra ibn Jundab."

Abu Hanifa is quoted by many sources as having said

"My knowledge extends to only two years. The two I spent with Ja'far al-Sadiq"

---

Is there any reason? --Striver 22:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

---

The information is not factually correct here is the exact quote with reference and commentary.

Ibn `Abidin relates in his al Durr al mukhtar that Imam Abu Hanifa said: "If it were not for two years, I would have perished."

Ibn `Abidin comments: For two years he accompanied Sayyidina Ja`far al-Sadiq and he acquired the spiritual knowledge that made him a gnostic in the Way... Abu `Ali Daqqaq (Imam Qushayri's shaykh) received the path from Abu al-Qasim al-Nasirabadi, who received it from al Shibli, who received it from Sari al-Saqati who received it from al Ma`ruf al Karkhi, who received it from Dawud at Ta'i, who received the knowledge, both the external and the internal, from the Imam Abi Hanifa.

Ibn `Abidin, Hashiyat radd al-muhtar `ala al-durr al-mukhtar 1:43.

Imam Abu Hanifah learnt a type of knowledge from Sayidinah Jafar as sidiq not "all" his knowledge as the above quote has been twisted into saying. This is something similar to having a teacher for maths and a teacher for English Imam Abu hanifah's teachers were many as was the tradition for all Islamic scholars.

--Rami.Islam 13:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I noticed that it says Imam Abu Hanifa was taught by Imam Jafar Al Sadiq, and there is no reference for this. Until some one references this with un-biased sources, I suggest removing this.

Fair use rationale for Image:Imamabuhanifah(large).jpg

Image:Imamabuhanifah(large).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

His name?

Are you sure that his first name is Muhammed? Because I searched almost everywhere and every time it appears that his first name is an-Numan not Muhammed... any clarification.. many thanks. Mussav (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Status as Tabi'ee

Regarding this edit, please cite a source that states he was not a Tabi'ee or uses the word "alleged". We cannot insert our own opinions particularly when the cited source confirms his status as a Tabi'ee. → AA ^(talk) — 19:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC):

Abu Hanifa, according to this article, was born in 699. Anas ibn Malik, according to his Wikipedia article, died in 709. This would mean, unless there are some new laws to mathematics, that Abu Hanifa met Anas ibn Malik and transmitted hadith from him when he was 10 years old. Seeing that Anas ibn Malik, according to his Wikipedia article, is the longest living sahabi, he is the last sahabi Abu Hanifa ever met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.122.37 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 January 2009

Thanks for responding here and please try to keep the discussions civil. I'm not sure what you mean by: "unless there are some new laws to mathematics, that Abu Hanifa met Anas ibn Malik and transmitted hadith from him when he was 10 years old". Please elaborate. Secondly, the source ([Source: Dr. `Inayatullah Iblagh al-Afghanistani, Doctorate thesis: al-Imam al-A`zam Abu Hanifa al-Mutakallim (The Greatest Imam: Abu Hanifa, The Theologian), 2nd edition, with supervision of Dr. Muhammad Ali Mahjub, Minister of Awqaf and President of the Supreme Council for Religious Affairs, Cairo, 1987.]) states that he was a Tabi'in (which I think you're not disputing) and also states that he transmitted hadith (giving specific ahadith with appropriate references). If there is an alternate view that he was not a Tabi'in or that he did not transmit ahadith, then please do add the correct references and we can mention that in a neutral manner but to make statements based on our own interpretations (based on his age) is clearly original research. → AA ^(talk) — 00:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Al Mansur's reasons

It says "who had his own ideas and reasons for offering the post", what were these ideas and reasons? Faro0485 (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Status as Tabi`un

Citation needed for the last paragraph in "Status as a Tabi`un". Also, this whole paragraph is perhaps anachronistic. Academic scholarship (Schacht and many others, but also scholars of "Eastern" origin such as Wael Hallaq) seems to have demonstrated that the rigorous, classical study of hadith did not begin until after Abu Hanifa's death. Perhaps this is controversial; but a citation is needed at the very least.

foresomenteneikona —Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC).

Persian Origin

According to Franklin: “Aflaki reports that Hosam al-Din, like Shams of Tabriz, followed the rites of the Shafe’I school of Islamic law. One day Hosam al-Din said that he wished to convert to the Hanafi creed, “because our mster of the Hanafi creed”. Rumi told him that it would better to keep his own creed and simply to follow the mystical teachins of Rumi and guide the people to his creed of love” (pg 226) Overall, most of the Iranians from Central Asia and Khorasan were Hanafis however the majority of Iranians from Western Iran (like Shams Tabrizi, the city of Tabriz before Safavids, Suhrawardi, Shaykh Mahmud Shabistari, , Kurds, Sunni Talysh and Hosam al-Din) were Shafi’ites. However, when it comes to Turkic Sunni Muslims, they were uniformly and overwhelmingly (not just majority but overwhelmingly and uniformly) were Hanafis (an exception is in the Caucasus were in the Northern Caucasus some tribes were converted to Shafi’ism in a much later period than that of Rumi). Here are some statements with this regard. “The Turkmens who entered Anatolia no doubt brought with them vestiges of the pre-Islamic inner Asian shamanistic past but eventually became in considerable measure firm adherents of the near-universal Islamic madhab for the Turks, the Hanafi one”(Mohamed Taher, “Encyclopedic Survey of Islamic Culture”, Anmol Publication PVT, 1998. Turkey: Pg 983). Another testament to this is from traveler Ibn Batuttah who lived in the 14th century. On Turks, he provides some description of their religion: “..After eating their food, they drink the yogurt/milk of mare called Qumiz. The Turks are followers of Hanafism and consider eating Nabidh (Alcoholic beverage) as Halal (lawful in Islam).”(Ibn Batuttah, translated by Dr. Ali Muvahid, Tehran, Bongaah Publishers, 1969). “There have sometimes been forcible and wholesale removals from one “rite” to another, generally for political reasons; as when the Ottoman Turks, having gained power in Iraq and the Hijaz in the sixteenth century, compelled the Shafi’ite Qadis either to change to the Hanafi “rite” to which they (the Turks) belonged, or to relinquish office.”(Reuben Levy, “Social Structure of Islam”, Taylor and Francis, 2000. Pg 183).

“Hanafism was founded by a Persian, Imam Abu Hanifa, who was a student of Imam Ja’far Al-Sadeq, ... His school held great attraction from the beginning for Turks as well as Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. Today the Hanafi school has the largest number of follows in the Sunni world, including most Sunni Turks, the Turkic people of Caucasus, and Central Asia, European Muslims, and the Muslims of Indian subcontinent “(Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. “The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity”. HarperColins, 2004. Pg 68).

http://ia341328.us.archive.org/3/items/AStudyAboutThePersianCulturalLegacyAndBackgroundOfTheSufiMystics/PersianPoetRumi.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talk • contribs) 09:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be having an edit war over his ethnicity. It doesn't seem an important matter, so I've removed it fro the infobox and added a cn to the other place. The cite in the infobox, Mohsen Zakeri (1995), Sasanid soldiers in early Muslim society: the origins of 'Ayyārān and Futuwwa, p.293 [1] seems rather weak to me William M. Connolley (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, is "Imām Abū Ḥanīfah was born in Kufa, Iraq" right? Should it say "modern-day Iraq"? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Kunya

It was not a true kunya, as he did not have a son called Hanifa, but an epithetical one meaning pure in monotheistic belief should be removed as http://www.sunnah.org/history/Scholars/How%20Abu%20Hanifa%20got%20his%20kunya.htm proves other wise and has been confirmed by various teachers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ether 4 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The information in the article is from Shibli Nomani's book which is a reliable source. The above link you've given does not provide any sourcing so can't be verified. → AA ^(talk) — 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

CAN SOME ONE TELL ME WHO WAS ABU HANIFA'S TEACHER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.34.7 (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

He is of Arab origin

Imam Hanafi is of Arab origin! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.248.2 (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• He is claiming to be of Persian origin. There are some discussions on his origin being Turkish or Persian. But it is certain that he is not of Arabic origin. According to his lineage (paternal lineage) he is most probably of Persian origin. [Note: I am of Turkic/Turkish origin. I think we all must be objective at all discussions, especially at giving information for Islamic figures. He is "the" greatest Imam as known.]

• Iraq-u-Arab (the Arabian part of the Iraq / South Iraq) contains some scientific and cultural centers of the Islamic civilization. Because of that there are so many figures who were of so many different ethnic origins lived especially in the Arabian part of the Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.99.223 (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge

I merged some content from the page on Sunni Islam. There are more details on the talk page for that article, but as a formality Wikipedia:Merging requires me to post something here. I feel this is a non-controversial merge. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Major RS violation

As I read the most recent version of the article, I noticed a lot of fairy tale like claims about the subject's origins in addition to highly POV-charged statements about him meeting sahaba. When I checked the source, I found it going back to sunnah.org - an extremist Sufi/Ash'ari/Maturidi website existing solely to promote a certain sectarian POV and declare those with other views as non-Muslims. Having cross checked various claims on that site before in the original Arabic sources, I have found clear inaccuracies and what appeared at times to be intentional misinformation. In this case, the site is taking highly contested issues such as Abu Hanifa's exact generation and making positive factual claims based on only one side of the story. Considering the nature of the fantasy-type claims, like the fourth caliph praying for the subject's father causing the subject to be born, I will remove such claims and the source at any and all instances of contentious POV-pushing or what appear to be fairy tales. The site is, unfortunately, extremely unreliable in most cases. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reception section - Lack of Research and POV-pushing?

The "Reception" portion of this article seems to have been written with little / no research. For example, in this section, we read that,

“Throughout history, Abu Hanifa has proven to be a polarizing figure, drawing both extensive praise and criticism, with mild or neutral reactions being rare. “

This is a rather sweeping statement with no evidence provided. If it is considered accurate then references from neutral sources need to be listed. We also read,

“An almost equal amount of negative feelings have been expressed, both past and present.”

Again, no evidence has been provided.

The following quote is confusing as it seems to contradict the above statement,

“Likewise, the modern-day Ahl al-Hadith movement departs from the similar Salafist movement by being perhaps the only major Sunni Islamic movement today with consistently negative statements and reactions to Abu Hanifa and his legal school.”

If the “Ahl al-Hadith” movement is the only group to hold negative views about Abu Hanifa then how can this be reconciled with “an almost equal amount”?

The one reference that has been given in this section has been misquoted. The actual quote is:

“Ibn Hazm refers to Sufyàn b.'Uyayna, who is reported to have said that the affairs of men were in harmony until they were changed by Abù Hanìfa in Kùfa, al-Batti in Basra and Màlik in Medina.”[

This article however misquotes the statement as “Early Muslim scholar Sufyan ibn `Uyaynah was reported to have said that the Muslims were united in harmony until Abu Hanifa's teachings became prominent”

Altering quotes to suit a particular idea is unacceptable. This seems like a clear case of POV-pushing. Further, there is no consensus on Sufyan ibn Uyaynah’s views on Abu Hanifa.

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi narrates:

Ihsaq ibn al-Buhlul narrated to us: He said: I heard Ibn ‘Uyaynah say: “My eyes have not seen the like of Abu Hanifah.”

And, Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah said: “Allah have mercy on Abu Hanifah. He was from the worshippers.”

‘Ali ibn al-Madini narrated: I heard Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah say: “Abu Hanifah was an honourable person, and he would perform [much] prayers from early in his life.”

As such, Ibn Uyaynah’s views regarding Abu Hanifa are debateable.

The above does not imply that Abu Hanifa did not have his detractors. Ibn Hazm for one disagreed strongly with Abu Hanifa’s use of ra’y (opinion). However, this hardly equates to “an almost equal number” of critics.

Bearing this in mind, I have re-written this entire section which will hopefully provide a more accurate and balanced view of the reception of Abu Hanifa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheckDigit1 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Historically, the almost equal number quote was true; early on, some of his rivals came near to making takfir, or declaring him to be a disbeliever. These sort of views are found in works such as "As-Sunnah" of Ahmad bin Hanbal's son Abdullah and other Hanbali polemics. Today, that is no longer the case. Either way, you're absolutely correct that this requires a source and if a source isn't brought, then your removal is just fine. I was the one who wrote that in there in passing based on what I have read of source material, as I know it's absolutely true. I don't personally agree with it but those extreme views branding him as a heretic, a murji, a Jahmi etc. were thrown around a lot. But I can't oppose your removal.

Still, there are other problems with this most recent version, however. Check this out:

"During his lifetime, he was acknowledged as a jurist of the highest calibre..."

Alright, by who? Is this Wael Hallaq's personal comment? If so, it needs to be made clear. If he is quoting someone else, then that should also be made clear.

"and was generally spoken well of by his contemporaries..."

This is false based on what I have read, but whether it is or not, it isn't source and thus should also be removed. The goal here isn't to slander the subject but there is a tendency of Muslim writers to try and paint overly rosy, harmonious pictures of our early scholars when the reality was more tendentious and chaotic.

"He attained a very high status in the various fields of sacred knowledge ...because of his brilliant intellect influenced the development of muslim theology"

Alright, is this the joint statement of Frank N. Magill and Alison Ayes? Or are they quoting someone else? That needs to be made clear as well. Now look at this:

"Abdullah bin al-Mubarak described Abu Hanifa as the “quintessence of jursiprudence"

Muhammad Abu Zahra wrote a tremendous amount of books. Just giving his name and a page number isn't a valid citation. I don't doubt he said this, but a reader has no way of cross-checking this information to verify. Perhaps you meant his biography of Abu Hanifa which I don't own but have seen at local bookstores. As far as I know, it isn't in English. Did you translate this line yourself? Did you find this somewhere else? Which edition did you find it in? This type of information is required for proper citations.

You also quote from Suyuti's "Tabyid as-Sahifa," yet books from famous authors like this have numerous editions by different publishing houses. This sort of information is required for citations, so which version did you find this in? The same goes for Ibn Hajr's "Tahdhib at-Tahdhib." I myself have seen at least three different popular prints of this one from different publishing houses. The same goes for "An introduction to Islam" by David Waines (with which I am not familiar).

You say here:

"granted to him [21] both in communities where his legal theory is followed and elsewhere, attests to the amount of respect he has been accorded"

The citation is for his well known title, not the line after it by communities everywhere giving him the title and attesting to the amount of respect. So which part is actually found in Brill's EoI? Which version - electronic or print? Did you find this on Google Books or a hard copy or Brill's website?

You also quote a book called "Abū Ḥanīfah: The Quintessence of Islamic Law" for the demonstrably false claim that Hanafis might make up half of the world's Muslim population. Who is the author? Who is the publisher? Who are they quoting? Who is it that claims this? What is the ISBN number, at least?

Also, this:

"Outside of his scholarly achievements Abu Hanifa was recognised as a man of the highest personal qualities"

Ok, who recognized as such? I am very aware that the has been praised as such but is that the statement of David Waines or is he quoting someone else?

There is quite a bit which needs to be addressed here and I understand that it will take some time, but it needs to be done. I am willing to help facilitate that if need be. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

@User:CheckDigit1, I need to ask an uncomfortable question. I noticed that some of the quotes you brought here from past Muslim scholars are found, exactly word-for-word the same, on some popular Muslim polemical websites. See here, here, here and here. I have to ask unfortunately, did you actually read these sources yourself or are you just taking them from these blogs? We could be looking at a potential conflict with WP:USERGENERATED here as it looks like this stuff was copy-pasted from unreliable sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I just checked some of the other lines in the section and I'm finding copy-paste violations from [www.central-mosque.com/fiqh/hanifmy.htm here] and here as well. None of these are reliable sources, they're just blogs, self-published Muslim missionary sites and the website for some mosque somewhere. CheckDigit1, this is a major violation of Wikipedia:Copy-paste; even if the owners of these websites didn't apply for copyright protection, websites in generally are copyright protected per the Berne Convention. I'm going to have to remove the quotes in question for the time being, and as a matter of policy we need to comb through every other source that's been added; copy pasting from anything, even if a few words are changed here and there, isn't allowed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I raised a number of issues in my original statement and have since realised that you (MezzoMezzo) were the original author of the paragraph.

As such, could you please explain why you changed the following quote:

“Ibn Hazm refers to Sufyàn b.'Uyayna, who is reported to have said that the affairs of men were in harmony until they were changed by Abù Hanìfa in Kùfa, al-Batti in Basra and Màlik in Medina.”[

to

“Early Muslim scholar Sufyan ibn `Uyaynah was reported to have said that the Muslims were united in harmony until Abu Hanifa's teachings became prominent”

I ask because this seems to be a clear case of POV-pushing and I am concerned that you are not editing from a neutral position.

Anyhow, you have added a number of points to my version of the section, as follows:

Abu Hanifa is regarded[by whom?] as one of the greatest jurists of Arab civilization and one of the major legal philosophers of the entire human community.

The reference for this is given at the end of the sentence and the quote in full is "Abu Hanifah ranks as one of the great jurists of Arab civilization and one of the major legal philosophers of the entire human community." Frank Northen Magill and Alison Aves are regarded as authoritative sources so I don't understand the issue here.

During his lifetime, he was acknowledged[by whom?] as a jurist of the highest calibre.[16]

This is a statement by Wael B. Hallaq and this has been made clear (the reference is made at the end of the line). What else needs to be done? As regards the quotes from the works of Ibn Hajar and as-Suyuti, they have come from the books "Ma'arif as-Sunun" by Muhammad Yusuf Binnouri, a hadith specialist of the last century, and "Fath al-Mulhim" by Taqi Usmani / Shabbir Usmani, a contemporary Islamic scholar from Pakistan. I don't understand why you should automatically assume that the quotes were forged.

Your also had a problem with the statement

"granted to him [21] both in communities where his legal theory is followed and elsewhere, attests to the amount of respect he has been accorded".

This was actually added by you on the 9th June 2013. If if it is considered acceptable for you to add this then please explain why it is not acceptable for me to add this?

In general, I have found your response to be rather frustrating and lacking in consistency. As mentioned above, you were quite happy to add an entire section with only one quote (and that was changed) to put forward a particular point of view. I have provided a number of different citations from neutral sources and you seem agitated by this.

I have reversed some of the points you made in the article based on my comments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheckDigit1 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

@User:CheckDigit1, I will ask you - since you are new - to review WP:BATTLEGROUND. You've leveled a few personal accusations against me without evidence and you seem to be taking this as some sort of a conflict. This isn't about conflict; it's about cooperation, hence my offer to help facilitate the cleanup of this section. Now, to respond to your queries:

1. I wrote that Ibn Uyaynah said that as a matter of oversight; please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I did not "change" anything. You wrote a more accurate version and as you will notice, I never reversed your prose. I didn't think anything of it at the time as I didn't spend much time on this article. Also, just as I reminded you on your talk page about another issue that accusations of vandalism, if false, can constitute personal attacks, so can your remark at the end of your message here that I editing in order to put forth a certain point of view; please review WP:WIAPA.

1. Now, regarding the "Abu Hanifa is considered (by whom?)" comment. My tags were absolutely necessary, and I will be reinstating them; let me explain why. If you check WP:YESPOV which explains what neutral point of view is, you will notice principles such as "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Prefer nonjudgmental language." Thus the citation is one thing, but that's a different issue relating to a different policy; what I was addressing with that tag is not the citation, but rather the composition of the sentence. Who considered the subject this way? Who regarded him as a judge of the highest calibre? That has nothing to do with Wikipedia's citation policy because the issue is how it has been written, not how it has been cited.

1. As for the "granted to him in communities" comment which I wrote, then it attributes the granting of the title to the Muslim communities where his law is followed in general. There is a positive attribution there which wasn't in your additions, so I didn't see a contradiction. If you feel that my version of that sentence is too vague, then suggest an alternative so we can improve the section. This isn't about trying to show each other up or make accusations; the goal is to improve the article.

1. As for the citations from Arabic books then no, no, no. Seriously, don't put those back in. I know you're new so it might seem confusing at first but please review Wikipedia:Copy-paste. Like I said before, per the Berne Convention, most websites are copyrighted even if the owners of said websites don't know about it. And the sources absolutely were copy pasted, that is very clear. If you did in fact read these sources yourself, then from what publishing house and what edition did you find that info? If you translated these passages yourself, it's good to put a note on the talk page of this article along with the source text so other Arabic-speaking editors can verify. But as it is, those are clearly copy-pasted from the links I posted above and allowing them to sit would be a serious violation.

If my comments are frustrating then I apologize but please keep in mind that I do what I do in order to improve the encyclopedia. You're contributing quite a bit and that's a good thing, but please don't take it personally when I advise you to review certain policies and guidelines. It can be annoying but it will help you understand the motivation behind some of my decisions (right now, the only immediate one is returning the tags, which is necessary). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Adding to his Notable ideas

As his two students Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani and Abu Yusuf is considered one of the founding father of the Evolution of Islamic Jurisprudence, so his teacher should also be included in the founder father list.

No, these figures were influential in shaping what came next in terms of Islamic jurisprudence, but the evolution of jurisprudence was not one of his key ideas. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Mismatch in the year of death in Info Box and content heading "Adulthood and death"

In the fifth paragraph under content heading "Adulthood and death" it is stated that "In 767, Abū Ḥanīfah died in prison", whereas in the Info Box the year of death is mentioned 772. Need clarification about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.63.206 (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Never fed?

The article first says that "He was never fed", but then indicates that "The cause of his death is not clear", even citing the poison hypothesis. So, somebody else fed him during the time of his imprisonment? --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like what likely happened, but like many Medieval Muslim figures, the article is in great need of attention on the details of the subject's life. Obviously if he was never fed then he starved, and if he didn't starve, he must have been fed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Disputing his writing of Fiqh al Akabar

This contention needs to be bolstered with a better citation or should be deleted. What is currently cited is a POV pdf that criticizes a certain Islamic sect for relying on the book. It's also written in poorly constructed English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaynfromNY (talk • contribs) 03:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abu Hanifa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111118012441/http://www.renaissance.com.pk/feletfor96.html to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/feletfor96.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

Please add criticism on abu hanifa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiacc97 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Abu Hanifa was not from Iraq - Iraq was not a country back then

Iraq was not a country until the fall of the Ottoman Empire when the British created the country of Iraq. Not quite sure why the wiki article states Abu Hanifa was Iraqi. Abu Hanifa was an ethnic Persian who came from Persia (That region, although under Umayyad rule was considered Persia)

Iraq was not a country under many years later in the mid 1900s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoma (talk • contribs) 04:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It was not called Persia either, even under the Umayyad Caliphate. Check any historical atlas. If Iraq is anachronistic, then Persia is equally so. Let's see what other editors think. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

the region has been called Iraq for a thousand years. There's a report in Bukhari's Sahih by Ibn Maslamah from Ibn Shihāb from Malik from Uriah from Bashir where it mentions Abu Mas'ud ruled over Irāq. 216.165.201.171 (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

He was not Persian either because he was from Kabul and technically people from there are not of Persian origin. I don't know why he is not mentioned as Pashtun? The vast majority of Pashtuns are Hanafi Muslims while Persians from Iran are Shia. Akmal94 (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Im planning on rewriting this whole thing

Hi guys. Just a heads up, I'm planning on elaborating and expanding on the entirety of this article over the next few months primarily relying on classical sources. Hsharaheel (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hsharaheel: What do you mean by classical sources? Please see WP:PST. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Don’t worry. By classical I mean secondary sources. Primary sources are impossible since few works survived. Look through the references I’ve already done and you’ll see if I fit the wiki rules. Hsharaheel (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The article contains significant unsourced passages, a conversational and unencyclopediac tone, and citations based on sources of dubious factual accuracy. I have added tags based on these: Hsharaheel should aim to work on improving these problems, otherwise significant portions of the article may need to be cut. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. There are significant WP:RS issues. For example, a lot of citations are from a work of Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, who lived in the 16th-century. We need secondary, academic sources (WP:PST). This article seems to be in a even worse state than before. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree as well. The article has deteriorated since the recent changes. The article should be immediately restored to the 14:28, 18 October 2022‎ version for the time being. Hsharaheel should discuss their specific, proposed changes here at the talk page. As a general guidance, we should stick with modern (i.e. at least 20th-century but preferably late 20th-century and 21st-century), scholarly sources and avoid all religious, clerical sources of any era. Al Ameer (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I have done so. I strongly advise Hsharaheel to form consensus here before making significant additions to the article. This page could obviously be improved, but relying near-entirely on medieval sources are not the way towards that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I don't believe that there is any wikipedia policy which says that a consensus needs to be made before making an addition. I believe the main policy is that the addition is reliably sourced. Newer sources are better than older sources, but older sources can still be secondary sources. I looked at the first edit that was included in the rollback on "prophecy". The editor not only included numerous citations but they also cited them by name which implies to the reader that they may not be undisputed facts. That looks like a fair addition to me. If you believe the sources are outdated, isn't the solution is to come up with more recent, reliable sources? The other edits look sourced to published books as well. As far as the tone, that's a personal opinion and something you should certainly fix if you think it can be improved. To delete the information by simply rolling back to a version which also cites old sources along with a number of websites seems unwarranted. (i.e. The current article is no more better sourced or neutral, it just contains less information.) Please take this as the constructive feedback for this article it is intended to be. I am not saying that the points raised are completely invalid. I am saying that reverts should be reserved for policy violations, especially when we are not willing to put in the effort to improve the article ourselves (myself included). A15730 (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

A15730 please note WP:BRD. We are now at the discuss stage, so thank you for contributing. You are correct that older sources can still be secondary sources, and that the sources provided were a) to published books and b) often provided accompanied by the name of the author. However, when you have an article on early Islamic law near-entirely sourced in this manner to works by pre-1900 Islamic theologists, you run into massive WP:NPOV issues. By removing the sources, the article is indeed more neutral than before, and the infomation loss is worth it, as neutrality is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. Thank you for your positive attitude, and please respond if you have any more constructive criticism. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I'll start by conceding that I am still new to this, and I recognize that you and the others here have clearly devoted a lot of time to getting things to where they are today. That said: I am aware of WP:BRD. The B part indicates that the editor should have made the edits. The Revert part is "if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it." If you don't think it was an improvement and couldn't be refined, I can't argue that, but my hope is that experienced editors do consider that part before they revert. My understanding is that the exceptions to this would be if the initial edit was in violation of a clear directive, such as being vandalism or lacking a source, which doesn't appear to be the case here.

With regards to the sources, I am not understanding your WP:NPOV statement. Furthermore, I read in WP:NPOV, "Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." Again, I don't see how bias applies here. Sources themselves don't have to be neutral. If that is truly what you mean, please expand. I am guessing that what you mean is that they are slanted and unreliable? Ignoring the fact that any more recent works are still going to be dependent upon these earlier works, the edits were given as so-and-so said so-and-so and would be appropriate wording for an opinion, which would seem to suggest that it would be fine for apocryphal information?

I really don't care one way or the other and have nothing invested here. I just happened to come across the page yesterday though link jumping and have made it a habit to read the talk page as I've found that to be a good source to find interesting things to research. I looked back at the recent edits and thought some were quite good and really added to the article. I simply suspect that there is a good probability that they won't be made now and think that would be a loss. Appreciating the time you took to read these comments, I defer to your judgement. Best regards. A15730 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

On my rewriting of this page

@AirshipJungleman29: @HistoryofIran: @Al Ameer son: @A15730:

Alright guys. Several things to note here so I’ll pull them in numbered form and nobody feel rude. I am going to to be blunt but I mean nothing but kindness.

1. Sources: Yes I quote Ibn Hajar in his Book Khayrat al Hisan and I understand you guys seem to have a problem with this. Now let me talk about this

• a) This appears to me to be the result of the availability heuristic. I also extensively quotes contemporary Dr. Muhammad Akram Nadwi, recent historian Shibli Nomani, and recent scholar Muhammad Zahid Al-Kawthari. All 4 of their books are published in English.
• b) My entire reason for making this overhaul of the page was because of these recent English translations and publications. See, there are very few English publications of Abu Hanifa because most works on him are in arabic and untranslated. There isn't a large momentum to translate these either.
• c) If I wanted, I could definitely quote more recent historians, but then all the sources will be in Arabic and inaccessible to any of you. I know for a fact none of you are fluent in Arabic else we wouldn't be having this conversation. My hope for writing on Abu Hanifa was to generate interest and make the reader go out and buy books to do more research. If I quote only recent sources, this will be impossible.
• d) Discrediting older historians just because they seem clerical is, to put if frankly, complete foolishness. Abu Hanifa was a religious figure. 45% of all Sunni Muslims follow him in law and creed. So naturally the vast majority of his writers are going to be clerics. If you try to mentions sectarianism, Ibn Hajar is a Shafi, so he has no allegiance to Abu Hanifa.
• e) Claiming what I wrote is inaccurate is strange. I explicitly mentions the details aren't concrete. For example, how he died, I write very clearly nobody knows for sure but that certain reports mentions this. I don't know what you wanted me to do here.
• f) Secondary sources vs primary sources again shows all of your ignorance on the books I cited. If I wanted primary sources, I would extensively quote Tarikh dimashq and the siyar of dhahabi, both only found in arabic. Yet I only sprinkle those as additional sources AFTER I quote my secondary.
• g) Many times, all the sources mention the exact same thing. So I just chose one of them and quoted it. It was really just random choosing. If you want, I can quote all the sources for each fact but that would be excessive sources.

2. Writing tone: Yes I concede I may sound unprofessional. I will admit this. I am a university student who is still learning how to phrase my sentences for academic writing. So if it feels unencylopedic, then feel free rephrase it, not erase hours of my work. I knew my writing would be bad and I was hoping others would refine, not delete. I was planning on returning and rewording in winter break.

3. OG research: I want whoever put this tag to look at what I wrote and what the books I cited wrote. I haven't added a letter of my thoughts. I merely summarized and quoted.

4. Un sourced passaged: every paragraph had at least one source. If it looked like an unrouced passage, it's because the entire paragraph is from a single source. If you want me to mention the exact page of every passage, thats fine. But don't delete everything for that.

5. Will I wrote more: As the last dude mentioned, now I am really thinking about not doing anything else. I was hoping to extensively write on view about him and his works and impact and the modern muslim and other topics on him, all sourced, but if nobody appreciates it, why should I bother? Hsharaheel (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hsharaheel To 1): it does not matter whether the book is published in English. What is important is that the work is reliable. You can cite all the post-1950 Arabic sources you want, so long as they can be proven to be reliable. Older sources are generally considered less reliable than modern ones (see WP:AGE MATTERS); of the historians you mention above, I would only consider Muhammad Akram Nadwi truly recent. A good place to look for reliable English sources are scholarly journals or the Wikipedia library, which you will have access to if you fulfil the editing criteria. I can guarantee that if 45% of Sunni Muslims (that is 750+ million people) follow him 'in law and creed' you will be able to find huge numbers of reliable English reference works. If you want, I can provide a selection.

To 2), 3) and 4), the passages were not deleted because of tone or being unsourced, but because of the above WP:RS issues.

To 5), remember that Wikipedia is not compulsory—you are perfectly free to leave at any time. That does not mean that you must—you have enthusiasm and show a willingness to discuss that many others lack. But remember that you can, if you want. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hsharaheel, for example, I have just had a quick look at Abu Hanifa's entry in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, by Brill Publishers. This work, in case you are unaware, is generally considered one of the foremost reference works on Islam in the English language. The entry is not that long (1800 words), but I provide some snippets you may find interesting:

"Very little is known of his life, except that he lived in Kūfa as a manufacturer and merchant of a kind of silk material ( k̲h̲azz )."

"The long lists, given by his later biographers, of authorities from whom he is supposed to have "heard" traditions, are to be treated with caution."

"The biographical legend will have it that the ʿAbbāsid caliph al-Manṣūr called him to the newly founded capital, wanted to appoint him as a ḳāḍī there, and imprisoned him because of his steady refusal. A variant makes already the Umayyad governor Yazīd b. ʿUmar b. Hubayra, under Marwān II, offer him the post of ḳāḍī in Kūfa and flog him in order to make him accept it, but again without success. These and similar stories are meant to explain the end of Abū Ḥanīfa in prison, and the fact ... that the master should not have been a ḳāḍī. The truth is probably that he compromised himself by unguarded remarks ... was transported to Bag̲h̲dād and imprisoned there."

Now, if you were to present the above information in conjunction with your earlier sources, you would be on the road to a rather good article.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with AirshipJungleman29. Also, I hate to be that guy, but that looks like the Second Edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam. They have released a Third Edition [2] which has 5071 words and the Islamica article [3] has a whooping 13,641. Encyclopædia Iranica also has a huge article dedicated to him [4]. @Hsharaheel, you can ask the nice people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request for access to inaccessible sources. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Crikey! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Rasool Allah

Biography 49.205.230.112 (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)