Many works had been written
to defend Imām Abū Ḥanīfa and the Ḥanafī school of law:
Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Kardarī’s (d. 642/1244) al-Fawā’id al-munīfa fī
al-zabb ʿan Abī Ḥanīfa, Ṭāhir b. Qāsim’s (d. 771/1370) Muqaddima fī
al-radd ‘alā radd al-Ḥanafiyya, Muḥammad b. Muḥammad b. Shihāb al-Zuhrī’s
(d. 827/1424) al-Radd ‘alā al-Imām al-Ghazzālī bimā takallama bi-ḥaqqi
imāminā Abī Ḥanīfa and Molla ‘Ali al-Qārī’s (d. 1014/1605) Risāla fī
al-radd ‘alā man dhamma Abā Ḥanīfa. The work of Aḥmad b. Abdullah b. Abū
al-Qāsim al-Balkhī (d. 5th/11th century),
titled al-Ibāna fī al-radd ‘alā al-mushanni‘īn ‘alā Abī Ḥanīfa, is
among the most important and earliest texts within this field. For this reason,
this paper presents a critical edition of this work. Some scholars mistakenly
attribute this text to Muwaffaq b. Muḥammad al-Ḥāssī (d. 634/1237). This paper,
however, argues that the real author of this manuscript was Abū Jaʿfar
al-Balkhī. In order to eliminate confusion about the author of the work, I
attempted to consult all available manuscript copies. I have been able to
locate six manuscripts; three are preserved in manuscript libraries in Turkey,
one is in Baghdad, one is in Mashhad, and another one is in Riyadh. I also
provide full information concerning their locations in the manuscript
libraries. In addition, I have been informed about the existence of another
copy in Mecca (in Maktabat Ḥaram al-Macca), although I was unable to consult
this manuscript for this study. The work was written for
the purpose of defending the Ḥanafī jurisprudential positions against certain
criticisms. The author lists the most frequent criticisms directed at Ḥanafī
jurisprudence by other schools and defends the Ḥanafī tradition by providing
detailed religious and rational proofs. The
author especially tries to respond to criticisms from the Shāfi‘ī jurisprudence
school.
The work consists of six
chapters. In the first chapter, the author responds to those who say that the
“Ḥanafī school is contrary to imāma and imāra principles,” and
argues in detail that the Ḥanafī School is the school best suited to imāma
and imāra principles. In the second chapter, the author rejects those
who say that, “Abū Ḥanīfa preferred controversially qiyās (analogy) to naṣṣ
(Qur’an and sunnah), which is accepted by everyone.” The author argues that it
is not Abū Ḥanīfa who did this, but rather those who make this accusation
against him. Abū Ḥanīfa expressed clearly that he applied qiyās when
there was no clear stipulation or evidence in the Qur’an or prophetic
tradition. The author states that Abū Ḥanīfa first made
reference to the Qur’an, then to the prophetic tradition; when in the absence of evidence from these two sources, he
referred to the opinions accepted by all of the companions, and then to the
opinion of a companion if the other companions did not oppose it. When none of
these options were available, only then did he apply qiyās. In the third chapter, the author responds to those who
say, “Abū Ḥanīfa left the prudence in the fiqh and went beyond bounds of
permission.” The author emphasizes that this claim is incorrect and that it is
incompatible with the life of a devout imām. In the
fourth chapter, which is a continuation of the previous one, the author rejects
the claim that “Shāfi‘ī and other scholars were more cautious than Abū Ḥanīfa
in matters of worship and etc.,” and he suggests that the opposite was true. One of the examples provided is the controversy about the
one who intentionally breaks his fast by eating or drinking something in
Ramadan. In this case, Shāfiʿī and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal
said that only recompense fasting (for each day s/he broke) was necessary,
while Abū Ḥanīfa and Mālik viewed both recompense and penance (60-day fasting)
as necessary. The author states that this, and
similar provisions, indicate that it cannot be claimed that Shāfi‘ī was more
cautious regarding worship than Abū Ḥanīfa. In the fifth chapter, as a
counter attack, the author challenges those who criticized Abū Ḥanīfa and lists
the controversial opinions of Abū Ḥanīfa’s opponents. In the sixth chapter, he
addresses two arguments: In the first part, he underscores that
not Abū Ḥanīfa but rather his opponents should be criticized. In the second, he
explains why the Ḥanafī school is more favorable to others. The author tries to
argue these issues through providing religious and rational proofs. In some cases,
however, he could not help but to resort to some fanatical suggestions without
providing evidence. For example, the author claims that Shafi‘ī’s Arabic was
weak and that he was not a strong scholar of the prophetic traditions.
Bu çalışma, Ahmed b. Abdullah b. Ebü’l-Kāsım el-Belhî el-Kādî (ö. V./XI. asır) tarafından kaleme alınan, fakat yanlışlıkla Muvaffak b. Muhammed el-Hâssî’ye de (ö. 634/1237) nispet edilmiş olan el-İbâne fi’r-red ale’l-muşenniîn alâ Ebî Hanîfe adlı eserin incelemesini ve tahkikini kapsamaktadır. Eser altı bölümden oluşmaktadır. Müellif bu eserinde kendi dönemine kadar Hanefî mezhebinin muhalifleri tarafından yöneltilen eleştirilerin en meşhurlarını zikredip, bunlara naklî ve aklî delillerle detaylı olarak cevap vermektedir. Eserin sonunda bir fasıl ekleyerek Hanefî mezhebinin diğer mezheplere göre tercihe şayan olma sebebini anlatmaktadır.
Bu eserin, üçü Türkiye’de bulunan yazma kütüphanelerinden, biri Bağdat, biri Riyad ve bir diğeri de Meşhed’den olmak üzere toplam altı nüshasını elde ettik. Bunların dışında Mekke’de mevcut olduğunu öğrendiğimiz bir nüsha ise temin edilememiştir.
Bu çalışmada söz konusu eserin aslen Ebû Ca‘fer el-Belhî’ye ait olduğu, Muvaffak b. Muhammed el-Hâssî’ye ise yanlışlıkla nispet edildiği delilleriyle açıklanmış, risalenin nüshaları ve bulunduğu kütüphaneler hakkında bilgi verilmiş ve üç nüshası esas alınarak metni tahkik edilmiştir.
Primary Language | Arabic |
---|---|
Subjects | Religious Studies |
Journal Section | Makaleler |
Authors | |
Publication Date | January 1, 2020 |
Published in Issue | Year 2020 Issue: 43 |