Imam Abu Hanifa and His Companions: the Representative of the Madhhab al-Ra’y
The Hanafis however placed two other conditions, namely that the person who transmitted the hadith is not known to have acted contrary to their report, and that it is a matter that does not necessitate the knowledge of a vast number of people.
In the first condition, there is a hadith which states that "When a dog licks a dish, wash it seven times, one of which must be with clean earth." The hadith in question fulfills all the above requirements of Imams ash-Shafi’i and Ahmad, but however, it is known that Abu Hurayra, the Sahabi that the hadith comes from, did not act upon it himself. Because it is known that normally, the criterion for purifying anything is only three washes, an established qa’ida, and since Abu Hurayra is known not to act upon this hadith, Imam Abu Hanifa and his madhhab rejected both its text and attribution to Abu Hurayra.
In regards to the second criterion, the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam, is reported to have said, "Anyone who touches his sexual organ must make a fresh wudu’." The Hanafis have rejected this hadith in light of the fact that even though this is an important hadith, it was not an established practice amongst the whole community, and hence, there is too much doubt surrounding its authenticity to be acted upon, for if it were true, it would have been necessitated that it be transmitted and acted upon by all.
Another example from the Hanafis is the issue of the wali. The Hanafis have ruled that a wali is not an essential part of the nikkah, and hence a nikkah is valid without one, even though there is a sahih hadith that states, "There is no marriage without a wali," along with others which state something similar. Their reasoning is that in the Qur’an, Allah states, "If he has divorced her, then she is not lawful to him until she marries (hatta tankiha) another man" (2: 229). The dhahir, outward meaning of the word hatta tankiha implies that a woman has the authority to contract her own marriage, and since the Qur’an is a qat’i and the hadith is ahad, it is rejected since the speculative cannot override the definite. Furthermore, the Hanafis consider the ‘amm of the Qur’an to be definite and hence binding it is dhahir wording and general application, unless there is a qat’i proof to specify (takhsis) its generality.
In other words, when there was a clash between a qat’i and a dhanni proof, the qat’i takes priority, and in many instances, the dhanni is disregarded.
An example from Imam Malik is the same issue above, that of the dog. The Shafi’is and the Hanbalis have ruled because of this hadith and one similar to it, that both dogs and pigs are nejus. However, in the Qur’an, Allah says, "When they ask you what is lawful to them, say: ‘What is lawful to you is that which is good and pure and also what you have trained your hunting animals to catch in the manner directed to you by Allah." (5:4) In this verse, Allah allows for the game which is taken from the mouths of hunting animals to be eaten, without any stipulations attached. One of the animals that the Arabs used to hunt with was dogs. Allah did not make an exception to dogs, hence, the ayat in the Qur’an is general and implicitly implies that the saliva of dogs is pure. Furthermore, there is a qa’ida derived from the Kitab wa Sunnah that "everything is pure until proven otherwise", and since this hadith is ahad, along with the reasoning that Imam Abu Hanifa gave, it cannot overrule the general principle, thereby specifying something which Allah has apparently made general. In light of the fact that there is no other proof to substantiate it, Imam Malik and his madhhab rejected it and consider all living animals, and that which is pure from humans (i.e. hair, saliva, skin, etc.), to be pure as well. Even to the extent that the left over water that a dog has drunken from is considered tahir for taharah.
Imam Malik and the Madinan Divergence
Imam Malik and the Madinans have added another criterion to accepting the khabar al-wahid apart from what which is mention in relation to Imam ash-Shafi’i and Ahmad: that the hadith in question does not conflict with the ‘amal of ahl al-Madina.
The ‘amal of ahl al-Madina as a juristic principle states what Malik mentioned above, that Madina is the inheritor of the sunnah of the Prophet and the sunnah of the Sahabah, and hence the entire city is the visual legacy of the Prophetic Sunnah. The proofs are the ayat stated above, along with ahadith:
My community will not agree on an error.
and
Madina is sacred, and throws out its dross as fire cast out the dross of metal.
and
Islam will cling to Madina as a serpent clings to its hole.
In Malik’s view, all of these ayat and ahadith substantiate not only the superiority of Madina spiritually, but in regards to its practice as well, and hence, their practice is a mutawatir transmission of the Sunnah. That being the case, the ‘amal of ahl al-Madina is in his mind, which he inherited from his teachers, a qat’i proof, and when it comes in conflict with a dhanni, such as the khabar al-wahid, either explains the latter’s ambiguity, or completely overrides its text, even when the ‘amal is of the Tabi’een or Tab’ut Tabi’een. The rational reasoning behind this was stated by Imam Malik himself, who said,
About so many thousand Companions came with the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam, from a certain expedition at such-and-such a time. About 10,000 of them died in Madina, and the rest split up in the cities. Which would you prefer to follow and whose words would you prefer to take? Those (Tabi’een) in whose presence the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam, died with his Companions I mentioned (i.e. the 10,000 of them who died in Madina), or the one (group of Tabi’een) who died with one or two of the Companions of the Prophet-sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam.
The understanding that Malik had comes down to common sense. Imam Malik was the Imam of the Abode and Hijra of the Prophet. Madina, was the first Islamic state established, hence, all the relevant historical occurrences happened in Madina. The majority of the akham revealed by Allah ‘Azza wa Jal were revealed in or in relation to Madina. The Prophet made hijra there, lived out his life there, and died there. Revelation came while he was in the city, and the whole area was illuminated by its effect. The vast majority of the Sahabah, in the efforts to be as close as possible to the Messenger of Allah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam, followed him to Madina and took up residence there. Most importantly in this respect, the seven companions that were known to pass fatwa spent a considerable amount of time in Madina, including ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and ‘Abdullah ibn Abbas. It was the seat of the first three Khulafa Rashidun, and ‘Ali spent half of his khalifate in Madina. If there was ever a sunnah established, it was done in Madina. If there ever was a relevant hadith, it was known in Madina. If there ever was a city that deserved to be followed, it was Madina.
|
