Kadı Ebû Ca‘fer el-Belhî’ye Ait el-İbâne fi’r-red ale’l-muşeniîn alâ Ebî Hanîfe Adlı Risalenin İncelemesi ve Tahkiki

Abstract

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. 5 th / 11 th 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 o f 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, an d 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.