This explanation paves the way for a series of examples whereby Ibn Qutayba demonstrates what he perceives to be Abū Hanı̄fa’s disregard for Prophetic hadı̄th. 140 Ibn Qutayba then gives ample space to Ishāq b. Rāhawayh’s censure of Abū Hanı̄fa, where he describes seven instances of Abū Hanı̄fa’s ‘unforgivable opposition to the Quran and unforgivable opposition to the Messenger of God, upon one’s having been acquainted with his statement’. 141 p.74
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855) & Abd Allah b. Ahmad b. Hanbal (d. 290/903): Abu Hanifa Heresies pp. 95-97
As we shall see in our analysis of discourses of heresy against Abū Hanı̄fa in the Kitāb al- Sunna, Ahmad b. Hanbal found the idea of rebelling against the state not only repugnant but a sign of heresy. In circumstances such as these, Ibn Hanbal believed that men could speak truth to power, but a more brazen challenge to the caliphal office was unconscionable. Within a year of Ahmad b. Nasr’s execution, change was in the air. Al-Mutawakkil had ascended the throne. Caliphal interest in pursuing the Mihna went from waning to a complete reversal. Ahmad b. Hanbal was now receiving invitations to visit the caliph in Samarra. 252 These dramatic events and turbulent changes must have been stirring in ʿAbd Allāh’s mind when he began to compose the Kitāb al-Sunna. But proto-Sunni traditionalist conceptions of orthodoxy were not limited to debates concerning the createdness of the Quran. Other themes that appear prominently in the Kitāb al-Sunna are Irjā’, the nature of faith (performance, action, or both), destinarianism, the probity of the first four caliphs, and attitudes to the state. But we can measure the importance of discourses of heresy against Abū Hanı̄fa to proto-Sunni traditionalists by the fact that ʿAbd Allāh’s Kitāb al-Sunna devotes almost fifty pages to portraying Abū Hanı̄fa as a heresiarch. 253 ʿ Abd Allāh’s method for depicting Abū Hanı̄fa as a heretic and deviant observes the norms of religious authority current among proto-Sunni traditionalists of the ninth century. Rather than communicating his own thoughts and ideas about Abū Hanı̄fa, ʿAbd Allāh proposes to relate information he heard from a select group of religious authorities…
The Kitāb al-Sunna evidences a number of themes that form the basis of discourses of heresy against Abū Hanı̄fa (see Figure 3.1). I have counted a total number of 184 anti-Abū Hanı̄fa reports in this section of the Kitāb al-Sunna. There are six overarching (and overlapping) themes in the material ʿAbd Allāh b. Ahmad b. Hanbal collects against Abū Hanı̄fa. Most of the (forty-one) reports fall into the category of general curses against Abū Hanı̄fa. Within this category we have reports describing Abū Hanı̄fa as the greatest source of harm to Islam and Muslims; the most wretched person to be born in the religion of Islam; prayers and curses against Abū Hanı̄fa; and expressions of joy at the news of his death. The second prominent theme is the opposition between Abū Hanı̄fa’s ra’y and Prophetic hadı̄th (thirty-two reports). This is followed closely by the theme of heresies (thirty-one reports). This category refers to reports wherein the semantic field of heresy (kufr, kāfir; zandaqa, zindı̄q; murūq, mā riq, etc.) is employed against Abū Hanı̄fa. Examples of reports from this category include a report in which a proto-Sunni traditionalist encouraged his colleague to declare Abū Hanı̄fa an unbeliever (kāfir)
and heretic (zindı̄q) because he believed the Quran to be created; 255 students of Mālik b. Anas alleged that he declared Abū Hanı̄fa to be beyond the pale of the religion; 256 on a separate occasion, when someone proposed one of Abū Hanı̄fa’s solutions to a legal question, it was dismissed curtly as the view of ‘that apostate’. 257 The fourth theme refers to reports that describe Abū Hanı̄fa as having repented publicly from heresy (twenty-three reports). Another prominent theme is rebellion (seventeen reports). ʿAbd Allāh collects reports in which proto-Sunni traditionalists drew attention to the heretical nature of Abū Hanı̄fa’s support for rebellion against Muslim rulers. A sixth theme is Abū Hanı̄fa’s adherence to the heresy of Irjā’ (fourteen reports). Little is made of Abū Hanı̄fa’s views on the Quran (six reports) and his connection to the Jahmiyya (six reports), which is especially surprising given the historical background of the Mihna and the involvement of the author’s father, Ahmad b. Hanbal, in that inquisition. There is no doubt that the Kitāb al-Sunna represented the culmination of proto-Sunni traditionalist attempts to place Abū Hanı̄fa outside the realm of orthodoxy and that the close students of Ahmad b. Hanbal were at the forefront of disseminating discourses of heresy against Abū Hanı̄fa. – p.95-97
Raising Hands in Salat p. 171-173
These are the first lines of al-Bukhārı̄’s book regarding the performance of the ritual prayer and the obligation, according to al-Bukhārı̄, that one raise one’s hand during the takbı̄rāt: 68
[This book is] A refutation of him who rejected raising the hands in the ritual prayer before bowing and upon raising his head after the cycle of prostration. He confused the non-Arabs on this issue out of his endeavour to disregard utterly that which was established from the Messenger of God of his actions and sayings; and he had the same disregard for that which was established from the actions of his Companions and their narrations; and then the generation of the Successors and the adherence of the pious ancestors to them with respect to narrations that had been authenticated, transmitted from one reliable authority to another from the upright generation that came after, may God be pleased with them all and may He grant them what He has promised them. [And this was all done] out of the spitefulness of his breast, the rancour of his heart, departing from the practices of the Messenger of God, showing contempt for what he transmitted out of his arrogance and enmity for its people [ahl al-sunan], because heresy had contaminated his flesh, bones, and mind and made him delight in the non-Arabs’ misguided celebration of him.
In order to illustrate the disparity between orthodoxy and heresy, al-Bukhārı̄ cites an incident involving Abū Hanı̄fa which by the ninth century had become widespread: 71
ibn al-mubā rak: I was praying next to al-Nuʿmān [b. Thābit] and I raised my hands.
abū hanı̄fa [after the prayer had finished, as another source tells us]: Did you not fear that you would fly?
ibn al-mubā rak: If I did not fly away the first time I raised my hands at the opening takbı̄r of prayer, why would I fly away the second time?
Sunnis Celebrated the Death of Abu Hanifa p. 195
We read in al-Bukhārı̄’s al-Tārı̄kh al-awsat that al-Fazārı̄ said: ‘I was with Sufyān when the news of al-Nuʿmān’s [b. Thābit] death came. He said: “Praise be to God. He was destroying Islam systematically. No one was born in Islam more accursed than him.”’ 42
In the case of Abū Hanı̄fa, proto-Sunni traditionalists purported to document the instant reactions of leading members of their textual community to the news that Abū Hanı̄fa had passed away. When Sufyān al-Thawrı̄ heard the news of Abū Hanı̄fa’s death, proto-Sunni traditionalists of the ninth century reported him as having exclaimed: ‘Praise be to God who has relieved the Muslims of him [Abū Hanı̄fa]. He had been destroying systematically the foundations of Islam. No birth was more harmful (ash’am) to Islam than his.’ 160 The same is reported on the authority of Mālik b. Anas: ‘No one was born in Islam whose birth was more harmful to the Muslims than that of Abū Hanı̄fa.’ The report continues:
Mālik b. Anas would condemn speculative jurisprudence. He would say, ‘We must adhere to the reports of the messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and the reports of his Companions. We cannot adhere to speculative jurisprudence, for it produces a situation whereby if someone comes along who is stronger in speculative jurisprudence, then one must adhere to him. We would have a situation whereby whenever someone comes along who displays a stronger grasp of speculative jurisprudence than you, you would be forced to follow him. The matter would continue in this [absurd] manner.’ 161
We find al-Fasawı̄’s history again cited the following view: ‘No one initiated more evil in Islam than Abū Hanı̄fa except so and so who was crucified.’ 162
Accusing Abu Hanifa of Being a Jew or Christian p. 214
Some went even further than this. A scandalous rumour was circulated in tenth-century Wāsit: someone had told someone else that he heard Ibn Abı̄ Shayba say that he suspected Abū Hanı̄fa was a Jew. 22 Similar outlandish attempts to malign Hanafı̄s were originating, once more, from Wā sit. 23 Shādhdh b. Yahyā al-Wā sitı̄, a companion of Yazı̄d b. Hārūn, reports that he heard Yazı̄d say: ‘I have not seen anyone who resembled the Christians more than the followers of Abū Hanı̄fa.’ 24
Al-Khatı̄b al-Baghdā dı̄, Tārı̄kh Baghdād, 15: 566 (mā ra’ay tu qawm ashbah bi al-nasārā ̇ ̇min ashāb Abı̄ Hanı̄fa
Ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855): Abu Hanifa Went Against Sunnah p. 225-226
ʿAbd Allāh b. Ahmad b. Hanbal rallied against Abū Hanı̄fa for supposedly permitting the consumption of pork, alcohol, and other prohibited drinks. 84 He was aghast at Abū Hanı̄fa’s edict that breaking musical instruments was a punishable crime. 85 Other proto-Sunni traditionalists claimed that Abū Hanı̄fa permitted adultery and usury and that his jurisprudence led to the shedding of blood with impunity. 86 Many were, of course, puzzled and startled by these allegations. When a sceptic demanded an explanation, he was told that Abū Hanı̄fa permitted usury because he did not object to deferred credit transactions that accrue additional charges (nası̄’a); he permitted public violence (al-dimā’) since he ruled that if a man kills another man by striking him with a massive stone, the blood money must be paid by his male relatives, tribe, or social group (al-ʿāqila); he permitted adultery because he ruled that if a man and a woman have sexual intercourse in a house, whilst they are known to be parents, and both declare themselves that they are married to each other, no one should object to them. Upon hearing this detailed explanation the sceptic remarked that all of this amounted to invalidating God’s laws (al-sharā’iʿ) and injunctions (al-hkām). 87
84: Abd Allā h b. Ahmad b. Hanbal, Kitāb al-Sunna, 206–7.
85: Abd Allā h b. Ahmad b. Hanbal, Kitāb al-Sunna, 206–7.
86: Al-Khatı̄b al-Baghdā dı̄, Tārı̄kh Baghdād, 15: 569.
87: Al-Khatı̄b al-Baghdā dı̄, Tārı̄kh Baghdād, 15: 569–70
Qiyas & Hadith p. 227
The analogical reasoning of Abū Hanı̄fa and his followers, however, was believed to bring about legal rulings that contradicted Prophetic reports. Ahmad b. Hanbal’s son ʿAbd Allāh would cite reports to the effect that Abū Hanı̄fa permitted eating pork, drinking alcohol, and forbade the breaking of musical instruments. 92 – p. 227
92 ʿAbd Allā h b. Ahmad b. Hanbal, Kitāb al-Sunna, 206–7
Abu Hanifa Weak in Hadith p. 229-230
Al-Tirmidhı̄ (d. 279/892) claimed that Abū Hanı̄fa had told his students as much: ‘Most of the hadı̄th I relate to you are mistaken (ʿāmmatu mā uhaddithukum khata’).’ 102 – p. 229
Al-Tirmidhı̄,ʿIlalal-Tirmidhı̄al-kabı̄r, arranged by Abū T ̇ālibal-Qād ̇ı̄ [Mahmūdb.ʿAlı̄ (d. 585/1189)], ed. Subhı̄ al-Sāmarrā’ı̄, Abū al-Maʿātı̄ al-Nūrı̄, and Mahmūd Muhammad Khalı̄ l al-Saı̄dı̄ (Beirut: ʿĀ lam al-Kutub/Maktabat al-Nahd ̇ a al-ʿArabiyya, 1989), 388. Al-Tirmidhı̄ wrote two works on this subject: al-ʿIlal al-kabı̄r (IK) and al-ʿIlal al-saghı̄r (IS). ̇
Muslim b. al-Hajjāj’s book on the subject of hadı̄th transmitters and their nicknames arrived at a similar conclusion: Abū Hanı̄fa was deficient in hadı̄th, and had very few sound hadı̄th. 103 Al-Nasā’ı̄’s verdict was that Abū Hanı̄fa ̇ was weak in hadı̄th. 104 In his short book describing the standards of individual hadı̄ th scholars, al-Jūzajānı̄ described Abū Hanı̄fa as someone whose hadı̄th could not be relied upon. 105 In his Sunan, al- Dāraqut ̇nı̄ called Abū Hanı̄fa weak ( daʿı̄f) in hadı̄th, and reportedly communicated the same point to Hamza al-Sahmı̄. Still, Abū Hanı̄fa found no place in al-Dāraqutnı̄’s history of weak hadı̄th scholars. 106
103 Muslimb.al-H ̇ajjāj,Kitābal-Kunāwaal-asmā’,ed.ʿAbdal-Rah ̇ı̄mMuh ̇ammadAh ̇mad al-Qashqarı̄ (Medina: Ihyā’ al-Turā th al-Islā miyya, 1984), 276.
104 Al-Nasā’ı̄, Kitāb al-Duʿafā’ wa al-matrūkı̄n, 240 (laysa bi al-quwwa fı̄ al-hadı̄th).
105 Al-Jū zajā nı̄, Ahwā l al-rijā l, 75
106 Al-Dāraqutnı̄, Sunan, 2: 107–8, 1: 223, 323 (al-Arna’ūtedn.); al-Sahmı̄, Su’ālāt Hamza b. Yūsuf al-Sahmı̄lial-Dāraqutnı̄, 263, where we are informed that Abū Hanı̄fa’s hadı̄th transmissions were unreliable since he never met a Companion.
al-Bajalı̄, al-ʿUqaylı̄ quotes the expertise of ʿAbd Allā h b. Ahmad b. Hanbal. When the latter was asked whether al-Bajalı̄ was a reliable hadı̄th scholar (sadūq), he replied: ‘No ̇ ̇ one should relate anything on the authority of Abū Hanı̄fa’s followers (ashāb Abı̄ Hanı̄fa).’ ̇ ̇ ̇ 117 – p.232
Al-Jawraqānı̄’s (d. 543/1148) book on false and sound hadı̄ths twice cites hadı̄ths containing Abū Hanı̄fa in the isnāds. He declares them to be false and states that Abū Hanı̄fa’s hadı̄ths are to be renounced (matrūk al-hadı̄th). 120 – p.232-233
Al-Jawraqānı̄, al-Abātı̄lwaal-manākı̄rwaal-sihāhwaal-mashāhı̄r, ed.ʿAbdal-Rahmān ̇ʿAbd al-Jabbā r al-Faryū wā’ı̄ (Benares: Idā rat al-Buh ̇ ū th al-Islāmiyya wa al-Daʿwa wa al-Iftā’, 1983), 2: 111, 170–1.)
Another critic explained, ‘It was not on account of Abū Hanı̄fa’s juristic reasoning that we loathed him; after all, we all resort to juristic reasoning. Rather, we loathed him because when a hadı̄th from the messenger of God was mentioned to him, he would give an opinion contrary to it.’ 124 Hammād b. Salama was thought to have made this very complaint, too: ‘When faced with traditions and practices (al-āthār wa al-sunan), Abū Hanı̄fa would counter them with his juristic reasoning.’ 125 – p. 232
Abd Allāh b. Ahmad b. Hanbal, Kitāb al-Sunna, 210
11th Century Opinion Attempt to Make Abu Hanifa Orthodox
We should recognise that this important phenomenon had an impact on hadı̄th masters of the eleventh century such as al-Hākim al-Nı̄shāpūrı̄, who included Abū Hanı̄fa as one of the hadı̄th scholars of Kufa. 126 Al-Hākim even implies as much at the outset of the chapter when he writes: ‘This category concerns those famous, trustworthy, leading scholars from the generation of Successors and their successors whose hadı̄th were collected for the purposes of memorisation, learning, and to gain blessings through them.’ 127 For the great hadı̄th master al-Hākim, there was no doubt that Abū Hanı̄fa belonged to this category of hadı̄th specialists. This was nothing short of a sea change, then, from the days of ʿAbd Allāh b. Ahmad b. Hanbal in the ninth century to al-Hākim in the eleventh. – p. 234
ʿAbd Allāh b. Ahmad b. Hanbal > Mutrif al-Yasārı̄ al-Asamm > Mālik b. Anas said: ‘The incurable disease is the destruction of faith. Abū Hanı̄fa is the incurable disease.’ 196 ̇
Ibn ʿAdı ̄ > Ibn Abı ̄ Dawud > al-Rabıʿ b. Sulayman al-Jızı > al-Harith b. Miskın > Ibn al-Qāsim > Mālik said: ‘The incurable disease is the destruction of faith, and Abū Hanı̄fa is [one manifestation] of the incurable disease.’ 197
196: ʿAbd Allāh b. Ahmad b. Hanbal, Kitāb al-Sunna, 223.
197: Ibn ʿAdı̄, al-Kāmil fı̄ al- ̇duʿafā’ al-rijāl, 8: 236–7 (ʿAbd al-Mawjū d edn.).
Abū Zurʿa tells us that Ayyū b al-Sakhtiyā nı̄ was once in Mecca – teaching a class, presumably–when Abū Hanı̄fa happened to enter the study-circle. Upon learning of Abū Hanı̄fa’s presence, Ayyūb brought an end to proceedings. ‘Stand up,’ he exclaimed to his students, ‘otherwise he will infect us with his disease.’ 216 – p. 225
216: Abū Zurʿā al-Dimashqı̄, Tārı̄kh, 2: 507. Ayyūb’s remark seems to invoke an Arabic proverb: ‘More contagious than the infection among the Arabs (aʿda min al-jarab ʿinda
al-ʿarab)’. See Lane, An Arabic–English Lexicon, 1.2: 403 (s.v. ‘jarab’). The editor of Abū Zurʿa’s history has it has yuʿdinā. I am reading the lā as the lām al-duʿā’ (or ‘lā of prohibition’, as Wright has it), which is why I place the verb in the jussive. Another alternative may be to replace the ʿayn with a hamza, which would give us yu’idnā (to infect us). See Wright, A Grammar of the Arabic Language, 2: 36.)
Abu Hanifa Ruling on Location of Kaaba & Identity of Muhammad p. 257
ʿAbd Allāh b. Ahmad b. Hanbal < Ahmad b. Hanbal < Mu’ammal b. Ismāʿı̄ l < Sufyān al-Thawrı̄ < ʿAbbād b. Kathı̄r said: ʿAmr b. ʿUbayd said to me: ‘Ask Abū Hanı̄fa about a man who says: I know that the Kaʿba is a reality and that it is the house of God, but I do not know if it is the house in Mecca or the house in Khurā sā n. Is such a person a believer?’‘ He is a believer,’ replied Abū Hanı̄fa. ʿAmr b. ʿUbayd then asked me to ask Abū Hanı̄fa about a man who says, ‘I know that Muhammad is a real person and that he is the messenger of God, but I do not know whether he is the person who lived in Medina or some other person.’ Is such a person a believer? ‘Yes, he is a believer,’ said Abū Hanı̄fa.
Ibn Hibban (d. 354/965) pp. 323-324
Ibn Hibbān tells us that Abū Hanıfa transmitted 130 hadıths with isnads. Ibn Hibban wrote with supreme confidence that there are no other hadı̄ths from him in the entire world other than these 130. Of these 130 hadı̄ths, Ibn Hibbān believed that Abū Hanı̄fa had committed errors in 120 by way of either mixing up the isnāds or changing the matn. He concludes that in situations when someone’s errors significantly outweigh their positive results, their traditions cannot be relied upon. This seems like a précis of Ibn Hibbān’s now lost book on the defects of Abū Hanı̄fa’s hadı̄ths. For Ibn Hibbān this was not the only reason for Abū Hanı̄fa to be denounced. He continues in the next sentence: ‘There is another reason why one cannot use him as a proof and that is because he invited people to [the heresy of] Irjā’, and there is a total consensus among every single one of our imams that one may not rely upon somebody as a proof if he calls others to heresy (al-bidaʿ).’ 66
66 Ibn Hibbān, Kitābal-Majrū ̇hı̄n, 2:405–6 (Riyadhedn.)
Every Reputable Scholar Denounced Abu Hanifa p. 334
Ibn ʿAdı̄ recalls the celebratory words of Sufyān al-Thawrı̄ when he learned of Abū Hanı̄fa’s passing: ‘Praise be to God. He was destroying Islam systematically. No one was born in Islam more harmful than him.’ 27 Abū Hanı̄fa is described as a devil who opposed the reports of the Prophet Muhammad with his ̇speculative jurisprudence. 28 His hadı̄th learning is described in the most unflattering fashion. 29 Finally, we have the claim that a group of ninth-century proto-Sunni traditionalists refused to accept the legal testimony of Abū Hanı̄fa and his followers. 30 There is one passage, however, that provides an important insight into Ibn ʿAdı̄’s attempt to push back against the growing consensus of Abū Hanı̄fa’s orthodoxy by urgently reminding his audience of an older, well-established consensus among proto-Sunni traditionalists. He writes: 31
There is a consensus of the scholars as to the fall of Abū Hanı̄fa. We know this because the leading authority of Basra, Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānı̄ had aspersed him; the leading authority of Kufa, al-Thawrı̄, had aspersed him; the leading authority of the Hijāz, Mālik, had aspersed him; the leading authority of Misr, al-Layth b. Saʿd, had aspersed him; the leading authority of Shām, al-Awzāı̄, had aspersed him; and the leading authority of Khurāsān, ʿAbd Allāh ̇ b. al-Mubārak, had aspersed him. That is to say, we have here the consensus of the scholars in all of the regions.
In another place, Ibn ʿAdı̄ expresses the very same sentiment: ‘There is not a scholar who is well respected except that he has denounced Abū Hanı̄fa.’ 32
25: Ibn ʿAdı̄, al-Kāmil, 8: 239 (Dār al-Kutub edn. = Riyadh edn., 10: 125).
26: Ibn ʿAdı̄, al-Kāmil, 8: 239 (Dār al-Kutub edn. = Riyadh edn., 10: 125).
27: Ibn ʿAdı̄, al-Kāmil, 8: 239 (Dār al-Kutub edn. = Riyadh edn., 10: 126).
28: Ibn ʿAdı̄, al-Kāmil, 8: 239 (Dār al-Kutub edn. = Riyadh edn., 10: 125).
29: Ibn ʿAdı̄, al-Kāmil, 8: 236 (Dār al-Kutub edn. = Riyadh edn., 10: 121 (lā yuktab hadı̄thuhu, mudtarib al-hadı̄th, wāhı̄ al-hadı̄th), 237 = 122-3 (fı̄ al-hadı̄th yatı̄m, laysa sāhib al- ̇hadı̄th, laysa bi al-qawı̄), 238 = 123 (matrūk al- ̇hadı̄th).
30: Ibn ʿAdı̄, al-Kāmil, 8: 239 (Dār al-Kutub edn. = Riyadh edn., 10: 124–5).
31: Ibn ʿAdı̄, al-Kāmil, 8: 241 (Dār al-Kutub edn. = Riyadh edn., 10: 129) (samiʿtu Ibn Abı̄ b. Dāwūd yaqūl: al-waqı̄ʿa fı̄ Abı̄ Hanı̄fa, ijmāʿuhu min al-ʿulamā’ li anna imām al-Basra Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānı̄ wa qad takallama fı̄hi; wa imām al-Kūfa al-Thawrı̄ wa qad takallama fı̄hi; wa imām al-Hijāz Mālik wa qad takallama fı̄hi; wa imām Misr al-Layth b. Saʿd wa qad takallama fı̄hi; wa imām al-Shām al-Awzāʿı̄ wa qad takallama fı̄hi; wa imām Khurāsān ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Mubārak wa qad takallama fı̄hi. Ijmāʿ min al-ʿulamā’ fı̄ jamı̄ʿ al-āfāq aw kamā qā la).
32: Ibn ʿAdı̄, al-Kāmil, 8: 238 (Dār al-Kutub edn. = Riyadh edn., 10: 123) (lam yakun bayn al-mashriq wa al-maghrib faqı̄han yudhkar bi khayr illā ʿāba Abā Hanı̄fa wa majlisahu).
A fascinating parallel can be found in the work of Ibn Hibbān. In the notice on Abū Hanı̄fa in Kitābal-Majrūhı̄n, Ibn Hibbān writes:
Among every single one of our imams, I know of no disagreement between them concerning him [Abū Hanı̄fa]: the leaders of the Muslims and those of scrupulous piety in the religion, in all of the regions and provinces [of the Islamic world], one after another, they all have declared him to be unreliable and have vilified him. We have included examples of these statements in our book entitled ‘The Warning about the Falsification’. There is no need, then, to repeat all of this in our present book. Instead, I shall simply cite here a summary from which readers will be able to deduce for themselves everything else that lies behind it. – p. 335
The question of whether Abū Hanı̄fa actually composed any works is not a simple one; eighth- and ninth-century authors did not remember him as an author. His detractors did not cite specific books or passages in the course of their diatribes against him. His students, followers, and admirers neither cited nor pointed to his books to defend him against his critics until the eleventh century.1 In line with one of the finest researchers and philologists of Islamicate learning, Murtadā al-Zabı̄dı̄, where medieval sources do refer to kutub Abı̄ Hanı̄fa, one possibility is that the authors intended notebooks or dictation to his students.