A Few Examples of Abu Hanifah’s Analogy
(No. 1) It is a well known fact that according to Abu Hanifah, the skin of a dog becomes pure after tanning1 and one can pray in it and if one wants to bind the Quran in it, one could do so. This shows that Abu Hanifah did not consider a dog to be unclean.
It would have been better if pig skin had also become pure after tanning. If this were possible, it would have been very useful today. The best quality of saddles are made only from pigskins, whereas today’s generation of Muslims are averse to its use.
(No. 2) A dog skin dipped in a filthy impurity is allowed for prayers, as Qaffal prayed wearing such a skin in the presence of Sultan Mahmood Ghazanvi. This matter was recorded by Imam Yafaee in Miratul Jinan and Ibn Khallikan has written about it in his book, Wafayatul Ayan quoting from Mugheesul Khalq of Imamul Harmain, Abu Maali Juwaini. We should know that this prayer was recited according to the interpretations of Abu Hanifah’s religion. It is a long story, and since it is extremely despicable, the writer is not repeating it.
By casting a fleeting glance at all the basic fundamentals of prayers etc. we come to know that such prayers with its intention and ablution is the result of Imam’s dependence on personal opinion and analogy.
(No. 3) According to Kitabul Hidaya and Sharhe Waqaya, Abu Hanifah has permitted drinking of fermented beverage of dates and wine prepared from dry raisins, if one does not become intoxicated.
In the same way, it is mentioned in Fatwa Alamgir that if a person drinks nine cups of date wine and does not become intoxicated and if he drinks the tenth cup and becomes intoxicated, he would not be eligible for the prescribed penalty. Abu Hanifah has also permitted ablution with date wine.
Obviously, all these verdicts of Abu Hanifah, were due to his dependence on personal opinion and analogy; and as a matter of fact are against Quranic laws. Due to such exercise of personal opinion by Abu Hanifah, some of the followers of his school also consider berry wine permissible.
(No. 4) According to the marginal notes of Sharhe Waqaya, Abu Hanifah considers the amount paid to a prostitute as lawful for her.
In the same way, it is proved from Fatawa Qadi Khan and Kanzul Daqaiq that a man who pays for adultery is not liable for punishment.
If such a verdict of Abu Hanifah is right, then all the prostitutes in the market and their associates are not guilty. If this relationship is lawful, why Mutah is made unlawful, although it was sanctioned by Quran?
(No. 5) According to Abu Hanifah, to carry the meat of a lawful animal in the pellicle of swine is lawful. Since according to Abu Hanifah, pig is not impure like a dog, a saddle made from pigskin also cannot be unlawful. On the contrary, analogy demands that when the pellicle of a pig can be used, it is meaningless to abstain from using its skin.
(No. 6) It is mentioned in Fatawa Qadi Khan that writing of Quran with urine, blood or any filthy things is lawful for using it as a cure.
No doubt, it shows a great insult of the Holy Quran.
(No. 7) According to Hidaya2, if a man marries his mother’s sister, daughter or any close blood relative purposely and forcibly, he cannot be penalized for it. Obviously, this verdict resembles the customs of Magians (Fire worshippers) and has no connection with Islamic laws.
(No. 8) According to Fatawa Alamgiri and Durr Mukhtar, if a man falsely claims a woman to be his legal wife and produces false witnesses and wins the case and according to the verdict of Islamic judge, he gets that woman, she becomes lawful for him in the sight of Allah and people and that person is not liable for any penalty. In this way, all kinds of properties, mansions, houses, etc. become legal with the help of false testimonies. What a strange verdict! Doubtlessly, such jurisprudence seems to be the greatest source of promoting false claims.
Obviously, all such verdicts are results of analogy and inform about Abu Hanifah’s astounding capability of jurisprudence.
The writer used to be surprised during the period of his ignorance that why there was so much enmity between the Wahhabis and followers of Hanafite faith. Subsequent information showed that the claim of Wahhabis is based on Quran and traditions, whereas Hanafites totally rely upon personal opinion and analogy.
Obviously, when a school accords more weightage to personal opinion and analogy, what relation it can have with a sect that relies only on Quran and traditions? Therefore, it is not unexpected from Wahhabis to be aloof from followers of Hanafite religion. But the same thing is not true for Shafei religion, because Imam Shafei did not rely on personal opinion and analogy, unlike Abu Hanifah.
In the opinion of the writer, the religion of Wahhabiya is having more Islamic color than the religion of Hanafites, while Hanafite faith seems to be more than two-third consisting of new incidents and is unrelated to the religion of Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (S).
I stop my pen from writing anymore on the topic and this much would suffice as example. We should know that due to Abu Hanifah’s exercise of personal judgment and analogy, his sect assumed a strange color and seems to be superior to the Shiite, Shafei, Hanbali and Maliki Schools. Such was the innovation of this school that even the two disciples of Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad also gave up his leadership in about two-third of the matters and according to Ghazzali, mentioned as in his book, Mankhul, “Abu Hanifah has uprooted the Islamic faith and created his own new school.”
I remain content on this much only, although I have so much more information in this matter that it could be made up into a very detailed book. According to other books, Abu Hanifah relied so much on analogy, because he had very little knowledge of traditions as stated by Ghazzali. Ghazzali has also mentioned that Abu Hanifah did not know about the Islamic law properly. The author will now provide some more information about the faith and jurisprudence of Abu Hanifah.