Abu Hanifa was the eponymous founder of the Hanafi school, one of the four orthodox Muslim schools of law, and a leader of the Murji’a, a religiopolitical movement that emerged in seventh-century Iraq in the context of disputes within the Muslim community regarding claims to the caliphate. In response to these disputes and to the schisms they produced (primarily the Shi‘is and the Kharijis), the Murji’is proclaimed a neutral position regarding rights to the caliphate—in particular those of the third and fourth caliphs, ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan and ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. They maintained that the judgment on these caliphs should be suspended and left to God. This position, together with a statement implying the renunciation of the extremist Shi‘is’ exclusive support of ‘Ali, is found in al-Fiqh al-Absat (The plainest law), an early collection of dogmatic views attributed to Abu Hanifa. On the practical level, however, Abu Hanifa deviated from the Murji’i principle of political neutrality when he contributed money to support Zayd b. ‘Ali, the eponym of the Zaydis, who revolted against the Umayyads in 740. Although he excused himself from active participation in Zayd’s revolt, Abu Hanifa is said to have justified the uprising by comparing it to the Prophet’s fight against the infidels. Moreover, Abu Hanifa advocated for the ‘Alid Ibrahim b. ‘Abdallah, who rebelled with his brother Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyya against the Abbasids in 762–63.
As Wilferd Madelung has shown, Abu Hanifa differed from the Umayyads regarding the status of newly converted non-Arab populations in the eastern areas of the caliphate. These new converts confessed their belief in Islam, yet they did not necessarily fulfill the requisite religious duties. In line with the Murji’i dogma, which identified faith with the mere confession of belief to the exclusion of performance of religious obligations, Abu Hanifa recognized these converts as Muslims, while the Umayyads denied them this status and continued to impose on them the jizya, the tax paid by non-Muslims only. In 734, the new converts’ struggle for equality turned into a militant revolt led by extreme Murji’is. Abu Hanifa did not participate in the revolt and served as a mediator between the rebels and the Umayyad caliph Yazid III. This is one example of Abu Hanifa’s complex relations with the government: on the one hand he disagreed with its policy, but on the other hand he enjoyed influence in the caliphal court and even cooperated with the caliph. The report that Abu Hanifa was invited by the Abbasid caliph Mansur to help in the construction of Baghdad demonstrates such cooperation.
Abu Hanifa’s attitude toward the government was at times critical and reserved (an attitude not uncommon among contemporary religious scholars), but his level of activism in this regard is unclear. In al-Fiqh al-Absat, he proclaims the religious duty of al-amr bi-l-ma‘rūf wa-l-nahy ‘an al-munkar—namely, to enjoin a fellow Muslim what is proper and forbid him what is improper. The second part of this duty had an important political implication, for when applied to the authorities, it meant confronting them by condemning their misconduct. This political implication is related to the question of the religious status of an unjust ruler and the obligation to obey him. Such a ruler was, according to the Murji’i definition, a “sinful believer.” This definition did not legitimize dethroning the ruler, but it left an opening for criticizing his wrongdoings. As demonstrated by Michael Cook, the nature of such criticism was the subject of various interpretations, ranging from armed rebellion to the mere avoidance of the authorities. The evidence regarding Abu Hanifa’s view on this issue, as presented by Cook, is ambivalent. According to some reports Abu Hanifa espoused the militant option, and at least one person is said to have fought alongside (and have been killed with) the ‘Alid Ibrahim upon Abu Hanifa’s advice. Other accounts, however, portray him as a quietist who, without denying the religious duty of rebuking the unjust ruler—and the potential revolt this duty implied—discouraged rebellion in practice and refused to take an active part in it. Ultimately, while no evidence exists that Abu Hanifa’s support of movements opposing the government ever amounted to actually participating in a revolt, it is clear that he was not of the quietist, obedient type of the following generation of Hanafi-Murji’is.
See also jurisprudence; Murji’is; theology
Further Reading
Abu Hanifa (attributed), al-Fiqh al-Absat, edited by M. Z. al-Kawthari, 1368; M. Abu Zahra, Abu Hanifa: Hayatuhu wa-‘Asruhu, ara’uhu wa-Fiqhuhu, 1947; M. Cook, Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought, 2000; Encyclopaedia of Islam, Three, s.v. “Abū Ḥanīfa,” by H. Yanagihashi, 2007, http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=ei3_COM-0151; al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Ta’rikh Baghdad, 1966; W. Madelung, Religious Trends in Early Islamic Iran, 1988; J. van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra, 1991.
NURIT TSAFRIR