al-Hanafiyyah | ٱلْمَذْهَب ٱلْحَنَفِيّ

Shaykh ʿAbd al-Wahhāb Dibs wa Zayt: known as Abū Ḥanīfah al-Ṣaghīr in Syria.

Shaykh Usāmah al-Rifāʿī حفظه الله

THE RIGHTS OF A NEIGHBOUR 👬

The Messenger of Allāh ⚡️ said:

The rights of a neighbour are that:

— If he falls ill, you visit him.

— If he dies, you accompany his funeral.

— If he asks you for a loan, you lend him.

— If he falls into financial difficulty, you conceal his shortcomings and protect his dignity.

— If something good befalls him, you congratulate him.

— If a calamity befalls him, you console him.

— Do not raise your building above his building in such a way that you block the wind from reaching him.

— And do not cause him harm with the aroma of your cooking pot, unless you give him some of its contents.

📌 • al-Ṭabarānī, al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr, 19/419, no. 1014; al-Bayhaqī, Shuʿab al-Īmān.

Ṣadr al-Sharīʿah Muftī Amjad ʿAlī Aʿẓamī al-Ḥanafī [d. 1367 AH] writes:

🔴In Hindūstān, it is reprehensible to mention the name of women in a gathering.🔴

➖ • Bahār-i-Sharīʿat, [7/14].

The Ruling on Denying the Obligation of the Caliphate

🔴We state that the obligation of appointing an Imām (leader) is a practical jurisprudential matter upon which consensus (ijmāʿ) has been established since the era of the ṣaḥāba. This has been transmitted via successive mass-narration (tawātur) from that era down to our present day.

Thus, it constitutes a public consensus (ijmāʿ ʿāmm), recognized by both scholars and the general public and the ruling regarding such a consensus is that the agreed-upon matter becomes a matter of creed (ʿaqīdah), and one who denies it is deemed a non-muslim (kāfir).

As for a specialized consensus (ijmāʿ khāṣṣ), which is known only to the jurist-scholars where they agree and achieve consensus, while the general public is unaware of it, the correct view is that one who denies and opposes it is designated as misguided (muḍallil) and innovator (mubtadiʿ), rather than a kāfir (non-muslim), though a faction of scholars has also held the view of his kufr.🔴

📌 • Allāmah Muḥammad Bakhīt al-Muṭīʿī al-Ḥanafī, Ḥaqīqatu al-Islām wa Uṣūlu al-Ḥukm.

🔴The word ‘fitnah’, in sharʿī terminology, refers to a state of the environment in which the distinction between truth and falsehood vanishes. The gravity of its consequence is not felt at its inception; it is only when the truth is eventually unveiled that one realizes it was indeed a fitnah.🔴

📌 • Imām al-Aṣr, Anwar Shāh Kashmīrī al-Ḥanafī 🇧🇬, Nawādir e Kashmīrī.

Discourse on Separation Between Mother and Child

There is a prohibition of separating a mother and her child, scholars agreed on prohibiting the separation, through a sale [bayʿ], between a mother and her child, based on the established ḥadīth of Nabī Muḥammad ⚡️:

🔴Whoever separates a mother and her child, Allāh will separate him from his loved ones on the Day of Resurrection.🔴
📌 • al-Bayhaqī (6/97).

If a mother is sold without her child, or vice versa, Abū Ḥanīfah 🇧🇳 stated: “It is not annulled, but both the seller [bā’i‘] and the buyer [mushtarin] commit a sin.”

📌 • Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa-Nihāyat al-Muqtaṣid, Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafīd [d. 595 AH], v. 5, p. 23.

🔴The Ashʿarīs: They barred major sins [kabāʾir] unconditionally [Meaning: whether intentionally or inadvertently, which is interpreted as applying to the period after revelation [baʿd al-waḥy], given their internal dispute regarding permissibility prior to…

🔴The Ashʿarīs: They barred major sins [kabāʾir] unconditionally [Meaning: whether intentionally or inadvertently, which is interpreted as applying to the period after revelation [baʿd al-waḥy], given their internal dispute regarding permissibility prior to it], but permitted minor sins [ṣaghāʾir] when committed inadvertently or out of oversight [sahwan].

[Imām al-Taftāzānī in Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-Nasafiyyah (p. 301) reported consensus [ittifāq] on the permissibility of minor sins occurring through oversight, following Imām al-Ījī in Al-Mawāqif (p. 359). Shyakh al-Islām Zakariyyā al-Anṣārī critiqued this in Fatḥ al-Ilāh al-Mājid (p. 543), stating: “Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ and others recorded the non-permissibility of this; indeed, Ibn Burhān reported it as an agreement among the muḥaqqiqūn”]

• Qāḍī Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī: He stated in al-Ījāẓ: “Our Prophet Muḥammad (ﷺ) is immune [maʿṣūm] in that which he delivers on behalf of Allāh ʿAzza wa-jall, and likewise are all other Prophets (peace and blessings be upon them).”

[The implicit understanding [mafhūm] of Qāḍī al-Bāqillānī's text is the absence of their immunity in matters outside of divine transmission [ghayr al-tablīgh], which is what has been transmitted from him regarding intentional minor sins (excluding major sins)]

This specific extent of ʿiṣmah is agreed upon by consensus [mujmaʿ ʿalayhi], meaning: ʿiṣmah from distortion [taḥrīf] and treachery [khiyānah] in what they convey of sacred laws [sharāʾiʿ] and rulings [aḥkām]. However, according to al-Bāqillānī's reported view, they were not immune from committing minor transgressions [ṣaghāʾir al-dhunūb], nor from error [khaṭaʾ] or forgetfulness [nisyān], except that they were never left to persist in them.

• The Polemic with the Rāfiḍah [Imāmī Shīʿah]: The disagreement is framed against the Rāfiḍah, who asserted that the Prophets (blessings and peace be upon them) were immune from all of that [including minor sins, inadvertent errors, and pre-prophetic sins], and they extended the same absolute immunity to the Imām.

[Tanzīh al-Anbiyāʾ by al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā (p. 15)]

The Immunity of Prophets — ʿIṣmat al-Anbiyāʾ

It is said by the Ḥanafīs, minor sins [ṣaghāʾir] are impossible for a Prophet [Nabī].

While the Ashʿarīs said there are two positions regarding their impossibility.

Impossibility of minor sins is reported from Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, and this position possesses preponderance within the Muslim ummah [tarjīḥ].

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Is the immunity [ʿiṣmah] of Prophets (peace be upon them) from major sins [kabāʾir] and minor sins [ṣaghāʾir] rationally or textually obligatory [wājib], or is it not?

Consensus [Ijmāʿ] of the General Muslim Ummah on Immunity from Kufr

Immunity from unbelief [kufr] is established according to the generality of Muslims [this ijmāʿ is understood as ʿiṣmah from kufr after the commencement of prophethood [baʿd al-nubuwwah]], but not according to the Fuḍayliyyah [a Khārijite sect]; for they permitted the occurrence of disobedience [maʿāṣī] by Prophets, and in their doctrine, every act of disobedience is an act of unbelief [kufr].

Others permitted the expression of kufr under dissimulation [taqiyyah]; indeed, they declared it obligatory on the grounds that exposing one's soul to destruction [ilhāq al-nafs fī al-tahlukah] is forbidden [ḥarām].

[The proponents of this view are a group from the Rāfiḍah, despite their general agreement on the total immunity of Prophets from both major and minor sins. See ʿIṣmat al-Anbiyāʾ (p. 7) and Al-Mawāqif (p. 359)]

This is refuted by the fact that if it were permissible, the most primary of times for it would have been the initial period of public calling [waqt al-daʿwah], which would ultimately lead to the total obfuscation of the religion [khafāʾ al-dīn bi-al-kulliyyah].

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Record of Disagreement Concerning Immunity from Major and Minor Sins

🔴The Hashwiyyah [anthropomorphists/literalists]: They permitted the intentional commission of major sins [kabāʾir] after the reception of revelation [baʿd al-waḥy].

[Meaning: intentionally [ʿamdan]. See ʿIṣmat al-Anbiyāʾ (p. 8).]

🔴A Certain Group: They prohibited the intentional commission [qaṣd] of major sins, but permitted the intentional commission of minor sins [ṣaghāʾir].

[On condition that the minor sin is not of a repulsive or detestable nature [munaffirah]. This was held by the majority of the Muʿtazilah, who prohibited intentional major sins both before and after prophethood. Abū ʿAlī al-Jubbāʾī differed on specific points: he permitted them prior to prophethood, while barring intentional major and minor sins in other contexts. See Sharḥ al-Uṣūl al-Khamsah (pp. 573–575) and ʿIṣmat al-Anbiyāʾ (p. 8)]

🔴Imām Abū Ḥanīfah: He stated in al-Fiqh al-Akbar: “The Prophets (may Allah’s blessings and peace be upon them) are immune [maʿṣūmūn] from major sins [kabāʾir] and minor sins [ṣaghāʾir] altogether.”

[al-Fiqh al-Akbar (p. 37). His statement “immune from major and minor sins” refers to their intentional commission [taʿammud]. As for oversights/slips [zallāt], which occur inadvertently [sahwan], he permitted them, stating immediately after the cited passage: “Slips and errors did occur from them” Imām al-Bazdawī recorded in Uṣūl al-Dīn (p. 167) that this represents the position of Sunnism [Ahl al-Sunnah wa-al-Jamāʿah] (meaning the Ḥanafī school)]

• Some of his followers restricted this to the period after revelation [baʿd al-waḥy], holding that prior to revelation [qabl al-waḥy], disobedience [maʿṣiyah] was permissible by way of rare exception [ʿalā sabīl al-nudrah], after which their state returned to total rectitude and integrity [al-ṣalāḥ wa-al-sadād] at the time of their commission [al-irsāl].

[Imām al-Bazdawī rejected this in Uṣūl al-Dīn (p. 170), reasoning that a Prophet is created as a Prophet from the inception of his creation; prophethood is an inherent honor [sharaf], and honor prevents all such deficiencies. He deduced this from the narration of Maysarah in al-Mustadrak (2/608–609): “I asked the Prophet (ﷺ): When were you a Prophet? He replied: 'While Adam was between the spirit and the body.'”]

The Ruling on Cotton Inserted into the Urinary Passage

If a man inserts a piece of cotton into his urinary passage and the inner side of the cotton becomes wet, his wuḍūʾ is not invalidated.

However, if the moisture reaches the outer side of the cotton, the following distinction applies:

- If the cotton is positioned above or level with the opening of the urinary passage: his wuḍūʾ is invalidated.

- If the cotton is positioned below the opening of the urinary passage: his wuḍūʾ is not invalidated.

Wallāhu aʿlam.

al-Shilbī’s clarifies: the statement, “if it is positioned above,” means that the cotton protrudes beyond the opening of the urinary passage.

📌 • Ḥāshiyat al-Shilbī ʿalā Tabyīn al-Ḥaqāʾiq Sharḥ Kanz al-Daqāʾiq, by Fakhr al-Dīn al-Zaylaʿī, vol. 1, p. 56.

The Reality of al-Miʿrāj (The Ascension)

🔴And the Ascension [al-miʿrāj] of the Messenger of Allāh ⚡️ while awake in his physical person to the heavens, and then to whatever heights Allāh willed, is the truth.🔴
📌 • Ḥāshiyāt ʿAla Sharḥ al-ʿAqāʾid al-Nasafiyyah of al-Taftazānī, (Vol. 1, p. 566).

Did Nabī Muḥammad Muṣṭafā ﷺ Dress Like a Saudi?

Shaykh Aḥmad al-Sharīf al-Ḥanafī. 🇧🇼

The Spiritual States of the People of Divine Experience and the Station of the Gnostics

It was asked to a Shaykh:

“Should anyone associate with those who possess spiritual states, whose states become so overwhelming that they are dominated by them?”

He replied:

“No one should associate with them unless he possesses a firmly established footing in adab (spiritual discipline and proper comportment) and refrains from inwardly objecting to them, let alone outwardly.”

Someone asked him:

“O my brother, Afḍal al-Dīn, what are the distinguishing signs of those who possess such spiritual states?”

He replied:

“Their distinguishing signs are: pallor of the face accompanied by a dark complexion, wide eyes, a lowered voice, and limited comprehension of what is said to them.”

He elaborated at length on this matter.

He then said:

“What is in the heart manifests upon the face; what is in the nafs manifests in one’s clothing; what is in the intellect manifests in the eye; what is in the sirr (innermost spiritual secret) manifests in one’s speech; what is in the rūḥ (spirit) manifests in one’s adab; and what is in the body manifests in one’s movements.”

I also heard him say repeatedly:

“Those who possess spiritual states are like the wind, they fly through the air by means of the air itself. When the air becomes still, they become still; and when it moves, they move with it. The ʿārifūn (those who possess experiential gnosis of Allāh), however, are like firmly rooted mountains.”

📌 • al-Jawāhir wa-l-Durar al-Kubrā, p. 271.

The Position of Imām Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī 🇧🇳 and Imām Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī 🇧🇳 on the Ṣaḥāba of the Prophet ⚡️

❇️ Imām Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah, Imām al-Hudā, ʿAlam al-Hudā, Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī [d. 333 AH] 🇧🇳 writes:

🔴…And upon that path were his ⚡️ ṣaḥābah, may the pleasure of Allāh be upon them all.

Furthermore, the warfare ordained regarding them (against combatant kuffār) is, in intrinsic reality, a mercy, even if in outward appearance it does not seem so. This is because it was instituted to compel them toward accepting Islām and Tawḥīd and within their acceptance lies their ultimate salvation.

As for Allāh’s description of them as being merciful among believers [raḥamāʾu baynahum], this does not imply that they are not firm/stern with one another whenever they witness abominations or explicit immoralities among them, such that they would abandon correcting them. Rather, it is out of genuine compassion toward them that they rectify the objectionable act; for in doing so lies their salvation. Such corrective action does not divest them of the mercy with which Allāh described them; on the contrary, it stems directly from affection and mercy for them. And Allah knows best.

Then He further characterized them, stating: ‘You see them bowing and prostrating, seeking bounty from Allāh and His pleasure. Their mark is on their faces from the trace of prostration.’ [Qurʾān 48:29]🔴
📌 • Taʾwīlāt Ahl al-Sunnah, Vol. 9, p. 317.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

❇️ Imām Ahl al-Sunnah, Nāṣir al-Dīn, and al-Mutakallim, Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī [d. 324 AH] 🇧🇳 writes:

🔴And the scholars of the Muslim community have reached a binding consensus [ijmāʿ] upon withholding speech concerning the ṣaḥābah [peace be upon them] except in the best terms by which they can be mentioned. They likewise agreed that they are most deserving of having their virtues publicized, having the most favorable interpretations sought for their actions, and that we maintain concerning them the best opinion and the most upright interpretive positions.

In doing so, they comply with the directive of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ: ‘When my Companions are mentioned, refrain (from commentary/criticism).’

The people of sacred knowledge [ahl al-ʿilm] stated: The legal meaning [maʿnā] of this is: ‘Do not mention them except with the finest speech.’🔴
📌 • Risālah ilā Ahl al-Thaghr, p. 318.

The Ḥanafī Ruling on a Woman’s Residence During the ʿIddah

🔴Her residence is in which she was living at the time of separation, unless she is compelled to leave it. Examples include fearing that the building may collapse, fearing for her person or property while residing there, or being expelled by the occupants of the house. This latter case applies where she was living in rented accommodation, her husband was absent, and she was unable to afford the rent.🔴

📌 • Kamāl al-Dīn Ibn al-Humām, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, 4:343, al-Ḥalabī edition.

Ruling on listening to Music: Sin vs Justification
Shaykh Abū ʿAmmār ʿAbdul-Ḥaqq al-Ḥanafī

The debate surrounding the recitation of Sūrat al-Fātiḥah in prayer center on two main questions: whether reciting al-Fātiḥah is an essential pillar [rukn] of prayer for any worshipper, and whether a follower [muqtadī] praying behind an Imām is obligated to recite it.

🔴[1] Is Sūrat al-Fātiḥah an Essential Pillar [rukn] in Prayer?

🚫The Shāfiʿī Position: Reciting Sūrat al-Fātiḥah is a definitive obligation [farḍ] and an essential pillar [rukn] for every worshipper, whether praying as an Imām, alone [munfarid], or as a follower [muʾtamm].

Omission of al-Fātiḥah renders the prayer legally invalid [bāṭil].

🚫The Ḥanafī Position: Reciting Sūrat al-Fātiḥah specifically is a necessary obligation [wājib], not an essential pillar [rukn]. The essential pillar [rukn] required for basic legal validity [ṣiḥḥah] is unqualified recitation [muṭlaq al-qirāʾah], meaning any portion of the Qurʾān (even a single āyah). Omitting al-Fātiḥah intentionally is sinful and requires corrective prostration or repetition, but the prayer itself remains fundamentally valid [ṣaḥīḥah].

🔴[2] Recitation by the Follower [muʾtamm] Behind the Imām.

🚫The Shāfiʿī Position: The follower must recite Sūrat al-Fātiḥah independently, even in audible prayers [al-jahriyyah], relying on the general applicability [ʿumūm] of texts obligating its recitation.

🚫The Ḥanafī Position: The follower does not recite Sūrat al-Fātiḥah behind an Imām. For Ḥanafīs, [recitation behind the Imām is deemed blameworthy/prohibited [makrūh taḥrīm].](https://t.me/hanafi_school/2334)

📌 ABU HANEEFAH AND THE RUKNIYYAH OF FĀTIHAH

Also check: https://t.me/hanafi_school/2507

On the Greatest Dangers to the Ummah

ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb 🇧🇳 said:

🔴Indeed, what I fear most for you is the changing of the times, the deviation of a scholar, the disputation of a hypocrite using the Qurʾān, and misguided scholars who lead people astray without knowledge.🔴

📌 • Jāmiʿ Bayān al-ʿIlm wa Faḍlihi ibn ʿAbd al-Barr.

The Ruling on Vows (Nadhr) Made at the Shrines of the Dead — al-Muḥaqqiq Ibn ʿĀbidīn 🇧🇳

Someone saying: “O my master, so-and-so! If my absent person returns, or my sick person is cured, or my need is fulfilled, then for you I shall give such-and-such amount of gold or silver, or such-and-such quantity of food, candles, or oil,” and so forth.

This is invalid and unlawful (bāṭil wa-ḥarām). This is for several reasons.

One of them is that he has made a vow to a created being, and making a vow to a created being is ḥarām, because a vow is an act of worship, and worship cannot be directed to a created being.

Another reason is that the one for whom the vow is made is dead, and a dead person has no ownership.

Another reason is that if he believes that the deceased exercises control over affairs independently of Allāh, then holding such a belief is disbelief (kufr).

However, this is an exception if he says: “O Allāh! I have vowed to You that, if You cure my sick person, or return my absent person, or fulfill my need, I will feed the poor who are at the gate of Sayyidah Nafīsah, or [at the shrine of] Imām al-Shāfiʿī, or Imām al-Layth; or I will purchase mats for their mosques, oil for their lamps, or money for those who attend to their religious functions,” and similar things through which there is benefit for the poor.

In this case, the vow is made to Allāh, and mentioning the shaykh merely designates the place where the vowed offering is to be distributed to its rightful recipients, the poor who reside in his ribāṭ or masjid.

Thus, it is permissible on this consideration.

📌 • Ḥāshiyat Ibn ʿĀbidīn = Radd al-Muḥtār – Ṭabʿat al-Ḥalabī, 2/439.

Allāh sends down His mercy upon the Imām first

The statement, “And the best of the rows for men is the first of them,” is because it has been narrated in the reports:

“Indeed, when Allāh Most High sends down His mercy upon the congregation, He first sends it down upon the Imām. Then it extends from him to those who are directly beside him in the first row; then to those on the right; then to those on the left; and then to the second row.”

The remainder of the discussion can be found in al-Baḥr.

📌 • ḥāshiyah of Imām Ibn ʿĀbidīn (d. 1252 AH).

This supports the position of our jurists that leading the prayer [imāmah] is more virtuous… And Allāh knows best.

Proof for Establishing Majāz in the Speech of Allāh ﷻ

There is no disagreement among the scholars that the Speech of Allāh ﷻ contains both literal expression (ḥaqīqah) and figurative expression (majāz).¹ The only exception is what has been transmitted from Abū Muslim ibn Yaḥyā al-Iṣfahānī, who held that there is no majāz in the Speech of Allāh.²

🔴The First Proof: The Position of the Scholars of the Arabic Language and Sharīʿah

The falsity of his position is demonstrated by the consensus of the scholars of Sharīʿah and the Arabic language who preceded him and held the contrary view.

Indeed, scholars authored works specifically addressing this subject and discussed therein the existence of majāz in the Qurʾān. Thus, whoever rejects majāz in the Speech of Allāh is comparable to one who rejects the existence of ḥaqīqah in His Speech, for there is no essential difference between the two claims.

🔴The Second Proof: The Meaning of Majāz

When we describe an expression as majāz, what we mean is that:

«A word is employed in a meaning other than that for which it was originally designated, and what is intended by it is other than its original lexical meaning.»

If the opponent accepts this meaning but merely refuses to call it majāz, then the disagreement is purely terminological, and there is no substantive dispute here.

However, if he refuses to accept even this meaning, then the Qurʾān itself refutes his position.

Allāh ﷻ says:

﴿إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ﴾

“Indeed, those who harm Allah and His Messenger…” [al-Aḥzāb 33:57]
Allāh ﷻ is exalted far above being subject to harm. Rather, what is intended is harming the allies and servants of Allāh.

Likewise, Allāh ﷻ says:

﴿لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ﴾

“There is nothing whatsoever like Him.” [al-Shūrā 42:11]

The intended meaning is that nothing resembles Him, for He has no likeness or equal. It cannot mean that there is something comparable to His likeness and that resemblance to that likeness is then being negated.

Allāh ﷻ also says:

﴿وَجَاءَ رَبُّكَ﴾
“And your Lord came.” [al-Fajr 89:22]»

What is intended here is: “The command of your Lord came.”

Thus, these expressions demonstrate that words may be employed in meanings other than their immediately apparent lexical designations.

🔴The Objection of the Opponent

The one who denies majāz argues:

«Majāz is only needed by one whose speech is incapable of expressing all meanings through literal expressions. Such a person therefore resorts to metaphor and employs a word in a meaning other than that for which it was originally designated. But such a notion cannot be attributed to Allāh سبحانه وتعالى.»

🔴The Answer

This argument is based upon a false assumption.

The employment of a word in a meaning other than its original designation is not necessarily due to a need or inability. Rather, it may be employed for the sake of eloquence (balāghah) and rhetorical excellence (faṣāḥah).

The same principle applies to brevity (ījāz) and elaboration (iṭnāb).

Each may be appropriate in a particular context where the other would not be appropriate. Allāh ﷻ addressed mankind in the language of the Arabs and employed the modes of expression familiar to them. He therefore addressed them according to the conventions and rhetorical usages of their language.

Consider the absurdity of saying that the entire Speech of Allah consists exclusively of ījāz, with no iṭnāb whatsoever. One could argue, according to the opponent's reasoning, that elaboration is only required by someone incapable of brevity.

Yet this reasoning is clearly invalid.

Likewise, the same principle applies to majāz.

The presence of majāz in the Speech of Allāh does not imply any deficiency, inability, or need on His part. Rather, it is one of the modes of Arabic eloquence and rhetorical expression through which meanings are conveyed with greater precision, force, and beauty.

Alḥamdulillāh. Our channel now has 3.0K subscribers. 🤩

We are incredibly grateful to each of you for joining our channel dedicated to the study of Islām and the Ḥanafī school of thought.

Make sure to share publications and posts that you find beneficial with your friends and family. ʾIn shāʾ Allāh, we will continue to share informative and inspiring content.

Those subscribers who use “telegram premium” service, please promote our channel using the link below!

🔴 https://t.me/boost

💎

🔥 Join the Ḥanafī Chat

Muʿtazilism and Ḥanafīs

The accusation of Muʿtazilism levelled against certain Ḥanafī scholars did not originate with al-Ṣaymarī; rather, such accusations can be found considerably earlier.

Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ, as well as his teacher al-Karkhī, were likewise not spared such allegations. al-Jaṣṣāṣ has been accused by some, though without compelling evidence, of possessing Muʿtazilite tendencies. This may explain why some of the later Muʿtazilites included him in their biographical classifications.

Both al-Jusamī (d. 494 AH) [1] and al-Murtaḍā (d. 840 AH) [2] place al-Jaṣṣāṣ among the twelfth class of the Muʿtazilites.

al-Dhahabī reports, that al-Jaṣṣāṣ was inclined toward Muʿtazilism. He further remarks that some of al-Jaṣṣāṣ’s writings contain indications of this tendency, particularly concerning the beatific vision (ruʾyat Allāh) and other theological questions. al-Dhahabī concludes with the duʿāʾ: “We ask Allāh for safety.” [3]

As for al-Karkhī, Ibn Ḥajar mentions that Ibn al-Furāt (d. 384 AH) accused him of Muʿtazilism. [4] Nevertheless, there is an important distinction between the two cases: unlike al-Jaṣṣāṣ, al-Karkhī does not appear in the biographical classifications (ṭabaqāt) of the Muʿtazilites.

References

[1] Sharḥ ʿUyūn al-Masāʾil, p. 391.
[2] Ṭabaqāt al-Muʿtazilah, p. 118.
[3] Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, 16/341.
[4] Lisān al-Mīzān, 4/98–99.

The resemblance between Muʿtazilī ʿaqīdah and Māturīdī ʿaqīdah is also fairly undeniable.

The Ḥanafī Position on Sleeping While Reclining or Leaning

The author of al-Hidāyah, Imām al-Marghīnānī رحمه الله تعالى, states:

“[Wuḍūʾ is invalidated by] sleeping while lying on one’s side, reclining, or leaning against something such that, were it removed, he would fall.”

There are two positions reported within the Ḥanafī school regarding this issue: one holding that such sleep invalidates wuḍūʾ, and another holding that it does not.

[1] The Position That Wuḍūʾ Is Not Invalidated

It is mentioned in Ẓāhir al-Madhhab, which is the narration of Khalaf from Abū Yūsuf from Imām Abū Ḥanīfah رحمهما الله, that leaning does not invalidate wuḍūʾ so long as the buttocks remain firmly supported, thereby ensuring protection from the emission of anything.

The sound position, according to the narration of Abū Yūsuf from Abū Ḥanīfah, is:

“If his buttocks are upon the ground, his wuḍūʾ is not invalidated, regardless of how he is positioned.”

al-ʿAynī رحمه الله تعالى likewise transmitted this position from Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ, al-Muḥīṭ, and al-Kāfī. It is also described as the Ẓāhir al-Madhhab in al-Dhakhīrah, and it was adopted by the majority of the mashāyikh. Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ further describes it as the more correct position.

Thus, according to this position, the determining consideration is that the buttocks remain firmly seated upon the ground. The mere fact that a person is leaning or reclining does not, in itself, invalidate his wuḍūʾ.

[2] The Position That Wuḍūʾ Is Invalidated

The opposing position was adopted by Imām al-Ṭaḥāwī, al-Marghīnānī, the author of al-Hidāyah, and al-Qudūrī. Some authors of the mutūn likewise proceeded upon this position.

According to this view, sleeping while reclining or leaning in the manner described by al-Marghīnānī invalidates wuḍūʾ.

However, this discussion concerns the case where the buttocks remain upon the ground. If the buttocks are lifted from the ground, then wuḍūʾ is invalidated by agreement, as mentioned in al-Baḥr and other works.

Conclusion

The issue therefore contains a recognized disagreement within the Ḥanafī school.

The position transmitted from Abū Ḥanīfah through Abū Yūsuf, described as Ẓāhir al-Madhhab, adopted by the majority of the mashāyikh, and regarded as more correct by Badāʾiʿ al-Ṣanāʾiʿ, is that: If the buttocks remain firmly upon the ground, sleeping does not invalidate wuḍūʾ, regardless of the person's posture or the fact that he is leaning against something.

The position of al-Ṭaḥāwī, al-Marghīnānī, al-Qudūrī, and others is the contrary position in the particular form of reclining sleep under discussion.

References:

📚 Fatḥ al-Qadīr Sharḥ al-Hidāyah, p. 49.
📚 al-Ghāyah fī Sharḥ al-Hidāyah, p. 151.
📚 Ḥāshiyat Ibn ʿĀbidīn, 1/141.
📚 al-Bināyah by al-ʿAynī, 1/280.

Path to Allāh and Beliefs:

Shaykh Muḥammad al-Khānī al-Khālidī al-Naqshbandī:

Wakīʿ ibn al-Jarrāḥ said:

“The path of Allāh is a commodity in which none rises except a truthful person.”

Therefore, it is necessary to begin [the path towards Allāh] by correcting one's belief between oneself and Allāh Most High, one that is free from conjectures and doubts, devoid of deviation and innovations, and founded upon proofs and evidences, based on the Ḥadīth:

“Indeed, actions are only by intentions.”

📕 • Al-Bahjah al-Saniyyah fī Ādāb al-Ṭarīqah al-ʿĀliyyah al-Khālidiyyah al-Naqshbandiyyah, p. 24

The Etiquette of Our Jurists and Recognizing the Esteemed Rank of Our Scholars

Bismillāhi al-Raḥmāni al-Raḥīm, wa bihi nastaʿīn.

Alḥamdulillāh, Who elevated the foundation of jurisprudence [fiqh] to such a degree that we have come to understand the intent of the finest of the tābiʿī, Abū Ḥanīfah, and his companions, may Allāh taʿālā be pleased with them and with all our righteous predecessors.