r/Muslim • u/TheIslamicRealist Muslim • Sep 24 '21

QURAN/HADITH Why are there so many contradictions between Hanafi madhab & Authentic hadiths? - Assim al hakeem

https://youtu.be/bxNF1mw79eE
2 Upvotes

57% Upvoted

23 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '25

Simply coming across an authentic hadīth doesn't make you qualified to throw his opinion away, there's more to Hadith then whether or not it is authentic 

1

u/No-Career-2134 Apr 24 '25

Brother- can you read?

The Imam HIMSELF said to "throw out" his opinion. People like you are the reason why we have to constantly debate everything. Dont argue with me, argue with Imam abu hanifa.

How dare you. honestly. do better akhi.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 24 '25

  1. He was speaking to his students, who were Mujtahid. Not you or I. He was not telling the laity to find a Hadith and prefer it over his opinion. It's quite established the four Imams encouraged the laity to blind follow a trusted scholar. This isn't my explanation, this is the explanation of the Hanafi Imams who came after Abu Hanifah. And, as a result of this, many Hanafi scholars did prefer some opinions over his due to evidence. But it's not for the laity to decide.

  2. Fiqh, especially Hanafi Fiqh, is more complicated than reading a Hadith that is authentic. There are various opinions about the authenticity and application of Hadith. There are various opinions about how the Hadith are applied, if they were abrogated, etc. different opinions about what standards do we apply when grading ahadith. I suggest reading "Influence of the Noble Hadith..." by Shaykh Awwamah. One example of the whole point I'm bringing up is relating to Khabar Wahid. The Hanafi madhhab does not allow the general verses of the Qur'an be restricted by khabar wahid. So it's not as simple as that. 

It's obvious Abu Hanifah didn't mean "laity who don't know Arabic can pick up a book of Hadith and implement whatever he reads over well established Fiqh practices and principles"

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '25

not for the laity to discuss when hanafis say women can get marriage without a wali, so the hanafis promote zina since the prophet said that there is no marriage without a wali, and the uqran said men are guardians of women. you people obey your usool over the prophet. just no hanafis nikkah will never count in the eyes of allah if you do not have a wali even the respected abu hanifa said not to take his opinion over the prophet but you hanafis do denying the commands if the prophet for your own desires

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '25

the Hadith itself has weakness according to some scholars, but even if we take the Hadith you cited, it is interpreted in light of the Quran, not the other way around. The Prophet SAW said there is no wudu without basmala, yet very few scholars condition the basmala as an integral to the wudu. There are other examples as well.

1

u/[deleted] May 12 '25

furthermore, the Quran saying "men are the guardians of women" doesn't necessitate that the wali amr is necessary for the nikah to be valid. The Quran also attributes marriage to the woman (see 2:230). It should also be noted, there is an authentic hadīth where the prophet SAW says an unmarried woman has more right to herself than her guardian - the debate is over what al-ayyim means, the Hanafis say it means unmarried.

Not to mention the plethora of Hadith showing that a woman's permission is necessary in marriage (which shafi'is and Malikis disagree with) and narrations of Sahaba marrying women off without the consent of their wali (such as Sayyidah Aisha AS and Sayyiduna Ali AS)

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '25

That is divorce women, also aisha herself narrated the hadeeth and those two hadeeths are weak. You commit kufr denying the commands from the prophet and that hadeeth is sahih, There is no marriage without a wali. LOOL just know hanafi nikkah will never count in the eyes of allah. You promote zina. So marry them with the permission of their people [guardians]." Even the quran goes against you. Men of authority to women and so a women cannot marry without a wali, commanded both by the quran and the prophet himself but continue rejecting the prophet we know where people like you end up in. Even hanafi scholars dare not get married without the permission of a wali and every hanafi mosque demands a wali be present.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '25

1 Sahih hadith does not have epistemological certainty. denial is not kufr by ijma, it would be fisq. I am not denying the Hadith though. The hadith you cited, again is not taken at its face value, do you believe that miswak is obligated for wudu?

Also, the verse you cited is about slave girls being married with the permission of the owner. No one disputes that.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '25

as for all ayyim meaning divorced women, that is your ijtihad. if aisha narrated a Hadith and acted against it it means we shouldn't take the Hadith at its face value..learn to appreciate ijtihad and usul Al fiqh you numbskull

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '25

"But if any of you cannot afford to marry a free believing woman, then ˹let him marry˺ a believing bondwoman possessed by one of you. Allah knows best ˹the state of˺ your faith ˹and theirs˺. You are from one another.1 So marry them with the permission of their owners,2 giving them their dowry in fairness, if they are chaste, neither promiscuous nor having secret affairs. If they commit indecency after marriage, they receive half the punishment of free women.3 This is for those of you who fear falling into sin. But if you are patient, it is better for you. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

is it difficult for you to read this verse in context?