Praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and blessings be upon our master Muhammad

hadd
in the 
mosque and 
hudud
are not carried out in mosques; he flogged her while standing and women are flogged 
sitting; he imposed one 
hadd
for the father and another for the mother but if a man were to slander a group, he 
would receive only one 
hadd
; he combined two 
hadds
and two 
hadds
are not combined; a madwoman is not 
subject to a 
hadd
; and the 
hadd
was for the parents who were absent and failed to attend and claim.” 
After hearing about this, Ibn Abi Layla went to the amir and complained to him. The amir put Abu Hanifa 
under an interdiction, saying, “Do not give 
fatwa
.” He did not give 
fatwa
for some days and then a messenger 
came from the authorities who had been instructed to present some questions to Abu Hanifa so that he could 
give 
fatwa
on them. Abu Hanifa refused, saying, “I am barred.” The messenger went to the amir who said, “I 
have given him permission.” So he sat to give 
fatwa
. 
In his criticism, Abu Hanifa did not differentiate between a judgement of the 
qadi
which was binding on 
the public, right or wrong, and the 
fatwa
that a 
faqih
made which did was not binding on anyone. Sometimes 
he criticised a 
fatwa
that he thought was wrong more severely than an actual judgement because injustice 
might develop from it. Injustice pained him greatly and an incorrect 
fatwa
could result in injustice to people in 
their lives and property. 
Whatever the position of Abu Hanifa about the judgements of the 
qadi
, Ibn Abi Layla did not accept the 
criticism of Abu Hanifa cheerfully. He was hostile to him because of that criticism and perhaps enmity led 
him to try to harm Abu Hanifa. Thus it is reported that Abu Hanifa said about him, “Ibn Abi Layla seeks to 
make lawful in regard to me what I would not make lawful for any living creature.” If we blame Abu Hanifa 
for the severity of his criticism of the judgements of Ibn Abi Layla and his lack of restraint in making it 
public, we also blame the 
qadi
of Kufa for allowing that criticism to provoke enmity between them. 
Al-Mansur was annoyed by Abu Hanifa. Indeed, he became fed up with him when he learned of his 
leaning towards the ‘Alawites which was confirmed by various experiences he had had with him. But he could 
find no way of dealing with him because he did not go beyond his teaching circle and he was not suspect in 
his 
deen
or his outward actions. He was a firm, reliable, generous scholar to whom people travelled because of 
his knowledge, excellence, guidance and fear of Allah. There was no way to act against him as long as he took 
no action or rebelled. An opportunity eventually presented itself when he offered him the position of 
qadi
and 
he refused to accept it. 
He asked him to be 
Qadi
of Baghdad which would have made him the Chief 
Qadi
of the state. If he 
accepted, that would indicate his sincerity or his absolute obedience to al-Mansur. If he refused, that would 
provide al-Mansur with a means to get at him publicly without damaging his religious reputation because 
people thought Abu Hanifa righteous and in this case his refusal was a refusal to accept a necessary duty and 
he could be impelled to do that by force. Any harm inflicted was to force him to accept something which 
would benefit the general public, not to trick him or wrong him. 
He had sometimes criticised the decisions of the 
qadis
and so it was appropriate for him to sit in the 
highest seat of judgement in order to guide the judges to what was obligatory and impel them to what was 
correct. He was the