This is the second source on which Abu Hanifa relied in his deduction. It is ranked after the Book because
the Book is the foundation, root and primary source of the
Shari‘a
, while it is clear that the
Sunna
is one of its
secondary sources, coming after it in consideration. It elucidates the Book and what elucidates comes after
what is elucidated and serves it. Many traditions report that the
Sunna
is the second source of deduction and
we see this in the
hadith
of Mu‘adh when the Prophet sent him to Yemen and asked him, “By what will you
judge?” He replied, “By the Book of Allah.” He asked, “And if you cannot find it?” “By the
Sunna
of the
Messenger of Allah,” he replied. He asked, “And if you do not find it there?” He replied, “Then I will exercise
my opinion.”
‘Umar wrote to Shurayh the Qadi, “When a case comes before you, judge by what is in the Book. If
something not in the Book of Allah comes to you, then judge by what is in the
Sunna
of the Messenger of
Allah.” Similar things are related from other Companions.
This is confirmed in what is transmitted from Abu Hanifa. He clearly stated the same We also find that the
Hanafis differentiate between a matter established by the Qur’an when the evidence is definitive and a matter
established by a confirmed
sunna
. Those commands established by Qur’an are obligatory (
fard
) and what is
established in the
Sunna
is mandatory (
wujub
). It is the same with prohibitions. Anything forbidden by the
Qur’an is
haram,
if there is no uncertainty in the evidence, and anything forbidden by a confirmed
sunna
is
makruh
(disliked), but
makruh
in a prohibitive way, whatever the evidence. This is a slightly lesser rank.
There was conflict between the
fuqaha’
regarding the amount on which Abu Hanifa relied on the
Sunna
in
his legal reasoning, so that some of them went so far as to claim that he advanced analogy before the
Sunna
.
This requires some examination. Abu Hanifa was accused by his opponents, even during his lifetime, of
clashing with the
Sunna
. Abu Hanifa himself denied this accusation. He stated, “By Allah, it is a lie about us
if someone says that we advance analogy over a text. Is there any need for analogy when a text exists?” (
al-
Mizan
, ash-Sha‘rani)
So he only used analogy when there was strong need for it. He used to say, “We only use analogy when
there is strong need for it. We look for evidence about the question in the Book, the
Sunna
and the decisions
of the Companions. If we do not find anything then we use analogy since there is silence about the matter.”
(
al-Mizan
, ash-Sha‘rani) He also said, “We first take the Book, then the
Sunna
, then the decisions of the
Companions, and we do what they agree about. If they differ, we use analogy by comparing one ruling with
another when they have the same underlying cause so that the meaning is clear.” (
al-Mizan
, ash-Sha‘rani, p.
52) He also said, “We act first by the Book of Allah, then by the
Sunna
of the Messenger of Allah and then by
the
hadiths
of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali.” (
al-Mizan
, ash-Sha‘rani, p. 52)
It is reported that al-Mansur wrote to him, “I have heard that you advance analogy over
hadith
.” Abu
Hanifa wrote back, “The matter is not as you have heard, Amir al-Mu’minin. I act first by the Book of Allah,
then by the
Sunna
of the Messenger of Allah, and then by the decisions of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and
‘Ali, and then by the decisions of the other Companions, and then, if they differ, I use analogy.” These are
clear statements from Imam Abu Hanifa in which he strenuously refutes those allegations about preferring
analogy over the
hadith
.
Abu Hanifa was one of the first
fuqaha’
to accept single
hadiths
as evidence and to formulate his views
according to them if he found a
hadith
which contradicted his opinion. We have mentioned how he retracted
his view about the safe-conduct of the slave on the strength of the
fatwa
of ‘Umar which was related to him by
a single source. Since he did that with the decision of a Companion, he is far more likely to have done so with
the
hadiths
of the Prophet. This can be seen in the books of Abu Yusuf and ash-Shaybani.
Although it is evident that Abu Hanifa accepted the single report, there is disagreement about his position
when single reports contradicted analogy. Did he reject the single report which clashed with analogy and
consider the contradiction to be a flaw in the
hadith,
or did he accept the
hadith
and ignore the analogy
because there is no analogy when there is a text?
Ibn ‘Abdu’l-Barr says, “Many of the people of
hadith
attack Abu Hanifa for rejecting a lot of single
hadiths
since his method of dealing with them was to compare them with what he had collected of
hadiths
and
meanings of the Qur’an. If it deviated from that corpus, he rejected it.” However, according to al-Bazdawi, if
the tradition came from a well-known Companion, famous for his
fiqh
and insight, like the four Rashidun
khalifs, it was preferred over analogy. If the source was someone not known for his
fiqh
, then it was
considered in the light of analogy and accepted or ignored.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
