Al-T.ah.

āwī 1
by GF Haddad – [email protected] – Rajab 1423 / September 2002

Abū Ja‘far Ah.mad ibn Muh.ammad ibn Salāma ibn Salama ibn ‘Abd al-Malik al-Azdī al-H.ajrī al-Mis.rī
al-T.āh.āwī ‫( ﺭﲪﻪ ﺍ‬229-321), the humble, self-effaced, scrupulous, peerless Faqīh, absolute Mujtahid, and
unrivalled Imām and Master of the Madhhab in h.adīth and its sciences, “matched by none of those who
followed” (Ibn Yūnus, al-S.afadī, al-Suyūt.ī), “unanimously agreed upon in his trustworthiness” (al-‘Aynī,
al-Sam‘ānī, al-Dhahabī, al-Suyūt.ī), “the Master in all the Schools of Fiqh” (Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr), “one of the
established trustworthy giants among the h.adīth Masters” (Ibn Kathīr), who shared the same Shuyūkh in
h.adīth as Muslim, al-Nasā’ī, Abū Dāwūd, and Ibn Mājah, and “whose Sharh. Ma‘ānī al-Āthār definitely
surpasses the Sunan in excellence” (al-Kawtharī)!2

A student of his maternal uncle al-Muzanī, Abū Ja‘far first followed the Shāfi‘ī School until al-
Muzanī’s death in 264, after which he focused on three Cairene h.adīth Masters of superlative Religion
and Fiqh, all of them H.anafīs: the Qād.ī of Shām, Kūfa, and Karkh (Baghdād) Abū Khāzim ‘Abd al-
H.amīd ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Sakūnī al-Bas.rī (d. 292), the saintly Qād.ī of all Egypt Abū Bakrah Bakkār ibn
Qutayba al-Bas.rī (d. 270), and his successor the Qād.ī of all Egypt Abū Ja‘far Ah.mad ibn Abī ‘Imrān
Mūsā ibn ‘Īsā al-Baghdādī (d. 280) whom al-T.ah.āwī frequented for twenty years and who was probably
the decisive reason behind his switching to the H.anafī School. After this, al-T.ah.āwī said, he dreamt of
al-Muzanī complaining to him: “Abū Ja‘far robbed me of you, Abū Ja‘far!” However, the claim that
the reason for his adoption of the H.anafī School was that “he had seen his uncle and teacher turning to
the works of H.anafī Scholars to resolve many thorny issues of fiqh etc.” is most likely untrue since al-
Muzanī’s Mukhtas.ar and his other works are replete with refutations of the H.anafī School.

Ibn H.ajar discussed the categories of h.adīth Mastership (h.ifz.) in his biographical notice on Ibn Rāfi‘
al-Salāmī (d. 774) and said, “In truth, Ibn Rāfi‘ is closer to the definition of h.ifz. by the standards of Ahl
al-h.adīth than Ibn Kathīr. Ibn Rāfi‘ focussed on short-chained narrations, short treatises, dates of death,
and h.adīth auditions more than Ibn Kathīr. The latter is closer to the definition of h.ifz. by the standards of
the Fuqahā’, due to his great familiarity wih the juristic and Qur’anic commentary texts, than Ibn Rāfi‘.
The two of them would make up an accomplished H.āfiz. but few are those that attained such a level
after the early period, such as Ibn Khuzayma, al-T.ah.āwī, Ibn H.ibbān, al-Bayhaqī, and, in the latter
period, our Shaykh, al-‘Irāqī.”3

Among the works of al-T.ah.āwī:

Ah.kām al-Qur’ān, his Tafsīr, partly extant and now published in Turkey.

Akhbār Abī H.anīfa, also known as his Manāqib.

Bayān I‘tiqād Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamā‘a ‘alā Madhhab Fuqahā’ al-Milla Abī H . anīfa wa-Abī Yūsuf al-
Ans.ārī wa-Muh.ammad ibn al-H.asan (“Exposition of the Creed of the People of the Sunna and the
Congregation According to the Teachings of the Jurists of the Community, Abū H . anīfa and his Compan-
ions”), known as the ‘Aqīda T.ah.āwiyya. This is one of the most reliable concise early texts of Sunni
doctrine.4 Among its tenets is the creed that the Twelve Imāms, the ‘Itra, and the Companions – Allāh be
well-pleased with them all – put together are below the level of a single Prophet: §98. “We do not prefer
any of the saintly men among the Community over any of the Prophets but rather we say that any one
of the Prophets is better than all the awliyā’ put together.”

The T.ah.āwiyya received many commentaries. Shaykh Muh.ammad al-Ya‘qūbī said the most reliable is
Akmal al-Dīn al-Bābartī’s, a Māturīdī commentary. Among the reliable Ash‘arī commentaries: ‘Abd al-
Ghanī al-Ghunaymī al-Maydānī’s and al-Bājūrī’s (Ash‘arī). Al-Kawtharī said:

The ‘Aqīda Tah.āwiyya received several commentaries, among them that of Najm al-Dīn Abū Shujā‘
Bakbars al-Nās.irī al-Baghdādī – among Sharaf al-Dīn al-Dimyāt.ī’s Shaykhs – that of Sirāj al-Dīn ‘Umar ibn
Ish.āq al-Ghaznawī al-Mis.rī, that of Mah.mūd ibn Ah.mad ibn Mas‘ūd al-Qūnawī, that of Sharh. al-S.adr
‘Alī ibn Muh.ammad al-Adhra‘ī and others. A commentary was published, authored by an unknown [Ibn

1
Main sources: al-Arna’ūt. , introduction to his edition of al-T. ah. āwī’s Sharh. Mushkil al-Āthār, and al-Kawtharī, al-
Hāwī fī Sīrat al-Imām al-Tahāwī.
2. . .
3
This claim, even if untrue, indicatesthe high rank of al-T. ah. āwī and his work.
4
Ibn H. ajar, Inbā’ al-Ghumr (1:62).
Cf. therevival.co.uk/articles/aqeeda_tahawi.htm, sunnah.org/aqida/index.htm, etc.
 Abī al-‘Izz] spuriously affiliated with the H . anafī school, but whose handiwork proclaims his
ignorance of this discipline and the fact that he is an anthropomorphist who has lost his compass.5

Ikhtilāf al-Fuqahā’, an unfinished masterpiece of fiqh erudition unfortunately lost, but its abridgment
by Abū Bakr al-Rāzī al-Jas.s.ās. (d. 370) is preserved in full and was published recently in Damascus.

Mukhtas.ar al-T.ah.āwī in H.anafī Fiqh, praised by the Muh.addith ‘Abd al-‘Azīz al-Dihlawī in Bustān
al-Muh.addithīn as a proof of al-T.ah.āwī’s status of Mujtahid mut.laq and his free range of positions,
some conforming to the Madhhab, some given precedence over those of the Madhhab. This work
received many commentaries, the most important one being Abū Bakr al-Rāzī al-Jas.s.ās.’s commentary.

Al-Nakhl, a book on datepalm-trees

Naqd Kitāb al-Mudallisīn, a critique and refutation of al-Karābīsī’s work in which the latter unwisely
gave arguments to the enemies of h.adīth. This work is lost.

Sharh. Ma‘ānī al-Āthār, his earliest work, in which he focussed to a large extent on the jurisprudence
of the H.anafī Imāms in his discussion of all the issues he brought up. This work is a didactic manual of
tremendous use for students of jurisprudence and differences. It served as the foundation for the
Mushkil where he focussed on h.adīth and gave greater leeway to his Ijtihād. Among the commentaries
the Ma‘ānī received: the H.āfiz. ‘Abd al-Qādir al-Qurashī’s [Ibn al-Turkmānī’s student] al-H.āwī fī Takhrīj
Ah.ādīth al- T.āh.āwī and al-Badr al-‘Aynī’s three commentaries: Nakhb al-Afkār fī Sharh. Ma‘ānī al-
Āthār, Mabānī al-Akhbār fī Sharh. Ma‘ānī al-Āthār, and Naghm al-Akhyār fī Rijāl Ma‘ānī al-Āthār.

Sharh. Mushkil al-Āthār, a large, late work, his magnum opus, published in sixteen volumes by Shaykh
Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ūt. who describes the Imām’s method as gathering two authentic but apparently
contradictory h.adīths in each chapter – without specific topical order or organization – and discussing
the various ways in which the purported contradiction is resolved according to the principles of lexical
usage, tafsīr, jurisprudence and qiyās, with special consideration for the principles in use in the H.anafī
Madhhab, and – almost overcoming all other aspects – h.adīth science. If the two h.adīths are not of
comparable strength then the stronger one is put forward and the weaker one superseded. The full title
of this work is Bayān Mushkil Ah.ādīth Rasūlillāhi ! wa-Istikhrāji mā fīhi min al-Ah.kāmi wa-Nafī al-
Tad.āddi ‘anhā (“Exposition of the Problematic H.adīths of the Messenger of Allāh !, Extraction of the
Rulings Contained Therein, and Refutation of the Notion that They Show Contradiction”). The original
inspiration for this genre in Islām was pioneered by Imām al-Shāfi‘ī in his much smaller Ikhtilāf al-
H.adīth, followed by others such as Ibn Qutayba’s masterful but concise Ta’wīl Mukhtalif al-H . adīth
(“The Explanation of Conflicting Narrations”), Ibn Mahdī al-T.abarī’s Ta’wīl al-Ah.ādīth al-Mushkalāt
al-Wāridāt fīl-S.ifāt, and Ibn Fūrak’s Mushkil al-H.adīth. These should not be confused with the works
dealing exclusively with lexical difficulties such as Ibn Sallām’s Gharīb al-H.adīth, Thābit ibn Qāsim al-
Andalusī al-Saraqast.ī al-Sharīt. ī’s (d. 314) al-Dalā’il fī Gharīb al-H.adīth, Ibrāhīm al-H.arbī’s Gharīb al-
H.adīth, al-Khat.t.ābī’s Gharīb al-H.adīth, Ibn al-Athīr’s al-Nihāya fi Gharīb al-H.adīth wal-Athar, Ibn al-
Jawzī’s Gharīb al-H.adīth, and al-Zamakhsharī’s al-Fā’iq. Al-T.ah.āwī narrates in the Mushkil the famous
h.adīth in which the Prophet ! rested or received revelation with his head in ‘Alī’s lap until sunset,
after which – since ‘Alī had not prayed ‘As.r – the Prophet ! raised his hand and supplicated until the
sun moved back up from the West.6 Al-T.ah.āwī mentioned that the h.adīth Master Ah.mad ibn S.ālih. (d.
248) considered it a duty for every ‘Ālim to memorize this h.adīth as it provides one of the proofs of
Prophethood. Yet Ibn Taymiyya summarily dismissed al-T.ah.āwī’s expertise in h.adīth because of this
narration, which he declared forged in his Minhāj al-Sunna al-Nabawiyya as did Ibn al-Jawzī before
him. Al-Qād.ī ‘Iyād. considered it authentic and Ibn H. ajar rejected the claim of forgery, authenticating a
similar h.adīth from Jābir: “The Prophet ! commanded the sun which lagged back for an hour during
5
Al-Kawtharī, al-H. āwī fī Sīrat al-Imām al-T. ah. āwī (p. 38-39). Muh.ammad ibn ‘Ala’ al-Dīn ‘Alī ibn Muh.ammad
ibn Muh.ammad ibn Abī al-‘Izz, S.adr al-Dīn al-Dimashqī al-S.ālih.ī (d. 792) is unknown in the H . anafī biographical
sources but is mentioned in other sources due to the affair that led to his eleven-month imprisonment from 784 to
785. Ibn ‘Imād al-H . anbalī (d. 1089) devoted 5 lines to him in his ten-volume Shadharāt al-Dhahab (6:326) in which
he mentions that Ibn Abī al-‘Izz was the H . anafī judge for Damascus, then for Cairo for one month, after which he
excused himself and came back to Damascus. There, he was imprisoned for a certain matter and remained incar-
cerated until a new governor came and gave him amnesty. The story is told by Ibn H. ajar in the chapter for the year
784 in his Inbā’ al-Ghumr (1:258-260).
6
Narrated from Asmā’ bint ‘Umays by al-T. abarānī in al-Kabīr (24:144-151 #382, 390-391 cf. Ibn Abī ‘Ās. im, al-
Sunna 2:598 #1323) and al-T. ah. āwī in Sharh. Mushkil al-Āthār (3:92-95 #1067-1068) through two ‘Alawī chains cf.
al-Haythamī (8:297), al-H. usayn by al-Dūlābī in al-Dhurriyyat al-T. āhira (p. 91 #164), and ‘Alī; deemed s. ah. īh. by al-
Suyūt. ī after al-Qād. ī ‘Iyād. in al-Shifā’ (p. 347-348 #684) cf. Fayd. al-Qad. īr (#7889), Ibn al-H. adhdhā’ al-H. askānī
(d. >470), Ibn Burhān al-Dīn al-H. alabī, and others while Ibn al-Jawzī, Ibn Taymiyya, al-Mizzī, al-Dhahabī in the
Mīzān and Tartīb al-Mawd. ū‘āt, and al-Qārī in al-Mas. nū‘ declared it forged cf. Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya (5:80-90), al-
Nabhānī, H. ujjat Allāh (p. 398).
the day.”7 In any case, the entirety of the Ulema concur that al-T.ah.āwī was a major h.adīth Master
regardless of his ruling on this h.adīth.

Al-Shurūt. al-Awsat., al-Kabīr, and al-S.aghīr, in which al-T.ah.āwī shows his unsurpassed mastery of
the science of shurūt. or Correct Transactions.

Sunan al-Shāfi‘ī, narrated from his uncle al-Muzanī from the Imām. This monograph of al-Shāfi‘ī’s
narrations comes to us from al-T.ah.āwī through three of his students: Abū al-Qāsim Maymūn ibn
H.amza al-Mu‘addal; Muh.ammad ibn al-Muz.affar ibn Mūsā al-Bazzār the h.adīth Master; and Abū Bakr
Muh.ammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn ‘Alī ibn ‘Ās.im al-Muqri’. The work known as the Musnad of al-Shāfi‘ī is
different and was compiled by the trustworthy h.adīth Master Abū al-‘Abbās al-As.amm (247-346) from
his hearing al-Rabī‘ ibn Sulaymān al-Murādī’s narrations from the Imām in al-Umm.8

Tafsīr Mutashābih al-Akhbār, mentioned by Ibn Taymiyya in Minhāj al-Sunna al-Nabawiyya.

Al-Taswiya bayna H.addathanā wa Akhbaranā, showing that the two terms are identical in h.adīth
terminology.

Al-T.āh.āwī once said: “None imitates except a fanatic or a dolt” (lā yuqallidu illā ‘as.abiyyun aw ghabī).
The meaning of this phrase is not absolute but applies only if three conditions are met: one is actually
qualified and capable of discerning the stronger position without the shadow of a doubt and has
reached certainty of its superiority yet follows the weaker position out of loyalty to his School.9

The author narrates by permission (ijāza) from Shaykh Muh.ammad Mut.ī‘ al-H.āfiz. al-Dimashqī with
his chain through Shaykh Ismā‘īl al-‘Ajlūnī the compiler of Kashf al-Khafā’, through Shaykh al-Islām
Zakariyyā al-Ans.ārī, through Shaykh Muh.yī al-Dīn Ibn ‘Arabī, from Ibn ‘Asākir with a strong chain
through al-T.ah.āwī, from Yūnus ibn ‘Abd al-A‘lā al-S.adafī, from ‘Abd Allāh ibn Wahb ibn Muslim, from
‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Umar ibn H.afs., from ‘Abd al-Rah.mān ibn Qāsim, from his father al-Qāsim ibn
Muh.ammad, from his grandmother ‘Ā’isha the Mother of the Believers who said: “I saw a man the Day
of the Trench with the exact appearance of Dih.yat ibn Khalīfa al-Kalbī, mounted, speaking with the
Messenger of Allāh ! in private, wearing a turban with its extremity hanging in his back. I asked the
Messenger of Allāh ! about him and he said: ‘This is Gibrīl, he ordered me to go out to the Banū
Qurayz.a.’”10

7
Narrated from Jābir by al-T. abarānī in al-Awsat. with a fair chain cf. Fath. (6:221) and al-Haythamī (8:296). The
editor of the Mushkil cites all the negative rulings but does not mention this. Further, his edition of the Mushkil is
missing the words of al-T. ah. āwī cited by ‘Iyād. verbatim: “These two h. adīths [from Asmā’ bint ‘Umays] are firmly
established as authentic and their narrators are trustworthy (fa-hādhāni al-h. adīthāni thābitāni wa-ruwātuhumā
thiqāt)”!
8
9
Cf. al-Dhahabī, Siyar (10:397).
This does not apply to every single imitator of a School. It would have been preferable that the editor of Sharh.
Mushkil al-Āthār clarify this distinction, but he is satisfied with quoting al-T.ah.āwī’s statement four times or more in
his introduction without once clarifying it! Imām Zufar, for example, generally imitated Abū H. anīfa’s positions after
his death because he declared his inability to reach absolute certainty of the superiority of his finding when it
contradicted that of the Imām in view of his knowledge of the latter’s perspicuity.
10
Narrated by Ibn ‘Asākir (5:367-368).