I can see that people are spreading the opinion of non-qualified people about the reliability of Ikrima according to Abu Hanifa and Hanafis.

In order to ‘prove’ this falsehood they are using the following ”proofs”;

1. Abu Hanifa said that he took from several ‘great’ scholars one of which is Ikrima
2. Abu Hanifa narrated from him
3. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Sheibani narrated from him
4. Jassas (a senior Hanafi) used a hadeeth of Ikrima as a proof.

Obviously people who studied the case closely can see the weakness of the argument, but even then I want to comment on these so called ‘proofs’.

 

1. Abu Hanifa said that he took from several ‘great’ scholars including Ikrima

In order to ‘prove’ that Abu Hanifa classifies Ikrima as ”Great scholar” they quote the following;

ثنا أبو حمزة الأنصاري قال: سمعت عبد الله بن داود الخريبي يقول: قلت لأبي حنيفة: من أدركت من الكبراء؟ قال: القاسم وسالم وطاوس وعكرمة ومكحول وعبد الله بن دينار والحسن البصري وعمرو بن دينار وأبا الزبير وعطاء وقتادة وإبراهيم والشعبي ونافع وأمثالهم.

Abu Hamza Al-Ansari reported that he heard Abdullah bin Dawud saying; I asked Abu Hanifa: “Who do you count among the great?” Abu Hanifa said, “Al-Qasim, Salim, Tawus,‘Ikrimah, ‘Abdullah bin Dinar, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, ‘Amr bin Dinar, Abu Al-Zubair, ‘Ata’, Ibrahim, Sha’bi, Nafi’, and the likes of them.”

 

There are many problems with this ‘proof’. I may not have the time to talk about all of them, but I will highlight a few for the genuine readers.

1. This story is nartated by Qadhi Sadriddin al-Sa’idi who died 650 Hijri in his collection called “Musnad Abu Hanifah”, from Al-Harithiy al-Bukhari who died 340 Hijri. 43434434There is a another author who relays the same story, which is Qadhi Abu Muayyad al-Kharazmi who died at 665 Hijri, in his book “Jame Masaneed” who takes it from the same Imam Bukhari died 340 Hijri.

There is a another author who relays the same story, which is Qadhi Abu Muayyad al-Kharazmi who died at 665 Hijri, in his book”Jame Masaneed” who takes it from the same Imam Bukhari died 340 Hijri.

The problem with these narrations is that there is a very large number of people within the chain between both of the authors to Bukhari who are missing. What I mean is that between Sa’idi and Bukhari there is 310 years of chain which is missing, and between Kharazmi and Bukhari there is 325 years of narrators who are missing from the chain. This has also been mentioned by Deobandi authors from the past century.

2. The second issue is an even bigger problem then the first. All of the authors narrate this story from none other than Hadith scholar Abdullah b. Muhammad al-Ustadh al-Harithi al-Sabadhmuni (d. 340).

He is classed as ”Liar who used to Fabricate hadeeths” according to a large number of scholars.

On the second page, Abu Abdullah said regarding Harithi; He used to narrate strange things from reliable narrators [here he is confirming an obvious weakness and not a possible one]

Khateeb said that; ‘he cannot be taken as a proof’.

Dhahabi said; ”He is the author of ”Musnad Abu Hanifa”. He did put in quite a lot of effort to write it. But there are things [within it] which Abu Hanifa never said. Which caused a big scandal and publicity for Abu Muhammad.”

1. Ibn Jawzi narrates from Rawwas; he [Bukhari] used to fabricate.
2. Ahmad Sulaimani said; [He] used to fabricate the chain of this hadeeth from other [hadeeth], and the chain of other for this [hadeeth]
3. Abu Zur’a said; he is Weak!
4. Hakim said; Author of strange stories [means weak]
5. Khateeb said; Not reliable!
6. Khalili said; They classed him as weak
7. Khalili again said; That he used to hide the narrators.
8. Khateeb said; He is the author of strange, rejected and weird narrations. He cannot trusted!

”Lisan al Mizan” by Ibn Hajar al Asqallani volume 4

From all above we see that this so called ”proof” cannot be accepted at all!

 

2. Abu Hanifa narrated from him

There are two types of scholars;

1. Scholars who only narrate only from reliable narrators such as Imam Malik who only narrates from reliable narrators.

2. Scholars who narrate from everyone, such as Bukhari (out of his Saheeh collection), Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood, Nasai, ibn Majah. Abu Hanifa also falls into this category.

For example Abu Hanifa says about Jabir al-Ju’fi; ”I’ve never seen anyone who lies as much as Jabir al-Ju’fi

But then Abu Hanifa narrates from this very Jabir al-Ju’fi!!

Here is another quote where Abu Hanifa narrates from the very same Jabir. Also, both of Shu’ba and Sufyan (two top muhaddiths) say that Harith is a liar, yet both of them still from the same Harith.

So even the second ‘proof’ is false!

 

3. Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Sheibani narrated from him

Them narrating from Ikrima doesn’t prove that he is acceptable according to Abu Hanifa and Hanafis.

Here is Sheibani narrating from the very Jabir al-Ju’fi in Muwatta, but we have already seen what past scholar this of his non existent honesty:

So even the third ‘proof’ is false!

 

4. Jassas (a senior Hanafi) used a hadeeth of Ikrima as a proof.

This is another false proof.

• These Modern Hanafis class Jassas as heretic because he rejected the hadeeth of Bukhari and many others, where it states that the prophet PBUH lost his mind and became sexual impotent because he was affected by magic.
• However Jassas narrating from someone doesn’t prove he is reliable according to Abu Hanifa.
• Here is Tahawi narrating several hadith on the same page from the very Jabir al-Jufi;

To add to this it is very well known that two thirds of the opinions of Abu Hanifa are rejected by his direct or indirect students. So, some of the ‘hanafis’ (especially the modern ones) classing Ikrima as an ”Imam”, ”Saint” and ”Sheikh al-Islam” doesn’t change anything.

Also Imam Abu Hanifa said; ”Do not take knowledge from the scholars of Royal Palace. I do not say they lie, but they do not always tell the truth, how it really is.”

And ‘Saint’ Ikrima is a ”scholar” of Umayyads. It is well known that he would go to various kingdoms to beg for money. Sadly, He used to lie then, as some the ‘scholars’ who are his inheritors are lying now.

I feel sorry for the laymen who are following these types of ‘scholars’ of the past and pres