Kedudukan Imām Abū Ḥanīfah dalam Ḥadīts
Al-ʿAllāmah Anwar Syāh al-Kasymīrī al-Ḥanafī (w. 1352 H / 1933 M), ketika membahas kedudukan al-Imām al-Aʿẓham Abū Ḥanīfah dalam bidang ḥadīts, menyatakan sebagai berikut:
“[Yaḥya ibn Saʿīd], yaitu al-Qaṭhān, Imam ahli jarḥ wa al-taʿdīl dan orang pertama yang menyusun karya di bidang tersebut, sebagaimana disebutkan oleh adz-Dzahabī.
Beliau dahulu memberikan fatwa untuk mengikuti mazhab Abū Ḥanīfah [semoga Allah merahmatinya].
Murid beliau, Wakīʿ ibn al-Jarrāḥ, yang juga murid [Sufyān] at-Tsaurī, juga bermazhab Ḥanafī.
Ibn Maʿīn meriwayatkan bahwa al-Qathān pernah ditanya tentang Abū Ḥanīfah [semoga Allah merahmatinya], dan beliau menjawab, ‘Kami belum pernah melihat orang yang memiliki pandangan lebih baik darinya, dan dia terpercaya (tsiqah).’ Beliau juga meriwayatkan, ‘Aku belum pernah mendengar ada yang melakukan jarḥ terhadap Abū Ḥanīfah [semoga Allah merahmatinya].’
Oleh karena itu, diketahui bahwa Imām yang agung ini (Abū Ḥanīfah) tidak pernah dikritik hingga masa Ibn Maʿīn [semoga Allah merahmatinya].
Kemudian terjadi insiden yang melibatkan Imām Aḥmad [semoga Allah merahmatinya], dan apa yang tersebar pun terjadilah, sehingga para ulama ḥadīts terpecah menjadi beberapa kelompok mengenai beliau (Abū Ḥanīfah). Padahal, sebelum peristiwa itu, sudah ada di kalangan generasi awal kelompok-kelompok yang berfatwa sesuai dengan mazhabnya (Abū Ḥanīfah). Bahkan Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn sendiri juga bermazhab Ḥanafī.
Saya memiliki sebuah risalah dari adz-Dzahabī, yang bermazhab Ḥanbalī dalam ʿAqīdah dan Syāfiʿī dalam Fiqh, yang menyatakan bahwa Ibn Maʿīn adalah Ḥanafī yang mutaṣṣib (fanatik).
Mungkin alasannya adalah karena Ibn Maʿīn mengkritik Ibn Idrīs, yaitu Imām as-Syāfiʿī yang terkenal itu, semoga Allah Ta'ala merahmatinya. Apa yang dikatakan bahwa yang dikritik itu orang lain selain as-Syāfiʿī adalah tidak berdasar. Dan kebenaran menurut saya, meskipun beliau (Ibn Maʿīn) benar mengkritiknya, itu tidaklah pantas, karena kedudukan as-Syāfiʿī [semoga Allah merahmatinya] tidak bisa dicapai oleh Ibn Maʿīn.
Lalu, ad-Dāraquṭhnī mengakui bahwa Abū Ḥanīfah [semoga Allah merahmatinya] lebih tua daripada mereka dan telah bertemu sahabat Anas [semoga Allah meridhainya].
Satu-satunya perbedaan pendapat hanyalah mengenai riwayatnya dari Anas.
Sementara itu, Ibn Jarīr [al-Ṭhabarī] dalam kitabnya, ‘Ikhtilāf al-Fuqahāʾ’ mengumpulkan fiqih Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Awzāʿī, dan as-Syāfiʿī [semoga Allah merahmati mereka], tetapi beliau tidak memasukkan fiqih Aḥmad [bin Ḥanbal], maupun keutamaannya.
Ketika ditanya alasannya, beliau menjawab, ‘Saya menyusun di dalamnya (kitab) mazhab para fuqahāʾ (ahli fiqih) beserta keutamaan mereka; saya akan menyebutkan keutamaan Aḥmad ketika saya menyebutkan keutamaan para ulama ḥadīts’ (Maksudnya: menurut pandangannya, Aḥmad adalah seorang ulama ḥadīts, bukan seorang ahli fiqih yang pendapat hukumnya cukup signifikan untuk dicatat). Beliau bersikeras dengan pandangan ini hingga beliau wafat karenanya.
Demikian pula, Abū ʿUmar al-Mālikī juga menyebutkan keutamaan ketiga Imām tersebut, namun tidak menyebutkan keutamaan Aḥmad [semoga Allah merahmatinya].
Al-Bayhaqī juga tidak mengkritik Abū Ḥanīfah [semoga Allah merahmatinya] meskipun beliau adalah mutaṣṣib (fanatik terhadap mazhabnya, yaitu Syāfiʿī), sebagaimana yang disebutkan oleh Syaikh Syamsudīn dalam al-Ghāyah:
‘Saya mendengar dari guru-guru saya bahwa dia adalah seorang mutaṣṣib (Syāfiʿī yang fanatik).’
Dan Ibn as-Subkī pernah mengkritik (al-Bayhaqī) dengan mengatakan, ‘Belumkah kamu mendengar bahwa daging para ulama itu beracun, dan siapa pun yang memakannya akan mati?’”
📖 Fayḍ al-Bārī ʿalā Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī | 1/251
Ustadz reza
al-ʿAllāmah Anwar Shāh al-Kashmīrī al-Ḥanafī [d. 1352 AH / 1933 CE], when speaking about the rank of al-Imām al-Aʿẓam Abū Ḥanīfah in ḥadīth, says the following:
“[Yaḥya ibn Saʿīd], this is al-Qaṭṭān, the Imām of al-jarḥ wa al-taʿdīl and the first to compile works in that field, as al-Dhahabī stated. He used to give fatāwā [legal verdicts] according to the madhhab of Abū Ḥanīfah [may Allāh have mercy on him]. His student Wakīʿ ibn al-Jarrāḥ, who was also a student of [Sufyān] al-Thawrī, was likewise Ḥanafī. Ibn Maʿīn transmitted that al-Qaṭṭān was asked about Abū Ḥanīfah [may Allāh have mercy on him], and he said: “We have not seen anyone with better opinion than him, and he is trustworthy.” He also transmitted: “I have not heard anyone perform jarḥ [criticism] against Abū Ḥanīfah [may Allāh have mercy on him].” Therefore it is known that the Imām, the great luminary [(Abū Ḥanīfah),may Allāh have mercy on him], was not criticized up until the time of Ibn Maʿīn [may Allāh have mercy on him].
Then occurred the incident involving Imām Aḥmad [may Allāh have mercy on him], and what became widespread became widespread, and the ḥadīth scholars divided into factions regarding him. Otherwise, before that event there existed among the early generations [Salaf] groups who issued fatāwā according to his [Abū Ḥanīfah’s] madhhab. Even Yahyā ibn Maʿīn was also Ḥanafī. And I possess a treatise by al-Dhahabī, who was Ḥanbalī in ʿAqīdah and Shāfiʿī in Fiqh, in which he states that Ibn Maʿīn was a Ḥanafī mutʿaṣṣib [i.e., fanatic]. And perhaps the reason for this is that Ibn Maʿīn criticized Ibn Idrīs, who is the famous Imām al-Shāfiʿī, may Allāh Most High have mercy upon him. And what has been said, that it was someone other than al-Shāfiʿī, may Allāh have mercy upon him, is nothing [i.e., baseless]. And the truth with me is that even if he did criticize him, it is not appropriate [or fitting] for him to do so, for al-Shāfiʿī, may Allāh most High have mercy upon him, has a rank that Ibn Maʿīn does not [or cannot] attain.
Then al-Dāraquṭnī acknowledged that Abū Ḥanīfah [may Allāh have mercy on him] was older than them and that he had met Anas [may Allāh be pleased with him]. The only disagreement is regarding his narration from him. And Ibn Jarīr [al-Ṭabarī] collected in his book ‘Ikhtilāf al-Fuqahāʾ’ the fiqh of Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Awzāʿī, and al-Shāfiʿī [may Allāh have mercy on them], but he did not include the fiqh of Aḥmad [may Allāh have mercy on him] nor his virtues. He was asked about the reason, and he replied: “I compiled in it the madhāhib of the fuqahā’ [jurists] and their virtues; I will mention his virtues when I mention the virtues of the ḥadīth scholars [Meaning: in his view, Aḥmad was a ḥadīth scholar, but not a jurist whose legal opinions were significant enough to be recorded].” He persisted upon this until he was martyred because of it.
Likewise, Abū ʿUmar al-Mālikī also mentioned the virtues of those three Imāms but did not mention the virtues of Aḥmad [may Allāh have mercy on him]. Al-Bayhaqī also did not criticize Abū Ḥanīfah [may Allāh have mercy on him] despite being a mutʿaṣṣib [of his madhhab], as al-Shaykh Shams al-Dīn mentioned in al-Ghāyah: “I heard from my mashāyikh that he was a mutʿaṣṣib [fanatic Shāfiʿī].” And Ibn al-Subkī passed by him and said: “Have you not heard that the flesh of the scholars is poisonous, and whoever eats it dies?.””
Source: 📖 Fayḍ al-Bārī ʿalā Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī | 1/251.
Fp fb Ibu qoyim
