Talk:Hanafi school

Vandalism

Is it possible to have a discussion about the vandalism? Someone seems simply motivated to present a negative view of the Hanafi madhab. For every madhab, there are a number of rulings which are distinctive and stand out from the others. For every madhab, there are some rulings which are easier than the others and some which are stricter than the others. For example, Hanafis are also stricter about prayer. Except for hajj, prayers are supposed to be done in their proper time instead of being "liberal" and combining them. And witr is considered to be wajib so a strict Hanafi would actually be praying more often than someone from a different madhab. It isn't Wikipedia's place to say that the Hanafis are wrong.

There has been a lot of anti-Hanafi vandalism on this page it seems. I'm not sure what the best way to handle this is.

• agreed. these vandals can't seem to accept the fact that other schools of thought have different views from theirs with regard to certain things. such sore losers.

10:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC) The section about where Hanafi adherents are located is a little confusing. I tried to clean up some sentence structure, but I am not familiar enough with the topic to address any more, for fear of changing the meaning. Randomned 20:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Something of the Hanafi methodology should be presented, particularly in contrast to the other schools. The growth and development of the school, from Abu Hanifa and his school, to his two students, Imam Muhammad and Abu Yusuf, and the early alliance of the hanafi school with the state should be mentioned. Also the figure of 45% should be referenced (I couldn't find one yet).EsatErbili 06:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"Northern Egypt is mixed Hanafi/Shafi while upper Egypt and the Sudan are Maliki, Turkey, the Levant (Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are mixed Shafi/Hanafi."

There are two things wrong with this sentence. "Northern Egypt" and "upper Egypt" are the same thing. Everything after Maliki doesn't make sense structurally, and there's no end parenthesis.

"Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania the Indian subcontinent, amongst the Muslim communities of the Balkans (in Bulgaria and Romania for example) Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan etc) the Muslims of China the Muslims of Russia and Ukraine (Tatars and Turks)."

The above is not a complete sentence.

Also, the article doesn't really flow well from one topic to the next. Zain 22:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This article certainly needs work, but "north" doesn't mean "up". As far as I know, "Upper" geographically means "higher", or you can think of it as "upstream", in Egypt's case that's actually south. In any case, the wording is confusing. --Yodakii 01:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Upper Egypt does indeed refer to southern Egypt, refrence the Upper Nile among other things. 12.20.127.229 22:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I assume that the incomplete sentence and its lack of commas refers to the places that are predominantly Hanafi or follow the Hanafi madhab.

Also, where it says "Hanafi is predominant...", the word Hanafi should probably be used as an adjectives to describe those who adhere to the Hanafi school and not the school. Perhaps "The Sunni Muslims in Pakistan and ... are predominantly Hanafi."

Also, those places which follow the Shafi school probably should be removed from this article as they are not relevant to the Hanafi school (i.e. "The Kurds of Turkey, Syria and Iraq follow the Shafi school." and also "while Upper Egypt (Southern Egypt) and the Sudan are Maliki.") Essentially they are off-topic.Pepsidrinka 21:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Blasphemy and Apostasy

The article says blasphemy is not punishable under Hanafi law, but it doesn't mention apostasy. This information would be a valuable addition, particularly with the Abdul Rahman (convert) case so topical; Hanafi law is the default system in the Constitution of Afghanistan, and the Constitution is silent on apostasy. — JEREMY 08:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"An 8th century Somali theologian named Shaykh Uthman bin Ali al-Zeylai wrote the only authoritative text on the Hanafi school of Islam.[citation needed] His book is called the Tabayin al-Haqa’iq li Sharh Kanz al-Daqa’iq. Its four volumes are still in print." -- Perhaps more details needed on this? I've never heard about the person or the book...

Is the Taliban Hanafi?

"it is considered to be the school most open to modern ideas"

Alright, but just to clear this up, wasn't the Taliban a Hanafi group? Or were they influenced by Wahhabism? At any rate, even Wahhabis are not as strict and fannatical as they. Giorgioz 16:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

--the Taliban practised an extreme perversion of faith. i'd say they were influenced by the wahhabis, or at least brainwashed by their mulllahs into accepting a pseudo-religion that is nothing like the true, beautiful, infinitely, wonderfully-malleable Islam.

76.108.26.211 (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Yes, but it would probably be more useful to say that Afghanistan is a basically Hanafi region.

So...what is it?

The article describes at length the places/cultures in which Hanafi school is predominant and it talks about it being a conservative school of Sunni Islam, but the one thing it fails to do is describe what Hanafi actually is, i.e. what its core beliefs that distinguish it from other schools within Sunni Islam. Can someone with some knowledge on this expand/clean up the article to get this key point across? -- Hux 16:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• • err..i'd suggest you read the article carefully. it's all there, dude. and...hanafism is certainly not conservative, compared to hanbalism or shafiism, for example.

Adherents

Abu Hanifah and the Maturidis say that "Faith neither increases nor decreases" and that "Actions are not a part of faith" has been removed until a valid citation is made. Tabligh Jmaat has been removed from the adherents. They do not adhere to any mazhab.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afrazj (talk • contribs).

Isn't it the other way around?

"Faith neither increases nor decreases" and that "Actions are not a part of faith" is the standpoint of the Shafi mzahab and not Hanafi. Imam Abu Hanifa's opinion is that Faith increases and decreases AND actions are part of faith. But obviously I need to provide a proof. In any case I think this statement needs a proof.

What? Where's your source for that? Imam Shafie was famous for his debate with the people of Irja' or the Murjiah, whom believed that action are not part of faith.

In fact, it was well known that Abu Hanifah and Imam Haramain Al-Juwaini held that action are not part of faith, however, there are indications that they both retracted this view latter in their lives. 210.195.104.253 (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

reciting quran in languages other than arabic?

someone has claimed in the article that hanafi school allows praying in languages other than arabic which i don't believe is correct, could not verify this anywhere in any source posted or elsewhere. consulted others for advice, this does not appear to be true but if it is it is a unique claim that should definitely provide some documentation for support. for the moment i think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawyer207 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is actually half correct. Imam Abu Hanifa indeed believed (used to) that reciting Quran in foreign language was permissible, but he himself (not later scholars) took back his point of view. This is known in the religious jargon as "Raju'", i.e. reverting. I have myself attended one class of the course taught to people as part of becoming a scholar (in Pakistan) and there is in deed evidence in the books taught. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the book.

The wikipedia article is incorrect when it says that later scholars overruled the ruling. It was the Imam himself who did Tauba.

Merge

Content was recently merged from Sunni Islam, though the more relevant discussion can be found on that article's talk page. Per Wikipedia:Merging, however, I am still required to open a discussion here. I would suggest reading my comments on Talk:Sunni Islam first. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Application today

The article treats the subject of how the Hanafi School was applied several centuries ago, but since it is not applied in that way in Bosnia, Albania, Turkey or India today, it would be interesting and clarifying to read something about its present-day application, written by someone who knows something about it. 81.236.219.119 (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I am a muslim myself and my religion DOES NOT SUPPORT WAR AGAINST DISBELIEVERS JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR DISBELIEF!! This page deliberately presents my religion as a religion of murder and terror. SO I AM REQUESTING TO PLEASE REMOVE THIS PAGE'S FALSE CONTENT and replace it with information found from reliable hanafi muslim scholars.103.230.104.1 (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog, and does not summarize what "I am a Muslim myself and my religion does not or does..." type personal opinions. For why, read WP:WWIN. Study WP:PG for content guidelines. The aim of wiki articles is neither to criticize nor praise Islam, the aim is to just summarize verifiable recent reliable sources, see WP:V and WP:RS for more. RLoutfy (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#NPOV issues in Hanafi, Maliki and Shafi'i. Eperoton (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV redux

@Zachdavid17: You may have noticed that the edit summary for removal of the content you have restored included a link to a discussion on a wiki project. You'll have to look in the archives for it now, but the result was a WP:CONSENSUS that inclusion of that material in this article violated WP policy. That means you should not restore it without obtaining a new consensus for its inclusion. I'll summarize the rationale for you here. Per WP:PROPORTION, the coverage of a subject on WP has to reflect its coverage in RSs. There are a number of RSs on the Hanafi school whose scope is similar to this article, such as EI2 (paywall), Iranica, The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History (paywall), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. A selective focus on Hanafi views about certain topics like apostasy, slavery, etc does not reflect how the subject is treated in RSs, and so it violates the relevant policy, WP:NPOV. Instead, these views should be discussed in Apostasy in Islam, Islamic views on slavery, etc, which does reflect how RSs treat those subjects.

Your added material on intoxicating beverages would make a good addition to Khamr, so I'm moving it there. However, there are some issues with it, which I'll take up on the talk page for that article. Eperoton (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Views

It is not very clear what the Hanafi believe. I did not find it during a quick but complete read-through, even though their views should have both their own section and a prominent place (at least a paragraph) in the lead. I don't know anything about the Hanafi or Islam in general, or I would fix this myself: perhaps someone else can take care of it? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

What you're looking for is summarized in the section "Sources and methodology", albeit there's room for improvement. Islamic schools of law mostly differ is rather technical aspects of their legal methodology and in various consequences these have on specific rulings. It's difficult to find a concise summary in reputable sources (as opposed to some weak sources which oversimplify the matters). Eperoton (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Criticism on Hanafi fiqh

Please add criticism on hanafi fiqh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiacc97 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Al Andalus and Marocco

Please, correct in the article that Spain and Morocco were and are followers of the Maliki Madhab, except for small groups that follow other schools in present-day Spain. 45.142.46.127 (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Dates

The manual of style outlines that dates can be given in the Hijri calendar when it is relevant, but should be followed by the Gregorian conversion. I think this is a good idea, as the Gregorian dates are relevant in an English language article. I would suggest that phrases such as "the 3rd Hijri century" should be replaced with "the 3rd century AH (9th century CE) throughout this article. Qntmnan (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Improving the Introduction

The introduction for this article could be improved. I think the main questions that need to be answered in the introduction are:

1. What are the sources from which Hanafi laws are derived? (e.g., Hadith, Sunnah, Quran?)
2. What are the acceptable methods by which you should investigate and draw conclusions from those source? (e.g., rational inquiry, analogical reasoning, literal interpretation, diplomatic consensus?)
3. When was Hanafism established, and, briefly, how?
4. What is Hanafism's role in the present day Islamic world?

Some of these points are already covered, but in particular, the first two are not. Also, I think what is there should be condensed, and superfluous information (such as who compiled it) should be moved elsewhere or removed. Qntmnan (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)