Imam Abu Hanifah’s Understanding of The Nature of The Qur’an

Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s earlier view (that reciting the Qur’ān in Ṣalāh in non-Arabic is sufficient for the Qirā’ah of Ṣalāh) has been a source of much confusion and debate, in particular regarding the nature of the Qur’ān and whether the “meaning” (i.e. translation) of the Qur’ān can be isolated from the text of the Qur’ān and still remain “Qur’ān”.

The correct understanding is that even according to his earlier view, Imām Abū Ḥanīfah held to the same theology as found in his al-Fiqh al-Akbar:
What is found and read in the Muṣḥafs is of course the Arabic text (with its meaning). Hence, the meaning isolated from the text would violate this definition of “Qur’ān”, and thus cannot be regarded as Qur’ān.

One of the early authoritative imāms from Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s school, Fakhr al-Islām al-Bazdawī (400 – 482 H), makes the following clear observation in his famous text on Uṣūl al-Fiqh:
This makes it very clear that even when he held his earlier stance, Imām Abū Ḥanīfah regarded the Qur’ān as constituting, by its nature, both the Arabic text and the meaning. Without the Arabic text, it is not Qur’ān. However, he believed that a dispensation was given for the person offering Ṣalāh which meant that if he omitted the text, and maintained the meaning, the recitation will still be considered a valid recitation. This is based on the “ease” the Qur’ān offers in recitation: “Recite whatever is easy from the Qur’ān” (73:20).

This raises an obvious question or problem: The translation is not Qur’ān, so how can it be valid to recite just the meaning (i.e. translation), when it is the Qur’ān one has to recite in Ṣalāh?

‘Alā’ al-Dīn al-Bukhārī (d. 730 H) offers two solutions to this question:

1. One, that the meaning alone could be said to “legally” substitute the text and meaning with respect to Ṣalāh, while in reality it is of course only the meaning and not the text.

2. A second solution is that it is not necessary, according to Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, to read the Qur’ān per se in Ṣalāh, but its meaning alone will suffice (as a dispensation). (al-Taḥqīq fī Uṣūl al-Fiqh, 1:53)

The latter explanation is what we infer from Imām al-Bazdawī’s statement cited earlier. It is also what we infer from the following statement of al-Ṣadr al-Shahīd (483 – 536 H) in his Sharḥ al-Jāmi al-Ṣaghīr:
It is important to keep in mind that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s earlier view was that if someone read the translation of the Qur’ān in Ṣalāh, this would be sufficient to fulfil the condition of “reciting”. This does not mean he regarded it to be permissible to do this. In fact, he considered it to be Makrūh Taḥrīmī and sinful.

Imām al-Sarakhsī writes:
The same is found in al-Muḥīṭ al-Burhānī (2:50-1).

Hence, in some ways, the question was effectively a hypothetical one. (Mas’alah Tarjamat al-Qur’ān, p.80) It was not an encouragement or endorsement to read a translation in Ṣalāh; but a hypothetical question about the situation that someone did read a translation, what then would be the status of the Ṣalāh?

Still, there is definitely a tension between Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s earlier juristic view (that reading a translation is sufficient for the validity of the recitation in Ṣalāh) and his established theological view (that the Qur’ān constitutes both text and meaning). The tension was highlighted earlier: This recitation is not Qur’ān even according to him, while the person praying is ordered to recite Qur’ān. The tension was resolved in the manner explained earlier from ‘Alā’ al-Dīn al-Bukhārī, but these explanations have evident weakness. Hence, it is established that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah took back his earlier position, making the issue one of absolute consensus.

‘Alā’ al-Dīn al-Bukhārī (d. 730 H) wrote in his commentary on Muntakhab al-Ḥusāmī:
He wrote the same in his commentary on Uṣūl al-Bazdawī (Kashf al-Asrār, 1:42). Hence, Nuḥ ibn Abī Maryam (d. 173 H), a direct companion of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, reported his retraction. Abū Bakr al-Rāzī al-Jaṣṣāṣ (305 – 370 H), one of the most authoritative scholars of the Ḥanafī school from Iraq (& the grand-teacher of Imām al-Qudūrī), also reported the same, as found in Sharḥ al-Jāmi‘ al-Ṣaghīr of al-Ṣadr al-Shahīd (cited earlier). The same is also mentioned in Sharḥ al-Jāmi‘ al-Ṣaghīr of QāḍīKhān (Sharḥ al-Jāmi‘ al-Ṣaghīr, 1:203). Hence, the author of al-Nahr al-Fā’iq writes:
Shaykh al-Islām Khāharzādah in his Mabsūṭ and Shams al-A’immah al-Sarakhsī in his Sharḥ al-Jāmi‘ al-Ṣaghīr also mentioned that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah retracted to the view of Ṣāḥibayn. (al-Muḥīṭ al-Burhānī, 2:51)

Hence, after mentioning the retraction, al-Ṣadr al-Shahīd and QāḍīKhān comment:
The author of al-Hidāyah also says the same:
Al-‘Aynī explains the statement, “reliance is on this”, as follows:
Sa‘d al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī (722 – 792 H) wrote:
Note: Al-Kāsānī in his Badā’i‘ al-Ṣanā’i‘ (1:527-532) offers a problematic explanation of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s earlier view which is at odds with what has been explained above. Shaykh Muṣṭafā Ṣabrī[3], in his Mas’alah Tarjamat al-Qur’ān (pp.83 – 115), thus offers a detailed critique of Kāsānī’s explanation.

Shaykh Muṣṭafā Ṣabrī summarises Imām Abū Ḥanīfah’s position as follows:

See also: I‘lā’ al-Sunan, 4:154-7; al-Nafḥat al-Qudsiyyah, al-Shurunbulālī; Mas’alah Tarjamat al-Qur’ān, Muṣṭafā Ṣabrī; Ākām al-Nafā’is, al-Laknawī

---

[1] That is, Īmān has two integral parts: Taṣdīq (belief in the heart) and Iqrār (acknowledgement with the tongue). Both are essential for Īmān. However, Iqrār in some specific contexts can be omitted while maintaining Īmān – like in the case when someone is coerced to verbally renounce his belief. In the same way, the Qur’ān consists of both text and meaning, but in the specific context of Ṣalāh, Imām Abū Ḥanifah (in his earlier view) held that the text is an integral component that can be omitted while maintaining the validity of the recitation of Ṣalāh.

[2] Sharḥ Kitāb al-Ṣalāh refers to Bazdawī’s commentary on the section of Ṣalāh from Imām Muḥammad’s Mabsūṭ.

[3] The last Shaykh al-Islām of the Ottoman Empire and a scholar of great repute.

[4] The late scholars in reference only mentioned this rule as a precaution: in case the translation carries the effect of the original Qur’ān. It is not that they believed that the translation on its own amounts to “Qur’ān”.

[5] That is, the verse: “Recite whatever is easy from the Qur’ān”.

[6] That is, even though part of the definition of “Qur’ān” is “what is written in the Muṣḥafs”, as stated by Imām Abū Ḥanīfah himself.

---

Extracted from THIS ARTICLE