When people claim that you cannot follow Islam without hadith, they always forget the one man who did exactly this: Abu Hanifa. Today, the largest school in the Muslim world, the Hanafi school, keeps the name of its founder, but no longer follows his methodology. It has become 'hadithified' to the extent that modern Hanafi followers often use the methods of the people of hadith (hadith-first) instead of Abu Hanifa's methods.
We must note that our research has relied on reports which themselves have come through later hadith compilations. The hadith numbers are as referenced in the book 'Kitab-As-Sunnah' by Abu-Abdir-Rahman Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal - the son of Ahmed ibn Hanbal, the founder of the Hanbali school. We only use the reports to analyse the attitudes and cultures of the time and not as unquestionable historical truth in every detail.
Today, some who attempt to defend against criticism of Abu Hanifa's lack of hadith transmissions, say that Abu Hanifa was maybe not aware of certain hadith so he applied judgement based on what he had available to him at the time. This is heard many times in speeches and lectures today. One of the most famous tropes is when the preacher Zakir Naik, frequently claims that he is following Abu Hanifa when he follows a hadith which contradicts Abu Hanifa, by saying Abu Hanifa supposedly said 'if anyone finds a sahih hadith which goes against my opinion, then throw my opinion against the wall'.
In another report, al-Thawri said 'no one put in Islam what Abu Hanifa put in Islam, except that he would be the father of all mistakes' (281). This accusation calls Abu Hanifa the person with the most mistakes in Islam. According to al-Thawri, Abu Hanifa had 'put in Islam', mistakes in a way he found unforgivable. He viewed Abu Hanifa's intellectual output not as genius, but as foundational errors.
In another report, al-Thawri claimed 'Abu Hanifa was a Nabati who would draw conclusions in the issues based on his own opinion' (284). In another narration, when Abu Hanifa was mentioned, al-Thawri would say 'we seek refuge with Allah from the evil Nabati when he becomes like the Arabs' (288).
In another report, al-Thawri said 'no-one was born in Islam more calamitous than Abu Hanifa' (287). In another similar tone, he said 'the Abbasid army leader who led the uprising against the Ummayads with his sword is not more destructive towards the knots of Islam than Abu Hanifa with his opinion' (290).
The word calamity refers to something that brings bad luck or destruction. In this case, the destruction was the de-emphasis of the narrations. al-Thawri claimed a warmonger was better for Islam than Abu Hanifa who, he claimed was destroying the religion because of his opinions. He feared that if people followed Abu Hanifa, the entire hadith industry, which was led by al-Thawri, would become obsolete.
Did not know hadith
Today, some who attempt to defend against criticism of Abu Hanifa's lack of hadith transmissions, say that Abu Hanifa was maybe not aware of certain hadith so he applied judgement based on what he had available to him at the time. This is heard many times in speeches and lectures today. One of the most famous tropes is when the preacher Zakir Naik, frequently claims that he is following Abu Hanifa when he follows a hadith which contradicts Abu Hanifa, by saying Abu Hanifa supposedly said 'if anyone finds a sahih hadith which goes against my opinion, then throw my opinion against the wall'.
However, the existence of Sufyan al-Thawri (716–778 CE) dismantles this argument completely. He lived at the same time as Abu Hanifa and in the same city of Kufa in Iraq. His stature at the time can be seen from his title which was 'Amir al-Mu'minin fi al-Hadith' - Commander of the Faithful in Hadith. He was a man who remained staunchly committed to hadith. He would prioritise isolated reports no matter how absurd over analogy, something that was adopted by Shafii and Ahmed ibn Hanbal after him.
Sufyan al-Thawri is among the major narrators relied upon by al-Bukhari. He would later become a central pillar within Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, accounting for 300 to 400 narrations. It meant that in the 2nd century, his judgement was effectively the benchmark for what was deemed 'authentic'. When he rejected Abu Hanifa, it wasn't a minor scholar's opinion; it was the 'Commander of the Faithful in Hadith' declaring Abu Hanifa's methodology of using logic as a threat.
This shows that Abu Hanifa did indeed have access to hadith from leading figures of the hadith movement. When al-Thawri or his people provided narrations to Abu Hanifa, he did not reply 'I haven't heard this.' Rather, Abu Hanifa looked at the data provided by the 'Commander of the Faithful in Hadith' and essentially said 'I do not accept this hadith because it goes against the Qur'an or, it to does not adhere to the teachings of ibn Mas'ud or, it goes against reason'. For a complete understanding, Abu Hanifa followed the system in Kufa which was primarily based upon the teachings and methodology of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud. Abu Hanifa believed whatever ibn Mas'ud ruled, he believed this superseded any reports narrated by the people of hadith.
Not trustworthy
There is nothing to suggest that Abu Hanifa did not know hadith. Abu Hanifa simply chose not to apply them in his rulings if the hadith appeared to contradict the Qur'an, practice of the people of Kufa inherited through ibn Mas'ud or his own logic, regardless of the strength of hadith chain. He was not interested in trying to reconcile between the two, like the people of hadith often did.
The reason why Abu Hanifa is not cited within hadith literature is because al-Thawri reportedly said when a narration from Abu Hanifa was mentioned to him, that 'he (Abu Hanifa) is not trustworthy nor reliable' (227, 280 and 286). According to al-Thawri, Abu Hanifa's narrations were potentially lies and therefore could not be trusted.
His disagreements with Abu Hanifa were not personal ones, but because Abu Hanifa was giving rulings which were contradictory to the hadith, even when they were made available to him by the people of hadith, such as al-Thawri. If the hadith did not agree with his principles, Abu Hanifa refused to engage with it.
In hadith methodology, 'trustworthiness' and 'reliability' refer to the backbone of the transmission chain. This means a person is 'thiqa'. This is a technical term used for a person who has memorised and repeated words exactly as they heard them. When Abu Hanifa is called not 'thiqa', this is implying Abu Hanifa was a corrupter of data, because he would use his own mind to come to conclusions.
In another report al-Thawri reportedly said 'there was not anyone born in Kufa or in this ummah (Muslim community) more harmful for them than Abu Hanifa' (278). In the same report, the narrator mentions that al-Thawri also said that Abu Hanifa was asked to repent from kufr (disbelief) two times.
The reason why Abu Hanifa is not cited within hadith literature is because al-Thawri reportedly said when a narration from Abu Hanifa was mentioned to him, that 'he (Abu Hanifa) is not trustworthy nor reliable' (227, 280 and 286). According to al-Thawri, Abu Hanifa's narrations were potentially lies and therefore could not be trusted.
His disagreements with Abu Hanifa were not personal ones, but because Abu Hanifa was giving rulings which were contradictory to the hadith, even when they were made available to him by the people of hadith, such as al-Thawri. If the hadith did not agree with his principles, Abu Hanifa refused to engage with it.
In hadith methodology, 'trustworthiness' and 'reliability' refer to the backbone of the transmission chain. This means a person is 'thiqa'. This is a technical term used for a person who has memorised and repeated words exactly as they heard them. When Abu Hanifa is called not 'thiqa', this is implying Abu Hanifa was a corrupter of data, because he would use his own mind to come to conclusions.
Most harmful heretic
In another report al-Thawri reportedly said 'there was not anyone born in Kufa or in this ummah (Muslim community) more harmful for them than Abu Hanifa' (278). In the same report, the narrator mentions that al-Thawri also said that Abu Hanifa was asked to repent from kufr (disbelief) two times.
This is mentioned again when al-Thawri reported that 'Abu Hanifa was asked to repent from the kufr (disbelief) two times' (269). In another similar report, 'Abu Hanifa was asked to repent from the words of the heretics several times' (270).
To al-Thawri, harm was defined as the act of teaching people to weigh up religious claims through reason. It highlights the method of Abu Hanifa in rejecting the narrations and sticking to his own mind as being viewed heretical by the people of hadith.
Father of mistakes
In another report, al-Thawri said 'no one put in Islam what Abu Hanifa put in Islam, except that he would be the father of all mistakes' (281). This accusation calls Abu Hanifa the person with the most mistakes in Islam. According to al-Thawri, Abu Hanifa had 'put in Islam', mistakes in a way he found unforgivable. He viewed Abu Hanifa's intellectual output not as genius, but as foundational errors.
In another report, Abu Hanifa went to the mosque and approached al-Thawri. Upon approaching him, al-Thawri reportedly said to his companions 'let us get up so he doesn't afflict us with his mistakes' (290). In the same report, a similar incident happened at another time but this time the people of hadith were not aware of Abu Hanifa's presence. When they eventually become aware, al-Thawri turned around and sat with his back to Abu Hanifa.
The foreigner
In another report, al-Thawri claimed 'Abu Hanifa was a Nabati who would draw conclusions in the issues based on his own opinion' (284). In another narration, when Abu Hanifa was mentioned, al-Thawri would say 'we seek refuge with Allah from the evil Nabati when he becomes like the Arabs' (288).
The conflict between the people of hadith and those who used their minds like Abu Hanifa was so severe that the ethnicity of Abu Hanifa was questioned to undermine him. Al-Thawri argued that Islam came with the Arabs, implying that the 'foreigner' should have no right to interpret the religion with his opinions.
To the Arabs, oral preservation was part of their heritage and they deemed the 'truth' was preserved through this tradition. Abu Hanifa on the other hand did not put much importance on this, and was busy contradicting everything they had inherited with his own logic.
For context, Abu Hanifa was of Persian origin. 'Nabati' is a derogatory label which was used by the ruling Arab elite to criticise a persons linage and intellectual methods. The actual Nabati people were Aramaic-speaking peasants of Iraq who were recent converts and did not have really true Islamic scholarship. They were often viewed as illiterate in the Arabic language. The label was used on Abu Hanifa to imply his logic and methodology was foreign to the Arab scholarship and he was unsuccessfully trying to imitate the Arabs.
A modern parallel would be Bangladesh today. The high society of Chittagong will often refer to their poorer fellow citizens as 'Noakhali' - a derogatory label to show social inferiority by referencing an area of Bangladesh which is seen as less culturally and economically developed.
The calamity
In another report, al-Thawri said 'no-one was born in Islam more calamitous than Abu Hanifa' (287). In another similar tone, he said 'the Abbasid army leader who led the uprising against the Ummayads with his sword is not more destructive towards the knots of Islam than Abu Hanifa with his opinion' (290).
The word calamity refers to something that brings bad luck or destruction. In this case, the destruction was the de-emphasis of the narrations. al-Thawri claimed a warmonger was better for Islam than Abu Hanifa who, he claimed was destroying the religion because of his opinions. He feared that if people followed Abu Hanifa, the entire hadith industry, which was led by al-Thawri, would become obsolete.
End of the 'affliction'
On learning of the death of Abu Hanifa, al-Thawri reportedly said 'all praise is due to Allah who made me safe from much of what many of the people have been afflicted with (Abu Hanifa's opinions)' (290).
The reports clearly show the two men were not simply disagreeing on individual issues here and there; they were representing two different versions of Islam. There appears to be relief in his remark as he knew that once a 'hadith denier' was no longer on the scene, it would then allow him and the people of hadith to begin their successful campaign to 'hadithify' Abu Hanifa's school into what we have now.
Conclusion
To the people of hadith, Abu Hanifa was destroying the religion by rejecting hadith on the basis of logic. The evidence reveals an inherent fear of the people of hadith towards reason-based jurisprudence. To Abu Hanifa, the people of hadith were perhaps destroying the religion by following reports that did not align with the rulings found in the Qur'an or reason.
The later triumph of Shafii and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who between them elevated hadith to a near Qur'an status, explains why hadith authority dominates the Muslim world today. Their success means the Qur'an must be interpreted through hadith, rather than hadith being evaluated by the Qur'an.
Some may argue that the critical reports of al-Thawri about Abu Hanifa were exaggerated or fabricated by his opponents. The primary compiler of these reports was Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the son of the founder of the Hanbali school, which became the strongest champion of hadith. In either case, they demonstrate that Abu Hanifa's reason‑based approach was seen as a direct challenge to the hadith establishment.
To finish, it must be noted that the article is not claiming Abu Hanifa followed the Qur'an only. It is simply highlighting how the founder of the Hanafi school established a jurisprudence system which rarely relied upon the hadith.