Schools of thought created by or insprired from those they are named after?

[ayyub]

I am reading "Islam without Extremes" by Mustafa Akyol and came across this passage:

"The most famed and authoritative scholar to emerge from this school was Abu Hanifa, the sympathizer of the Postponers school. His thinking was based firmly on the Qur'an and human reason and a little less the "example" of the Prophet...Abu Hanifa relied on his threefold cord of (Qur'an), qiyas, and Ra'i (reason) with occasional use of istihsan, and scarcely any for Hadith."

Abu Hanifa died in 767 and Bukhari was born in 810. Thus Abu Hanifa had no access to the Sahih Bukhari which is an essential part of Sunni jurisprudence. The thousands of hadith rejected by Bukhari as fabrications would seemingly have been in play during the lifetime of Abu Hanifa. Though the modern Hanifi School of thought does still claim 'reason' as a contributing factor, the collections of sahih hadith collections play a significant role. Same is true for the Maliki School which would seemingly rely less on hadith (as seen with the significantly smaller Al-Muwatta) as the custom of Imam Malik (died 795) but in it's modern form appears follow the same formula as the other schools.

Another point that comes to mind is I remember reading that Abu Hanifa believed small, non-intoxicating amounts of certain types of alcohol was permissible, however this opinion does not exist in the Hanifi School of thought. Which brings me back to my question, are the various schools of thought created by the people they are named after or just based off their ideas and practices and solidified later?

I look forward to your opinions and may God forgive me for anything I have written in error.

[ayyub]

I am surprised no thoughts on this topic.

Anyways, reading further along Akyol writes: 'Their (the Shafi school) method became so dominant that soon even the less Hadith-oriented Malikis...and the formerly Rationalist Hanafis were forced to move closer to the Shafi view.'

He also writes: 'As early as the third century of Islam (tenth century), Traditionists were already arguing that all problems the Muslims could ever face were solved, and there was no need for further inquiry. The gates of ijtihad (independent reasoning), the famously claimed, were closed.'

[SarahY]

There were many schools of thoughts, today only 5 schools of thoughts are recognised as valid (Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, Shafi and Jafari)

Which brings me back to my question, are the various schools of thought created by the people they are named after or just based off their ideas and practices and solidified later?

It's both. the reason why these 5 schools lasted is because the number of followers they had. what's interesting is they weren't so hardline as people are today. For example imam malik he wrote a book called al muwatta yet he refused to place his work in the kaaba for people to follow. you can read more about it on page 67: http://www.scribd.com/doc/119660399/dialogues-of-hadith-different-perceptions-and-insights

In regards to Abu hanifa (from memory) his views were preserved by his students but I'm not too sure..

Abu Hanifa is prob seen more liberal compared to the others however because of consensus, rules of others are taken over. so i guess in a way abrogation happens due to conformity...

Although if you're classed as a "mujtahid" then deriving/establishing rulings from a school of thought is considered normal..

[ayyub]

SarahY, thanks for the link. I have just started reading it and noticed the author and Mustafa Akyol (Islam without extremes) make the same point that it was Imam Shafi who introduced idea of coupling the hadith with the Quran. Of course being that Shafi died when Bukhari was only 10 years old would again mean the thousands of hadith rejected by Bukhari as fabrications would seemingly have been in play during his lifetime too.

[SarahY]

No prob.

Traditionalists do not like to see it as Shafi introducing the idea of Quran and hadith being compelled but rather he helped establish it.
i.e. it was happening he just formalised it.

Interestingly Shafi revered imam Malik's Muwatta yet today the book is not revered anywhere near as Bukhari, nor is it considered part of the 6 authentic hadith books..

[ayyub]

Interestingly Shafi revered imam Malik's Muwatta yet today the book is not revered anywhere near as Bukhari, nor is it considered part of the 6 authentic hadith books..

Al-Muwatta is actually the most rational of all the hadith collections. Also it is interesting that in the Al-Muwatta there is no mention of a Mahdi, return of Jesus or any of the other end times predictions that made it in to later hadith collections. I actually brought this up at a lecture on Imam Malik one time and I was told he didn't include them because he was only interested in what applied to the 'here and now'. That description may apply to Imam Malik but I don't think it explains how such a large part of "Islamic belief" has no mention.

[SarahY]

definitely interesting. imam malik's main focus was collecting hadith in medina where it is believed the prophet lived and died, his burial grounds are there.

so imam malik considered hadiths in that area more authentic.

God knows best

peace

[ayyub]

One thing I have always wondered, assuming that anything un-Quranic is an innovation, is the Prophet died in I believe 11 AH and the Al-Muwatta was compiled in 163 AH. Though 150 years is a long time, it also relatively short for the amount of "innovations" that would have taken place.

Plus the compiler was an Arab and compiled it in Medina. This is significant because of the criticism often given to the hadith of the compilers being Persian and or borrowing Persian rituals and customs.

Again it is also interesting what the Al-Muwatta doesn't mention that latter was adopted.

I was wondering if anyone had any insight to how these traditions could have been inserted, in the city of the Prophet in a period of 100-150 years. (I am not arguing one way or another, just asking questions that are spinning around my head)

[SarahY]

Wouldn't have a clue.

however I believe some orientalists will state that pre-islamic Arabs had traditions and the Muslims adapted them to suit Islam.

God knows best.