Refuting the accusation that the Salafis do not show respect to the four Imams.

Al-Hawini: Our Shaykh, they say that the Salafis do not give the four schools of jurisprudence their due, as evidenced by the fact that they disparage Imam Abu Hanifah al-Nu'man, mention the criticism of some hadith scholars regarding him, and criticize many issues in the Hanafi school, even though the majority of Muslims follow this school. What is the position of the Salafis regarding the four Imams?

The Shaykh : This accusation is similar to previous ones. The Salafis in all parts of the world recognize the worth of scholars; they do not belittle people's rights, nor do they spread corruption on earth. At the same time, they do not elevate scholars above the status that Allah has placed them in. This is because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who is the master of mankind, used to say to his Companions: . If this was the conduct of Muhammad the Chosen One (peace and blessings be upon him), then the Salafis adhere to this moderate approach with their scholars. For example, they do not elevate Abu Nu'aym al-Isfahani—just as an example!—to the level of Imam al-Bukhari in knowing authentic and weak hadith, despite him being a memorizer among the famous hadith scholars known for his extensive narration. Rather, they believe he is a memorizer among the memorizers of the Muslims, and that we, the later generations, benefit greatly from his books and the chains of narration through which he transmits the hadiths in his books, a benefit from which we cannot do without. Furthermore, they do not consider Abu Nu'aym al-Isfahani to be one of the Imams who exercised independent legal reasoning in jurisprudence. As we all know, he may have had Sufi tendencies, and he may have narrated a great deal of fabricated hadiths. So we give every person his due. I give this example from our Imams—we, the people of hadith—so that everyone knows that we have no blind following for anyone, nor against anyone. Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) is the first of the four Imams in terms of generation, and he is famous for his jurisprudence (may Allah have mercy on him). We undoubtedly benefit from his knowledge in jurisprudence, but we do not rank him with the six Imams. We rank him with the four Imams in jurisprudence, but we do not rank him with the six Imams in terms of memorizing, authenticating, and weakening hadith. This is because it is not known that Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) was known for traveling around the lands to collect the Sunnah and hadiths from various narrators, as was the case with many of the Imams of hadith, especially the six Imams—al-Bukhari and the rest. But as I said earlier, we rank him with the four Imams in jurisprudence, but we also do not elevate him above the status that Allah has placed him in. We do not say he is like Ahmad, the Imam of the Sunnah, due to his extensive narration of hadith and his knowledge of the men, in terms of vindicating and criticizing them. Nor do we associate him with Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him), from whom it is authentically reported that he used to say to his student Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him): "When a hadith comes to you as authentic, let me know, whether it is from Kufa, Basra, Egypt, or the Hijaz, so that I may act upon it." Imam al-Shafi'i acknowledged Imam Ahmad's superiority in comprehending the Sunnah over Imam al-Shafi'i himself (may Allah have mercy on him). However, we also say that Imam al-Shafi'i is stronger than Imam Ahmad in understanding the Book and the Sunnah. If it were not for Imam Ahmad's assistance in surpassing all the Imams who exercised independent legal reasoning, due to the abundance of his material in hadith, Imam al-Shafi'i would have been superior to him in jurisprudence, because he was stronger than him in deriving rulings. But Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) relied on hadiths and reports instead of exercising opinion and independent legal reasoning as Imam al-Shafi'i did. Similarly, we say that Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) is not the Imam of the City of Migration in terms of comprehending the Sunnah and understanding it like Imam al-Shafi'i, let alone like Imam Ahmad in comprehending the Sunnah. So each has his own status.
So when we say that Imam Abu Hanifah is a jurist among the four jurists, but he is not a hadith scholar, we do not wrong him or belittle his right, because this was his reality. His preoccupation with jurisprudence and deriving rulings, and the lack of ease in traveling around the lands, made him rely on deriving rulings from the Book and the Sunnah within the limits that Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) opened for him. I do not want to withhold the answer to what came in the question regarding what some people today may criticize in Abu Hanifah, relying on many—and I do not say some—of the statements that came regarding Abu Hanifah, and that he is not relied upon in hadith.
Here we must also say a word of truth: Many scholars and jurists were known for their preoccupation with jurisprudence, which caused their memorization and memory to weaken. They were not known first for their abundance in narrating hadith, and second for their precision in what they narrated of hadith. Among these was Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla, who is one of the seven jurists. Among these was also Abu Hanifah, the first of the four Imams. If we say that Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla is a jurist, but he is weak in hadith, this is not a criticism of him, but rather a description of him and an explanation of his state in narrating hadith, so that we take his hadith with caution and give him the rank he deserves when the hadith scholars described him as weak in memorization and memory. What indicates that all people, except those whom Allah has shown mercy, are between excess and negligence, while justice and description are rarely found, is what we call people to. You will find the blind followers of Abu Hanifah elevating him to the sky in what? If they had limited this to the precision of understanding and deriving rulings, as came from Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) when he said: "People are dependent on Abu Hanifah in jurisprudence," if his blind followers had elevated him to the sky only in terms of jurisprudence, we would have found an excuse for them, because Imam al-Shafi'i—and he is who he is in knowledge and jurisprudence as we said earlier—was their proof in that. But to describe him with precision and memorization first, and then to turn to insinuation, hinting, and criticizing the great Imams, among whom are Imam Ahmad, al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, and others who described Abu Hanifah as weak in memorization, the blind following of these people for Abu Hanifah reached the point where they say: The description of these Imams of Abu Hanifah as having poor memorization was due to their blind following against him. This means that these Imams—the Imams of criticism and vindication—on whom we rely in this field of criticism and vindication, are not pious in that they criticized Abu Hanifah in narration without right, but rather out of blind following against him. So what did the blind followers of Abu Hanifah do?
To save Abu Hanifah from a matter for which he is not held accountable by the Shari'ah, they attacked some of the imams of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators). If their attack on them were valid, it would be a defect in them. So, to save an imam from among the imams of the Muslims from something that does not harm him, they described him as having poor memory, and they attacked those imams. I have investigated the majority of them, and they numbered about fifteen hadith scholars, both early and late, all of whom agreed in describing Abu Hanifah as weak in his hadith. They attacked all these great, distinguished imams for what? To save Abu Hanifah from poor memory, which is not a defect. And what indicates to you and confirms for you that madhhab bias is doing its work is that you do not find this same enthusiasm in defending Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla. Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla: 'Abd al-Rahman was a distinguished Tabi'i, and his son Muhammad was one of the Seven Jurists, a great imam. But in hadith, his situation is the same as Abu Hanifah's. They do not defend Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla because he is not their imam in fiqh, even though he is an imam among the imams of the Muslims in fiqh. So they defend their imam with falsehood, and they do not defend others, because all that matters to them is vindicating their imam with falsehood.
I return to say: Is describing a narrator with what is in him considered an impermissible attack in the Shari'ah? The answer is no. And were it not for this, this science known as al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) would not be as serious as it is. Because if the scholars of hadith had been as scrupulous as the cold Sufis, and had not described every narrator with the weakness in his memory, or the accusation against his truthfulness, the Shari'ah of Islam would have become like the Shari'ah of the Jews and Christians, with no way for us to distinguish what is authentic from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), just as the Jews and Christians cannot distinguish between the authentic reports narrated from their prophets and the weak ones. Therefore, among the virtues of this Islamic community is that it was unique in having something called isnad (the chain of narration). Some of the imams of hadith said: "The isnad is part of the religion, and were it not for the isnad, whoever wished would say whatever he wished." And what does "the isnad is part of the religion" mean? It means the chain of narrators who take from one another, and the hadith reaches the Companion and then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). This is the isnad. So if we do not know the condition of every narrator among these narrators, we cannot benefit from the sanad (the chain of narration) first, and then know the authentic hadith from the weak one second. The imams of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) held that they draw near to Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) in their saying: "So-and-so is truthful but has poor memory, so-and-so is truthful but makes many mistakes, so-and-so is a sinner with poor memory, so-and-so is abandoned and accused, so-and-so is a liar, so-and-so is a fabricator, so-and-so is a deceiver." So describing the narrators of hadith by the imams of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators) is part of their complete advice to their community, as you know in the authentic hadith: . They said: For whom, O Messenger of Allah? He said: .
And if you are bored, I am not yet bored. So I hope you will pay attention, or else let him leave, and you leave with us guided, if Allah wills.
, so whoever advises the general Muslims to distinguish the good from the bad; first, to know the report, and second, for the right of companionship. Who do you keep company with? You keep company with the believer, as came in the hadith: . So if you see a man keeping company with an open sinner, or keeping company with an innovator, even if this innovator is righteous in appearance; and you come to this companion who is deceived by that righteous innovator; and you say to him: My brother, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said: . This man is an innovator, this man is of bad character. You are not a backbiter, nor are you an abuser, nor are you an attacker. And the believer is not an attacker nor an abuser, as came in the authentic hadith. But if you place the attack in its proper place, you will be pleased with you by your Lord.
And perhaps it is useful in this context to narrate for you the hadith of Abu Hurayrah and others. The hadith of Abu Hurayrah was narrated by Imam al-Bukhari in "Al-Adab al-Mufrad" with a good chain that rose to the level of authenticity due to its coming from another path. A man came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and said: "O Messenger of Allah," - he came complaining about his neighbor - he said: "O Messenger of Allah, my neighbor wronged me." - Pay attention now to the words of this wronged person: "My neighbor wronged me"; is this not an attack? It is an attack. Is this not backbiting? Rather, it is backbiting. So look at what the position of the Messenger (peace be upon him) was - . He said: , so the man did it. And the path - naturally - is not called a path except because it is trodden. So whenever people passed by and saw this phenomenon that attracted their attention, they said: "What is the matter with you, so-and-so?" He said: "My neighbor wronged me." So what they did was say: "May Allah fight him, may Allah curse him." Is this an attack or not? It is a terrible attack. And the wronging neighbor heard all these attacks, so he ran to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) to say to him: "O Messenger of Allah, order my neighbor to return his goods to his house, for the people have cursed me." So he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . From such a hadith - and the long research - but I will summarize it with two lines of poetry I memorized in my youth, the jurisprudential poetry that should be memorized, because it is smooth and beautiful, and it contains rulings scattered in the Book and the Sunnah. They said:
“Censure is not backbiting in six cases: *** The complainant, the identifier, and the warner,
And one who openly commits open sinfulness, and one who seeks a ruling, and he *** Who sought assistance in removing a wrong.
The attack of backbiting is forbidden, but in these six things it is not forbidden. On this jurisprudential principle, the imams of hadith proceeded when they criticized and vindicated, as advice to the community. Then, out of their scrupulousness and fear of their Lord, no blame from a blamer took them in that.
So the fact that Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla was among the jurists did not prevent them from describing him with poor memory in his narration of hadith. Likewise, the fact that they knew, as al-Shafi'i said, that Abu Hanifah: "People are dependent on him in fiqh"; did not prevent them from describing him with weakness in hadith as advice to the community. Why? This is Abu Dawud, the author of the Sunan, who accuses his son 'Abd Allah ibn Abu Dawud, and says - with a word more severe than what was said about Abu Hanifah regarding the critique - he says: "My son is a liar, my son is a liar." And 'Ali ibn al-Madini - also - testifies about his father 'Abd Allah that he is weak. So why do these biased people care about the words of the imams of critique regarding some jurists, and do not look at their fairness when this one attacks his son, and that one attacks his father, all of that to protect the Prophetic hadith from what is not part of it entering it.
In summary, in answering this question: The Salafis do not attack any of the imams of the Muslims, but rather they place each one in the position that Allah placed him in. This is first. And second, their saying, following the imams of al-jarh wa al-ta'dil (the critique and vindication of narrators), their saying about an imam among the imams of the Muslims that he is weak in hadith or that his hadith is not taken; this is not an attack of the kind that it is not permissible for a Muslim to fall into, but rather it is among the six exceptions mentioned earlier. Perhaps this news is sufficient.