A study and critical edition of Qāēī Abū Ja‘far al-Balkhī’s al-Ibāna fī al-radd ‘alā al-mushanni‘īn ‘alā Abī Ģanīfa

Many works had been written to defend Imām Abū Ģanīfa and the Ģanafī school of law: Muģammad b. Muģammad al-Kardarī’s (d. 642/1244) al-Fawā’id al-munīfa fī al-zabb ‘an Abī Ģanīfa, Šāhir b. Qāsim’s (d. 771/1370) Muqaddima fī al-radd ‘alā radd al-Ģanafiyya, Muģammad b. Muģammad b. Shihāb al-Zuhrī’s (d. 827/1424) al-Radd ‘alā al-Imām al-Ghazzālī bimā takallama bi-ģaqqi imāminā Abī Ģanīfa and Molla ‘Ali al-Qārī’s (d. 1014/1605) Risāla fī al-radd ‘alā man dhamma Abā Ģanīfa. The work of Aģmad b. Abdullah b. Abū al-Qāsim al-Balkhī (d. 5th/11th century), titled al-Ibāna fī al-radd ‘alā al-mushanni‘īn ‘alā Abī Ģanīfa, is among the most important and earliest texts within this field. For this reason, this paper pre-sents a critical edition of this work. Some scholars mistakenly attribute this text to Muwaffaq b. Muģammad al-Ģāssī (d. 634/1237). This paper, however, argues that the real author of this manuscript was Abū Ja‘far al-Balkhī. In order to elim-inate confusion about the author of the work, I attempted to consult all available manuscript copies. I have been able to locate six manuscripts; three are preserved in manuscript libraries in Turkey, one is in Baghdad, one is in Mashhad, and another one is in Riyadh. I also provide full information concerning their locations in the manuscript libraries. In addition, I have been informed about the existence of another copy in Mecca (in Maktabat Ģaram al-Macca), although I was unable to consult this manuscript for this study. The work was written for the purpose of defending the Ģanafī jurisprudential positions against certain criticisms. The author lists the most frequent criticisms directed at Ģanafī jurisprudence by other schools and defends the Ģanafī tradition by providing detailed religious and rational proofs. The author especially tries to respond to criticisms from the Shāfi‘ī jurisprudence school. The work consists of six chapters. In the first chapter, the author responds to those who say that the “Ģanafī school is contrary to imāma and imāra principles,” and argues in detail that the Ģanafī School is the school best suited to imāma and imāra principles. In the second chapter, the author rejects those who say that, “Abū Ģanīfa preferred controversially qiyās (analogy) to naŝŝ (Qur’an and sun-nah), which is accepted by everyone.” The author argues that it is not Abū Ģanīfa who did this, but rather those who make this accusation against him. Abū Ģanīfa expressed clearly that he applied qiyās when there was no clear stipulation or evidence in the Qur’an or prophetic tradition. The author states that Abū Ģanīfa first made reference to the Qur’an, then to the prophetic tradition; when in the absence of evidence from these two sources, he referred to the opinions accepted by all of the companions, and then to the opinion of a companion if the other companions did not oppose it. When none of these options were available, only then did he apply qiyās. In the third chapter, the author responds to those who say, “Abū Ģanīfa left the prudence in the fiqh and went beyond bounds of permis-sion.” The author emphasizes that this claim is incorrect and that it is incompati-ble with the life of a devout imām. In the fourth chapter, which is a continuation of the previous one, the author rejects the claim that “Shāfi‘ī and other scholars were more cautious than Abū Ģanīfa in matters of worship and etc.,” and he sug-gests that the opposite was true. One of the examples provided is the controversy about the one who intentionally breaks his fast by eating or drinking something in Ramadan. In this case, Shāfi‘ī and Aģmad b. Ģanbal said that only recompense fasting (for each day s/he broke) was necessary, while Abū Ģanīfa and Mālik viewed both recompense and penance (60-day fasting) as necessary. The author states that this, and similar provisions, indicate that it cannot be claimed that Shāfi‘ī was more cautious regarding worship than Abū Ģanīfa. In the fifth chapter, as a counter attack, the author challenges those who criticized Abū Ģanīfa and lists the controversial opinions of Abū Ģanīfa’s opponents. In the sixth chapter, he addresses two arguments: In the first part, he underscores that not Abū Ģanīfa but rather his opponents should be criticized. In the second, he explains why the Ģanafī school is more favorable to others. The author tries to argue these issues through providing religious and rational proofs. In some cases, however, he could not help but to resort to some fanatical suggestions without providing evidence. For example, the author claims that Shafi‘ī’s Arabic was weak and that he was not a strong scholar of the prophetic traditions.