Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022): 554-572

Abstract
Even though there is a consensus among Muslim scholars that rebellion without valid grounds is not acceptable, 
they have disagreed on the permissibility of rebellion against an unjust ruler. Abū Ḥanīfa has a pivotal place in 
these debates, as he is the eponym of a law school that first dedicated a special chapter to rebellion (baghy) in 
its legal texts. Interestingly, however, the views attributed to him on the topic are inconsistent: Some sources 
claim that Abū Ḥanīfa acknowledged the legitimacy of even an unjust ruler’s rule on the grounds of avoiding 
unrest (fitna). Other sources argue that he supported armed struggle against unjust rulers to fulfill the principle 
of al-amr bi-l-maʿrūf wa-l-nahy ʿan al-munkar (enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong). Abū Ḥanīfa’s 
connection to some of the major revolts of his day against the Umayyads or the Abbasids is also contested. The 
aim of this paper is to collect and evaluate the diverse references to Abū Ḥanīfa’s views on rebellion in a variety 
of sources and to examine the motives behind these conflicting narratives. In conclusion, I argue that a quietist 
image of Abū Ḥanīfa seems to have gained popularity over time, but it is outweighed by reports about Abū 
Ḥanīfa’s support for movements against unjust rulers.

The legality of rebellions raised fierce debates among early Muslim scholars because rebels often made religious claims to power in addition to articulating political and social grievances. When the Islamic sciences started to crystallize in the second 
century AH and the first legal and theological texts were written, Muslim society had 
already witnessed some serious ʿAlid and Kharijite resistance movements. This period also 

Portrait of a Jurist between Obedience and Rebellion:  
The Case of Abū Ḥanīfa*

Ayşegül şimşek
Marmara University

(aysegul.simsek@marmara.edu.tr)

* I would like to thank the EmCo team and the participants of the “Acts of Rebellions and Revolts in the 
Early Islamic Empire” workshop for their valuable contributions to this article. I owe a debt of gratitude to 
Petra Sijpesteijn, Hannah-Lena Hagemann, and Philip Grant for their insightful comments on an early draft. 
Finally, I am grateful for the editors’ and anonymous reviewers’ efforts, comments, and the additional sources 
they recommended for improving this article.
© 2022 Ayşegül Şimşek. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 
License, which allows users to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and 
only so long as attribution is given to the original authors and source.

mailto:aysegul.simsek%40marmara.edu.tr?subject=


555  •  Ayşegül şimşek

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

saw the end of Umayyad rule and the transfer of the caliphate to the Abbasids. Naturally, 
people sought answers about the legality of rebellions against unjust rulers from author-
itative figures such as the Kufan scholar Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 150/767), eponym of the Ḥanafī 
school of law. However, Abū Ḥanīfa has been ascribed various and sometimes contradictory 
opinions about rebellions. Subsequent scholars updated Abū Ḥanīfa’s depiction and his 
supposed views on how to deal with an unjust ruler to fit the debates of their own times and 
their own agendas. As a consequence, it is not possible to retrieve Abū Ḥanīfa’s actual views 
on the legality of rebellions against unjust rulers with absolute certainty, but it is possible 
to reconstruct how the views attributed to him evolved over time. That is what this article 
aims to do.

The earliest references to rebellion in Islamic law texts can be found in the discussions of 
baghy. Even though modern scholarship generally translates baghy simply as rebellion for 
practical purposes, it has a more specific meaning in the terminology of Islamic law. It refers 
to the status of a Muslim group that starts a war against the imam assuming that it has a just 
cause although in fact it does not.1 Starting with al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī’s (d. 189/805) Kitāb 
al-Aṣl, baghy was formulated as an independent category and had a separate chapter in 
Ḥanafī fiqh texts.2 Kitāb al-Aṣl is one of the earliest Islamic legal texts, and in it al-Shaybānī 
aims to collect his master Abū Ḥanīfa’s teachings. Ḥanafī scholars regard it as one of the 
key sources on Abū Ḥanīfa’s legal opinions. Of course, al-Shaybānī’s own contribution to the 
text is undeniable. But even though we cannot attribute the whole content of Kitāb al-Aṣl to 
Abū Ḥanīfa, the existence of a special chapter on baghy in it at least indicates that rebellion 
was a topic discussed in Abū Ḥanīfa’s teaching circle. However, despite containing detailed 
judgments regarding rebels before, during, and after a rebellion, Kitāb al-Aṣl does not 

1.  Such a group is called bughā, and a member of the group is a bāghī.
2.  See Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī, al-Aṣl, ed. M. Boynukalın (Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 2012). 

However, Khaled Abou El Fadl argues that “the first systematic exposition on the law of rebellion is that 
by al-Shāfiʿī”; K. Abou El Fadl, Rebellion and Violence in Islamic Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press, 2001), 147. Abou El Fadl contends that the Aṣl’s chapter on siyar, which includes the section on 
baghy, could not have been written by al-Shaybānī in its complete form and additions must have been 
made to it in the later centuries. The chapter on siyar is absent from most copies of Kitāb al-Aṣl, and 
the earliest copy to include the chapter on siyar is from 638/1240 (Abou El Fadl, Rebellion and Violence, 
144–45). I disagree; I believe that even though Kitāb al-Aṣl was not exempt from revisions, it still presents 
the first example of a systematic discussion of baghy for several reasons. First, some of al-Shāfiʿī’s views 
give a strong impression of having been formulated against an already advanced Ḥanafī discourse. More 
importantly, there is no copy of Kitāb al-Aṣl that contains all chapters of the book; see M. Boynukalın, İmam 
Muhammed b. Hasan eş-Şeybânî’nin Kitâbü’l-Asl Adlı Eserinin Tanıtımı ve Fıkıh Usulü Açısından Tahlili 
(Istanbul: Ocak Yayıncılık, 2009), 149. However, this situation is not unique to Kitāb al-Aṣl, nor should it 
be a reason to question the work’s originality: the chapters of many early texts were written individually 
and assembled only at a later date. Even if the earliest extant version of the chapter on siyar is from 1240 
CE, the text we have today must, for the most part, have been in circulation prior to that because plenty 
of citations from al-Shaybānī’s siyar appear in earlier texts. I owe this argument to Abdulkadir Yılmaz. 
For more information about the siyar chapter in Kitāb al-Aṣl, see A. Yılmaz, “Hanefi Mezhebinin Rical ve 
Kitabiyatına Dair Bazı Tetkikat,” Rıhle Dergisi, no. 11 (2011): 61–66, at 61–62. For further discussion on the 
originality of the baghy chapter in Kitāb al-Aṣl, see N. Badawi, Islamic Jurisprudence on the Regulation of 
Armed Conflict (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 23–24.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

Portrait of a Jurist between Obedience and Rebellion  •  556

address the question of whether it is permissible to revolt against unjust rulers. Discussions 
of this topic are also surprisingly rare in later Ḥanafī legal texts. This is mostly because 
obedience to the ruler was regarded as a reflection of obedience to God, so such discussions 
are usually found in books on creed and theology and, less frequently, in works of Qurʾānic 
exegesis. The scarcity of mentions of the issue in legal works might also indicate that jurists 
deemed it a sensitive subject. Consequently, we do not find references to Abū Ḥanīfa’s 
opinions on the legitimacy of rebellion in legal texts and thus need to change our focus to 
other genres.

The first place where we encounter Abū Ḥanīfa’s views on rebellions is in Fiqh absaṭ, one 
of the brief works on theology directly attributed to him. Fiqh absaṭ contains significant 
references to rebellion in the passages that discuss the principle of al-amr bi-l-maʿrūf 
wa-l-nahy ʿan al-munkar (enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong). According to the 
text, Abū Ḥanīfa regards al-amr bi-l-maʿrūf wa-l-nahy ʿan al-munkar as a duty imposed by 
God. He disapproves, however, of rising in rebellion as a way of performing this duty. This 
is because he considers the loss of lives and property that rebellion would inevitably cause 
within the Muslim community unacceptable. Therefore, even if the community is led by an 
unjust ruler, rebellion is not allowed.3 After all, even if some of its members are unjust, the 
community always contains also some just people. Instead, then, one should fight with the 
community, even if under an unjust ruler, against rebels (ahl al-baghy). If one happens to 
live in the community of the rebels, one should leave it, as God’s land is vast.4

There are several points in this passage that are worthy of attention. First, according 
to the text, Abū Ḥanīfa rules out the possibility of legitimate armed resistance against a 
Muslim ruler in any situation by excluding it from the scope of enjoining the right and 
forbidding the wrong. In addition, through a sudden shift, he strips this duty from the rebels 
and assigns it instead to Muslims to use against the rebellious party. More importantly, he 
does not limit the obligation to fight rebellions to scenarios that feature a just imam but 
explicitly states that one should fight rebels even if the ruler is unjust. The key point of 
Abū Ḥanīfa’s argument is that as long as the community is just, the shortcomings of the 
imam must be tolerated. Conversely, if the community is rebellious, one should sever one’s 
connection with it. According to the text, Abū Ḥanīfa thus clearly recognizes the legitimacy 
of even unjust rulers and prohibits the taking up of arms against them in rebellion.

At first glance, Fiqh absaṭ gives the impression of constituting a definitive source on Abū 
Ḥanīfa’s views, and it offers a clear picture of his stance regarding rebellions. However, 
modern scholarship has concluded that the text is not in fact the work of Abū Ḥanīfa, and 
there are serious suspicions about the extent to which it represents his authentic views. 
The title Fiqh absaṭ itself reflects a late intervention. Fiqh akbar is the name of a creedal 
text attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa that is transmitted in two versions via two different narrators: 
one via Abū Ḥanīfa’s son Ḥammād (d. 176/793), the other via his Murjiʿite student Abū Muṭīʿ 
al-Balkhī (d. 199/814). The title Fiqh absaṭ was first used for Abū Muṭīʿ al-Balkhī’s narration 

3.  Abū Ḥanīfa al-Nuʿmān b. Thābit, al-Fiqh al-akbar, ed. M. b. ʿA. R. al-Khumayyis (Ajman: Maktabat 
al-Furqān, 1999), 108.

4.  Ibid., 131–32.



557  •  Ayşegül şimşek

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

by the Ottoman scholar and qadi Beyāzīzāde Ahmed Efendi (d. 1098/1687) to differentiate 
the two versions, and this name subsequently gained popularity.5 However, the fact that the 
titles Fiqh akbar and Fiqh absaṭ are used interchangeably in some sources and archives has 
caused some confusion in modern scholarship. A. J. Wensinck refers to the two versions of 
the text as Fiqh akbar I and Fiqh akbar II but also mentions Fiqh absaṭ as a separate work. 
Wensinck argues that the commentator of Fiqh akbar I probably took the text from Fiqh 
absaṭ, and he concludes that even though the author is not Abū Ḥanīfa himself, the text 
largely contains his genuine teachings.6 Montgomery Watt agrees with Wensinck, holding 
that Fiqh akbar I cannot have been written much later than Abū Ḥanīfa’s lifetime and that 
it is likely to be a reliable source for his opinions.7 On the other hand, with reference to Fuat 
Sezgin, Josef van Ess points out that Wensinck’s assumption that there are three separate 
texts—Fiqh akbar I, Fiqh akbar II, and Fiqh absaṭ—is incorrect. There are only two texts, 
and what Wensinck calls Fiqh akbar I is actually none other than Fiqh absaṭ. Van Ess argues 
that Fiqh absaṭ was edited mainly by Abū Muṭīʿ al-Balkhī rather than Abū Ḥanīfa, and he 
disagrees with Wensinck about attributing all statements of Abū Muṭīʿ to his teacher. Even 
though he might have visited Abū Ḥanīfa in Kufa and done his best to preserve the latter’s 
ideas, Abū Muṭīʿ primarily represented an early Ḥanafī perspective associated with eastern 
Iran, as he lived in Balkh, and his influence over the text cannot be ignored.8 In addition, van 
Ess argues that the text was probably exposed to further revisions that can be disentangled 
only by investigating the context of each statement,9 and one should be careful in dealing 
with the work’s unique contents.10 Ultimately, van Ess suggests that Fiqh akbar I (i.e., Fiqh 
absaṭ) should not be considered a work by Abū Ḥanīfa.11 Similarly, Ulrich Rudolph asserts 
that the characteristics of the text demonstrate that it should not be ascribed to Abū Ḥanīfa 
and instead must have been written by a student.12 He adds that further revisions were 
almost unavoidable, since the text was subject to intensive engagement in subsequent 
centuries, and it might even have been adapted to the changing understandings of later 
generations.13 

5.  Ş. Gölcük and A. Bebek, “El-Fıkhu’l-Ekber,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi (DİA), 
12:544–45 (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1995), at 544–47.

6.  A. J. Wensinck, The Muslim Creed: Its Genesis and Historical Development (New York: Routledge, 
2008), 122–23.

7.  W. M. Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1973), 
132.

8.  J. van Ess, “Kritisches zum Fiqh akbar,” in Kleine Schriften, ed. H. Biesterfeldt, 749–62 (Leiden: Brill, 
2018), at 751–53. See also J. van Ess, Theology and Society in the Second and Third Centuries of the Hijra: A 
History of Religious Thought in Early Islam, trans. J. O’Kane (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 1:237–38.

9.  Van Ess, “Kritisches,” 755.
10.  Van Ess, Theology and Society, 1:221–22.
11.  Ibid., 1:241.
12.  U. Rudolph, Al-Māturīdī and the Development of Sunnī Theology in Samarqand, trans. R. Adem 

(Leiden: Brill, 2015), 55.
13.  Rudolph, Al-Māturīdī, 57–58.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

Portrait of a Jurist between Obedience and Rebellion  •  558

Because there are strong indications that Fiqh absaṭ was produced mainly after Abū 
Ḥanīfa, it is impossible to regard it as a conclusive statement of his opinions on rebellion. 
As van Ess proposes, the arguments it contains must be examined within their own contexts 
to identify any revisions that might have been made to them. Van Ess himself does just 
this and concludes that the section in Fiqh absaṭ about siding with the just community and 
the unjust ruler against rebels is a later addition.14 As I will show below when tracing the 
relevant opinions attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa in other sources, van Ess’s conclusions about the 
section on rebellion in Fiqh absaṭ are justified.

When later Ḥanafī scholars discussed the issue of rebellion versus obedience in their 
works, they did not necessarily make mention of Abū Ḥanīfa. In fact, there are only a 
few sources that contain direct references to Abū Ḥanīfa’s position regarding rebellion. 
Al-Jaṣṣāṣ (d. 370/981) is the earliest among them, and he puts the greatest emphasis on 
Abū Ḥanīfa in this context. In addition, he offers a rather different image of Abū Ḥanīfa’s 
stance on rebellions compared to Fiqh absaṭ. In his Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, when commenting 
on the phrase “My promise does not include the oppressors” (lā yanālu ʿahdī al-ẓālimīn) 
from verse 2:124, al-Jaṣṣāṣ states that the imamate of an immoral person (fāsiq) is invalid 
and that obedience to him is not required. He then proceeds to explain that there is an 
incorrect perception that Abū Ḥanīfa supposedly permitted the imamate and caliphate of 
a fāsiq, even though he did not accept rulings issued by a fāsiq judge. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ calls out a 
theologian named Zurqān (d. 278/891)15 as the source of this misinformation, labeling him a 
liar and someone whose narrations are not to be trusted. According to al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Abū Ḥanīfa 
did not differentiate between a judge and the caliph and believed that justice (ʿadāla) was 
a requirement of office for both. To support his point, al-Jaṣṣāṣ refers to specific events in 
Abū Ḥanīfa’s life. When the Umayyad governor Ibn Hubayra (d. 133/750) and, later, the 
Abbasid caliph Abū Jaʿfar al-Manṣūr (r. 136–58/754–75) demanded that Abū Ḥanīfa take up 
the post of a judge, he refused, enduring persecution and imprisonment as a consequence.16 
A scholar’s refusal to accept a position in service of the authorities is a standard feature of 
meritorious biographies, but al-Jaṣṣās uses these anecdotes to make the specific point that 
Abū Ḥanīfa rejected the legitimacy of unjust rulers by refusing to serve them.

Al-Jaṣṣās adds that Abū Ḥanīfa is famous for his opinion that fighting injustice and unjust 
rulers, even with violence, is necessary. He quotes al-Awzāʿī (d. 157/774) as saying: “We 
tolerated Abū Ḥanīfa about everything until he brought us the sword [i.e., fighting injustice]; 
then we did not tolerate him anymore.”17 Al-Jaṣṣāṣ explains that Abū Ḥanīfa considered 
enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong an obligation; if it could not be fulfilled 
verbally, the duty extended to the use of the sword. To support this view, al-Jaṣṣāṣ invokes 

14.  Van Ess, “Kritisches,” 760.
15.  Abū Yaʿlā Muḥammad al-Mismaʿī Zurqān (d. 278/891) is the author of a Kitāb al-Maqālāt. See D. 

Thomas, “Heresiographical Works,” in Encyclopedia of Islamic Civilization and Religion, ed. I. R. Netton, 
226–29 (New York: Routledge, 2008), at 226.

16.  Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, ed. M. Ṣ. al-Qamḥāwī (Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 
1985), 1:86.

17.  Ibid.



559  •  Ayşegül şimşek

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

an incident that took place between Abū Ḥanīfa and his friend Ibrāhīm b. Maymūn al-Ṣāʾigh 
al-Marwazī (d. 131/749).18 He narrates that when Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh asked Abū Ḥanīfa about 
the principle of enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong, Abū Ḥanīfa admitted that 
it was indeed obligatory and quoted the following hadith to him: “The greatest martyr is 
Ḥamza b. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib19 and a man who stands up against an unjust imam, commands 
him to do right, forbids him to do wrong, and gets killed for it.” Following this conversation, 
Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh returned to Marw and criticized the Abbasid representative Abū Muslim 
(d. 137/755) for the injustices and bloodshed he had committed. After enduring Ibrāhīm for 
a while, Abū Muslim finally killed him.20 Al-Jaṣṣāṣ provides a further argument to support 
his claim—namely, that Abū Ḥanīfa himself used to support rebels actively. He mentions 
that Abū Ḥanīfa was famous for supporting the revolutionary Zayd b. ʿAlī (d. 122/740) 
by helping him financially and secretly giving fatwas urging people to join him. He also 
supported the movement of the brothers Muḥammad (d. 145/762) and Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbd Allāh 
(d. 145/763). Consequently, al-Jaṣṣāṣ declares that accusing Abū Ḥanīfa of accepting the 
imamate of a fāsiq is a grave mistake, if not an intentional lie.21

18.  Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh was a Khorasanian Murjiʾite. With some other Murjiʾite figures, he attended 
Abū Muslim’s gatherings in the last years of the Umayyad period. Even though Abū Muslim’s discourse 
impressed them at first, he lost their support when he revealed that he was an Abbasid propagandist. See S. 
Kutlu, Türklerin İslamlaşma Sürecinde Mürcie ve Tesirleri, 2nd ed. (Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 2002), 
198–99.

19.  The Prophet’s paternal uncle, who was killed in the battle of Uḥud. See N. Haider, “Ḥamza b. ʿAbd 
al-Muṭṭalib,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 3rd ed., ed. Kate Fleet et al. (Leiden: Brill Online).

20.  Al-Qurashī (d. 775/1373) provides a more detailed report: When Abū Ḥanīfa learned that Ibrāhīm 
al-Ṣāʾigh had been killed, he cried so much that the people around him worried that he would die. Abū 
Ḥanīfa then explained that Ibrāhīm was a man of sound mind but that he, Abū Ḥanīfa, had been afraid 
that his friend would end up this way. According to Abū Ḥanīfa, Ibrāhīm devoted himself to obedience 
to God. He used to visit Abū Ḥanīfa and ask him questions. On one such occasion, he asked him about 
enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong. When they agreed that this was a religious obligation, 
Ibrāhīm asked him for his hand so that he could pledge allegiance to him. Abū Ḥanīfa recounted that the 
world went dark when he heard this because Ibrāhīm had invited him to a divine obligation, but he had to 
turn it down. Then he explained to Ibrāhīm that if a man tried to do this—that is, stand up to injustice—
alone, he would get killed uselessly. Such a step should be taken only in the presence of a reliable leader 
and companions. Even the prophets could not do it by themselves without getting help from heaven. 
Attempting to undertake the task alone would mean hastening one’s own death. Thus, Ibrāhīm’s move to 
make Abū Ḥanīfa the leader of an anti-Abbasid rebellion failed, but he did not give up his determination 
to perform the duty himself. He stood up to Abū Muslim alone, and as Abū Ḥanīfa had correctly predicted, 
he got killed because of his solitary opposition. See Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Qurashī, al-Jawāhir 
al-muḍiyya fī ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafīyya (Karachi: Mīr Muḥammad Kutubkhāna, n.d.), 1:49–50. On the basis of 
al-Ṣāʾigh’s case, Saadia Tabassum argues that Abū Ḥanīfa approved the removal of unjust rulers, provided 
“that the rebels could offer the alternative leadership which fulfilled the conditions prescribed by the law; 
that the rebels have enough power to replace the government; and that the bloodshed caused by rebellion 
is a lesser evil as compared to the continued existence of the unjust ruler”; S. Tabassum, “Discourse on 
the Legality of Rebellion in the Ḥanafi Jurisprudence,” Peshawar Islamicus 8, no. 2 (2017): 15–30, at 20. For 
a detailed analysis of al-Ṣāʾigh’s case, see M. Cook, Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic 
Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 3–10.

21.  Al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, 1:87.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

Portrait of a Jurist between Obedience and Rebellion  •  560

The difference between the image of Abū Ḥanīfa described by al-Jaṣṣāṣ and the one in 
Fiqh absaṭ is quite striking. In Fiqh absaṭ, Abū Ḥanīfa not only denies that armed rebellion 
could follow from the command to enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, but also demands 
that people fight on the side of the community under the ruler even if he is unjust. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ, 
by contrast, presents an Abū Ḥanīfa who justified taking up arms against unjust rulers 
and who in practice supported and promoted rebellions. It is significant that al-Jaṣṣāṣ is 
obviously aware of the claim that Abū Ḥanīfa acknowledged the caliphate of unjust rulers, 
but he does not mention Fiqh absaṭ at all. Instead, he names an unfamiliar theologian, 
Zurqān, as the source of this allegedly false information. It is unlikely that he would have 
been unaware of Fiqh absaṭ and the arguments it contained in his time, or that he was 
aware of them but chose to cite Zurqān instead. The absence of any reference to the work 
thus further strengthens the conclusion that the part in Fiqh absaṭ in which Abū Ḥanīfa is 
said to acknowledge the unjust imam is a later insertion, as van Ess, too, argues.

Al-Jaṣṣāṣ’s emphasis on the duty of enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong can be 
explained by his Muʿtazilite tendencies, as it is one of the core principles of the Muʿtazila. 
According to him, it is such an important duty that to fulfill it, Abū Ḥanīfa accepted the 
use of force in the form of armed rebellion. Another scholar who makes similar arguments 
is the Muʿtazilite Ḥanafī al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144). Like al-Jaṣṣāṣ, he supports 
his interpretation of Abū Ḥanīfa’s approval of armed rebellion against unjust rulers by 
mentioning Abū Ḥanīfa’s assistance of several rebellious movements.22 However, this image 
of Abū Ḥanīfa cannot simply be reduced to a Muʿtazilite impulse that started with al-Jaṣṣāṣ 
and was later supported by al-Zamakhsharī, because even a century before al-Jaṣṣāṣ, we 
find the same claim in one of the earliest Ḥanbalī texts. In ʿAbd Allāh b. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal’s 
(d. 290/903) Kitāb al-Sunna, two of Abū Ḥanīfa’s students, Ibn al-Mubārak (d. 181/797) and 
Abū Yūsuf (d. 182/798), state that Abū Ḥanīfa approved the sword (yarā al-sayf).23 Although 
the statement is succinct, it is specifically used to refer to taking up arms in the Muslim 
community.

The image of the activist Abū Ḥanīfa was, however, by no means the dominant narrative 
within the Ḥanafī school. The earliest firmly datable attestation of a quietist attitude 
ascribed to Abū Ḥanīfa is al-Jaṣṣāṣ’s claim that Zurqān supported this false interpretation. 
Beyond the quietism interpolated into Fiqh abṣat, whose date cannot be determined, some 
later sources unquestioningly attribute similar views to Abū Ḥanīfa and his immediate 
circle. For example, Abū al-Yusr al-Bazdawī (d. 493/1100), who lived about a century after 
al-Jaṣṣāṣ, asserts that all of Abū Ḥanīfa’s companions believed that an unjust imam did not 
need to be dismissed.24 A later claim comes from Ibn al-Humām (d. 861/1457), who states 

22.  Abū al-Qāsim Maḥmūd b. ʿUmar al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf ʿan ḥaqāʾiq ghawāmiḍ al-tanzīl, 3rd 
ed. (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿArabī, 1407/1986–87), 1:184.

23.  ʿAbd Allāh b. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Kitāb al-Sunna, ed. M. b. S. al-Qaḥṭānī (Dammam: Dār Ibn al-Qayyim, 
1986), 1:181–82. See also B. Zawadi, “Imam Abu Hanifah (d. 148 A.H.)—Regarding Rebellion against Unjust 
Rulers” unpublished paper, accessed September 4, 2021, https://www.academia.edu/25169471/Imam_
Abu_Hanifah_d_148_A_H_Regarding_Rebellion_Against_Unjust_Rulers.

24.  Abū al-Yusr al-Bazdawī, Uṣūl al-dīn, ed. H. P. Linss (Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya li-l-Turāth, 
2003), 196.

https://www.academia.edu/25169471/Imam_Abu_Hanifah_d_148_A_H_Regarding_Rebellion_Against_Unjust_Rulers
https://www.academia.edu/25169471/Imam_Abu_Hanifah_d_148_A_H_Regarding_Rebellion_Against_Unjust_Rulers


561  •  Ayşegül şimşek

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

that Abū Ḥanīfa and the Ḥanafīs did not consider justice among the necessary preconditions 
of authority (walāya). It is disliked but still permissible for a fāsiq to lead the community, 
though if he becomes unjust after acquiring the position, he deserves to be dismissed 
from it unless the dismissal would cause unrest (fitna). One must invite such a ruler to 
righteousness, but it is not permissible to revolt against him even if he does not comply.25

As mentioned earlier, although Abū Ḥanīfa is the eponym of the Ḥanafī school, references 
to his position regarding the legitimacy of rebellion against unjust rulers in Ḥanafī texts 
are rather scarce.26 Nevertheless, two distinct personae can be identified in our limited 
sources. On the one hand, there is the presentation of a quietist Abū Ḥanīfa who rejects the 
permissibility of rising in revolt, even against an unjust ruler; this is the persona portrayed 
by al-Bazdawī and Ibn al-Humām, and it is also present in Fiqh absaṭ.27 On the other hand, 
we have the image of Abū Ḥanīfa as an activist who supported the necessity of armed 
resistance to an unjust ruler who refused to answer the call to enjoin the right and forbid 
the wrong, as discussed appreciatively by al-Jaṣṣāṣ and al-Zamakhsharī. This image of Abū 
Ḥanīfa is also indirectly confirmed by early Ḥanbalīs who vilify him for it. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ’s activist 
argument, especially his claim of Abū Ḥanīfa’s support for rebellions, relies heavily on 
specific events in Abū Ḥanīfa’s lifetime. To test al-Jaṣṣāṣ’s claim that Abū Ḥanīfa’s support 
for rebellions was well known, we must investigate other sources on these specific events. 
The cases that will be examined in the following pages are Zayd b. ʿAlī’s rebellion against 
the Umayyads and the rebellions of the brothers Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh and Ibrāhīm b. 
ʿAbd Allāh against the Abbasids. I do not intend to delve into the details of these movements 
and confine myself mainly to the reports about Abū Ḥanīfa’s involvement in them. Nor 
am I primarily concerned about the authenticity of these reports. Rather, my aim is to 
analyze the coherence of the two opposing images of Abū Ḥanīfa with reference to historical 
narratives.

Abū Ḥanīfa and Zayd b. ʿAlī’s Rebellion

Abū Ḥanīfa witnessed Zayd b. ʿAlī’s uprising against the Umayyad caliph Hishām b. 
ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 105–25/724–43) in the year 122/740 in his hometown, Kufa. Zayd was the 
grandson of Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī, i.e., a great-grandson of the Prophet. There are several reports 
about the reasons that led Zayd to start a rebellion, but most of them mention that Khālid b. 

25.  Kamāl al-Dīn b. Abī Sharīf, Kitāb al-Musāmara fī sharḥ al-Musāyara, 2nd ed. (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat 
al-Saʿāda, 1347/1928–29), 2:166–67.

26.  Several Ḥanafī texts do mention that Abū Ḥanīfa recommended staying at home during civil unrest, 
but that opinion seems to refer to the context of a just ruler versus wrongful rebels or Khārijites. These 
debates lie outside the scope of the present paper. For some examples, see Abū Bakr Shams al-Aʾimma 
al-Sarakhsī, Kitāb al-Mabsūṭ (Beirut: Dār al-Maʿrifa, 1993), 10:124; Farīd al-Dīn ʿĀlim b. ʿAlāʾ al-Andarpatī, 
al-Fatāwā al-Tatarkhāniyya, ed. Sh. A. al-Qāsimī (Deoband: Maktabat al-Zakariyyā, 2014), 7:169; Kamāl 
al-Dīn Muḥammad b. al-Humām, Fatḥ al-Qadīr, ed. ʿA. R. Gh. al-Mahdī (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 
2003), 6:96.

27.  Bassam Zawadi notes that the image of Abū Ḥanīfa presented by al-Bazdawī and Ibn al-Humām has 
led some to believe that Abū Ḥanīfa revised his views on rebellion before his death, but Zawadi does not 
consider this a plausible explanation. See Zawadi, “Imam Abu Hanifah.”



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

Portrait of a Jurist between Obedience and Rebellion  •  562

ʿAbd Allāh al-Qasrī (d. 126/743), during his governorship of Iraq, gave a considerable amount 
of gifts or money to Zayd and some of his relatives, and that Caliph Hishām interrogated 
Zayd when he was informed about this.28 Another set of reports mentions that Zayd and 
his cousin had a disagreement about the endowments (awqāf) that the family had inherited 
from ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib and the case was again brought to Hishām.29 Either way, Hishām’s 
ill-treatment of and demeaning behavior toward Zayd ignited the rebellion. However, 
according to the historian al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), Zayd himself identifed the following 
reasons behind his call to action:

We summon you to the Book of God and the sunna of His Prophet, and to wage war 
against those who act tyrannically, to defend those who have been oppressed, to give 
pensions to those who have been deprived of them, to distribute this booty (fayʾ) 
equally among those who are entitled to it, to make restitution to those who have been 
wronged, to bring home those who have been detained on the frontiers, and to help 
the ahl al-bayt against those who have opposed us and disregard[ed] our just cause.30

According to this report, the motive behind the rebellion was the injustices committed by 
the Umayyads against some members of society and the ahl al-bayt (descendants of the 
Prophet) in particular. Zayd b. ʿAlī chose Kufa as the center of his movement to meet these 
objectives because of the encouragement of the Kufans.31 Several relatives of Zayd warned 
him not to trust the Kufans because they had betrayed his grandfather Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī.32 But 
Zayd did not heed these warnings, and as his relatives predicted, very few people ultimately 
stood by his side. Zayd was killed, and his rebellion failed in 122/740.33

Even though Zayd’s rebellion was not successful in the end, the sources list some ʿulamāʾ 
who were sympathetic to Zayd’s cause, and they include Abū Ḥanīfa in the list.34 Some also 
mention that Abū Ḥanīfa was Zayd’s student and consider his support for Zayd a natural 
result of this connection.35 However, Eren Gündüz argues that even though Zayd and 

28.  Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh al-umam wa-l-mulūk, ed. A. Ṣ. al-Karmī (Riyadh: 
Bayt al-Afkār al-Dawliyya, n.d.), 1369–70.

29.  Ibid., 1370–71.
30.  Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, The History of al-Ṭabarī, vol. 26, The Waning of the 

Umayyad Caliphate, trans. C. Hillenbrand (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), 23; al-Ṭabarī, 
Tārīkh, 1373. I would like to thank Hannah-Lena Hagemann for drawing my attention to the fact that 
almost identical phrases are used by historians in connection with different rebellions, as illustrated by 
her article on Muṭarrif b. al-Mughīra al-Thaqafī in this issue.

31.  Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, 1371–72.
32.  Ibid., 1371–73; Abū al-Ḥasan al-Masʿūdī, Murūj al-dhahab wa-maʿādin al-jawhar, ed. K. Ḥ. Marʿī 

(Beirut: al-Maktaba al-ʿAṣriyya, 2005), 3:170.
33.  Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, 1379; al-Masʿūdī, Murūj al-dhahab, 3:171; Ibn al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī, Shadharāt 

al-dhahab fī akhbār man dhahab, ed. ʿA. Q. al-Arnāʾūṭ and M. al-Arnāʾūṭ (Beirut: Dār Ibn Kathīr, 1988), 
2:92–93.

34.  Abū al-Faraj al-Iṣfahānī, Maqātil al-Ṭalibiyyīn, ed. K. al-Muẓaffar, 2nd ed. (Najaf: al-Maṭbaʿa 
al-Ḥaydariyya, 1965), 98–101; Ibn al-ʿImād, Shadharāt al-dhahab, 2:92.

35.  See, for example, J. Givony, “The Murjiʾa and the Theological School of Abū Ḥanīfa: A Historical and 



563  •  Ayşegül şimşek

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

Abū Ḥanīfa were indeed acquainted, there was no master-student relationship between 
the two, as Abū Ḥanīfa was already a renowned scholar when he first met Zayd in Kufa.36  
This would make Abū Ḥanīfa’s support for Zayd’s uprising even more significant in terms 
of his stance on rebellions against unjust rulers, as it would constitute not just a favor 
to a mentor but an indication of his belief in the legitimacy of the movement. Such an 
interpretation is supported by reports about the conversation that took place between 
Abū Ḥanīfa and the messenger whom Zayd sent to him at the beginning of his rebellion. 
According to one report, Abū Ḥanīfa asked the messenger first and foremost about the 
fuqahāʾ (Muslim jurists) who had joined Zayd. When the messenger told him the names, 
Abū Ḥanīfa entrusted him with a fair amount of money and asked him to pass the following 
message to Zayd: “I have aid and power for you in the jihad against your enemy. You and 
your companions should use it [to buy] riding animals and weapons.” The messenger then 
carried the money to Zayd, and Zayd accepted it.37 According to another report, Abū Ḥanīfa 
told the messenger: “If I knew that people would not leave him as they left his father [i.e., 
his grandfather Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī], I would fight on his side because he is the just imam. Still, 
I will help him with my property.” He then gave the messenger ten thousand dirhams and 
requested that his excuse be conveyed to Zayd.38 In another account, the amount of money 
he sent to Zayd is thirty thousand dirhams.39 

The sources offer a variety of reasons to explain why Abū Ḥanīfa did not support Zayd by 
active participation in his revolt beyond the abovementioned doubts he entertained about 
the rebellion’s ultimate success. Al-Qurashī (d. 775/1373) narrates that Abū Ḥanīfa could not 
join the rebellion because he was ill.40 According to another account in the same source, Abū 
Ḥanīfa had said that Zayd’s uprising resembled the Prophet’s standing up against Meccan 
rule in the Battle of Badr, prompting someone to ask why he had not joined Zayd himself if 
this was how he saw Zayd’s cause. Abū Ḥanīfa explained that he was responsible for guarding 
a great number of goods that people had entrusted to him. He had asked Ibn Abī Laylā  
(d. 148/765) to take over this responsibility, but he had refused. Abū Ḥanīfa was supposedly 
afraid of dying before being able to return the goods to their owners. Nevertheless, after 
Zayd’s death in battle Abū Ḥanīfa reportedly cried whenever he remembered Zayd.41 

Ideological Study” (PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1977), 231–32.
36.  E. Gündüz, “The Relationship between Abū Ḥanīfa and Zayd ibn ʿAlī: An Assessment in the Context 

of an Account in al-Majmūʿ al-Fiqhī,” Ilahiyat Studies 2, no. 2 (2011): 189–213, at 203–9.
37.  Al-Iṣfahānī, Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn, 99–100.
38.  Al-Qurashī, al-Jawāhir al-muḍiyya, 1:496.
39.  Ibn al-ʿImād, Shadharāt al-dhahab, 2:92.
40.  Al-Qurashī, al-Jawāhir al-muḍiyya, 1:496.
41.  Ibid. According to Cem Zorlu, this report’s authenticity is doubtful for several reasons. First, a 

comparison between the Battle of Badr and Zayd’s uprising seems like an exaggeration. Second, Abū Ḥanīfa 
was not on good terms with Ibn Abī Laylā and could easily have found someone else he could trust instead 
of him. Besides, Ibn Abī Laylā was serving as the qadi of Kufa at that time. Thus, asking a state agent for 
help to join a rebellion against the government is irrational. See C. Zorlu, Âlim ve Muhalif: İmam-ı Azam 
Ebu Hanife’nin Siyasî Otorite Karşısındaki Tutumu, 2nd ed. (Istanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 2013), 137–38.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

Portrait of a Jurist between Obedience and Rebellion  •  564

How should we judge these reports about Abū Ḥanīfa’s secret support for Zayd’s ʿAlid 
revolt against the Umayyads? Even though they offer different explanations for Abū Ḥanīfa’s 
unwillingness to fight openly alongside Zayd b. ʿAlī, they all agree that Abū Ḥanīfa supported 
Zayd financially and acknowledged the rightfulness of his uprising. However, none of these 
sources can offer verifiable evidence of Abū Ḥanīfa’s participation. Support in secret leaves 
few traces because its purpose is precisely to remain invisible. This might also explain why 
Abū Ḥanīfa suffered no consequences for his support for the revolt: his assistance remained 
secret or at least hidden enough for the Umayyad authorities to tolerate it tacitly. It is 
striking that the reports that agree with al-Jaṣṣāṣ’s interpretation of Abū Ḥanīfa’s role stem 
not only from Ḥanafī sources but also from sources of different backgrounds. For example, 
among the authors cited here, al-Qurashī was a Ḥanafī whereas Ibn al-ʿImād was a Ḥanbalī. 
Abū Ḥanīfa’s support for Zayd is acknowledged even in a Shīʿite source. Muḥammad b. Jaʿfar 
al-Ṣādiq (d. 203/818), who himself started a rebellion against the Abbasid caliph al-Maʿmūn 
in the year 200/815, is reported to have said: “God bless Abū Ḥanīfa. He proved his love for 
us by helping Zayd b. ʿAlī.”42 Conversely, we might wonder whether the support of a public 
figure such as Abū Ḥanīfa, as reported in these sources, could have been kept a secret from 
the Umayyads or could have been countenanced by the authorities without immediate 
repercussions.43 The sources that report Abū Ḥanīfa’s secret support seem almost wishful 
for his participation, offering rather far-fetched and less than convincing justifications for 
his lack of active involvement, such as being ill or being a trustee. They also do not explain 
why Abū Ḥanīfa needed to be secretive in his support for Zayd. If he was willing to fight 
alongside Zayd but was not able to do so for such contingent reasons, he could at least have 
declared his allegiance openly. In comparison, the report that explains Abū Ḥanīfa’s secrecy 
and unwillingness in terms of his doubts about the success of the undertaking provides a 
more plausible reason and is corroborated by the accounts about Zayd’s relatives’ predicting 
his failure.  

In short, although it is impossible to establish the degree and form of Abū Ḥanīfa’s 
support for Zayd’s revolt with certainty, the formulation of the reports shows that these 
writers leaned toward the idea of a somewhat politically activist Abū Ḥanīfa. Moreover, in 
view of the variety of their affiliations, it is hard to claim that these sources had a common 
interest in presenting Abū Ḥanīfa in a certain way. As Khaled Abou El Fadl puts it, “these 
reports are, for the most part, ahistorical but it would not be surprising if Abū Ḥanīfa did, in 
fact, sympathize with Zayd’s rebellion but refrained from a public endorsement because he 
was sure that it would fail.”44

42.  Al-Iṣfahānī, Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn, 99; Zorlu, Âlim ve Muhalif, 135.
43.  Van Ess mentions that the governor gave Abū Ḥanīfa a serious warning at the time of Zayd’s revolt. 

He adds, however, that later idealization makes it hard to discern the link between these cases. Van Ess, 
Theology and Society, 1:215.

44.  Abou El Fadl, Rebellion and Violence, 73.



565  •  Ayşegül şimşek

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

Abū Ḥanīfa and the Rebellions of Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Nafs al-Zakiyya and Ibrāhīm b. 
ʿAbd Allāh

Whereas Abū Ḥanīfa’s support for Zayd’s rebellion cannot be confirmed, it is more likely 
that he got involved openly in the ʿAlid revolt of Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī (d. 
145/763) and even that this involvement was the cause of Abū Ḥanīfa’s death by torture in 
the Abbasid caliph’s prison. Not long after Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh’s abovementioned feeble effort 
to criticize Abū Muslim, the Abbasids faced a much more severe threat from the brothers 
Muḥammad and Ibrāhīm, sons of ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ḥasan and great-grandsons of the Prophet 
Muḥammad. The Abbasids’ propaganda had been based on the call to transfer the caliphate 
back to the Prophet’s family, and this call had garnered them the ʿAlids’ support. However, 
soon after the Abbasids came to power, it became evident that they had no intention of 
giving any political authority to the ʿAlid family.45 Against this background, the two brothers 
were motivated to rise in revolt against the second Abbasid caliph, Abū Jaʿfar al-Manṣūr.46 
As Teresa Bernheimer points out with reference to the historian al-Masʿūdī (d. 345/956), the 
importance of the brothers’ attempt lies in the fact that “it set for the first time one branch 
of the Prophet’s family against another.”47

Muḥammad b. ʿAbd Allāh, also known as al-Nafs al-Zakiyya (“the pure soul”),48 revolted 
in Medina in 145/76249 and was soon followed in rebellion by his brother Ibrāhīm in Basra.50 
The brothers had probably planned to start the rebellion together, but Abū Jaʿfar’s strategy 
forced them to act separately. Muḥammad was forced to face Abū Jaʿfar’s army with very 
few of his followers, and he was killed during the battle.51 From this point on, Ibrāhīm was 
compelled to undertake the mission alone. However, even though he posed a more serious 
threat to the Abbasids than his brother had done,52 he could not overcome Abū Jaʿfar’s 
forces, and he, too, was killed in the same year.53 These rebellions also resulted in the deaths 

45.  T. Bernheimer, The ʿAlids: The First Family of Islam, 750–1200 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University 
Press, 2013), 4. 

46.  Patricia Crone argues that the famous Hāshimite slogan al-riḍā min ahl al-bayt meant that the 
Hāshimite house did not have a specific Abbasid, as opposed to ʿAlid, caliphal candidate, and instead 
campaigned for a communal agreement, i.e., a shūrā, within the Prophet’s family. She calls attention to 
accounts about an attempt at such an agreement in al-Abwāʾ before the revolution, where several ʿ Alid and 
Abbasid figures acknowledged al-Nafs al-Zakiyya’s leadership. Reportedly, the future Abbasid caliph Abū 
Jaʿfar was among the participants. P. Crone, “On the Meaning of the ʿ Abbasid Call to al-Riḍā,” in The Islamic 
World from Classical to Modern Times: Essays in Honor of Bernard Lewis, ed. C. E. Bosworth, C. Issawi, R. 
Savory, and A. L. Udovich, 95–111 (Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1989), at 99-100. The authenticity of this 
report is disputed, but if it is true, it reveals one of the major reasons behind the two brothers’ revolts.

47.  Bernheimer, ʿAlids, 5; al-Masʿūdī, Murūj al-dhahab, 4:250.
48.  For a detailed discussion of this title, see A. Elad, The Rebellion of Muḥammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyya in 

145/762: Ṭālibīs and Early ʿAbbāsīs in Conflict (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 36–44. 
49.  Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, 1525; al-Masʿūdī, Murūj al-dhahab, 3:245.
50.  Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, 1550; al-Masʿūdī, Murūj al-dhahab, 3:245.
51.  Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, 1534–37; al-Masʿūdī, Murūj al-dhahab, 3:245.
52.  H. Kennedy, The Early Abbasid Caliphate: A Political History (New York: Routledge, 2016), 68.
53.  Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, 1560; al-Masʿūdī, Murūj al-dhahab, 3:246.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

Portrait of a Jurist between Obedience and Rebellion  •  566

of various members of the Ḥasanid family, including ʿAbd Allāh b. al-Ḥasan, the father of 
Muḥammad and Ibrāhīm. However, most of them did not die on the battlefield; they were 
tortured to death in prison for refusing to turn the brothers in.54

Almost all prominent scholars of the time, including Abū Ḥanīfa, are reported to have 
been in favor of these revolts.55 It is significant that Abū Ḥanīfa is associated predominantly 
with Ibrāhīm’s rebellion rather than with Muḥammad’s. This is most likely because Ibrāhīm 
revolted in Basra, a city that is closer to Abū Ḥanīfa’s hometown, Kufa, than is the center 
of Muḥammad’s revolt, Medina.56 It is noted in numerous reports that Abū Ḥanīfa not 
only supported Ibrāhīm’s revolt but also encouraged people to actively participate in it.57  
In contrast to Zayd b. ʿAlī’s rebellion, which Abū Ḥanīfa is reported to have aided in secret, 
he apparently did not feel the need to hide his fervent support for Ibrāhīm’s movement. In a 
widely circulated report, Abū Ḥanīfa’s well-known student Zufar b. al-Hudhayl (d. 158/775) 
expresses distress over his mentor’s open support for Ibrāhīm’s rebellion and the fatwas he 
issued in favor of it: “By God, you will not end this until the rope is fastened to our necks.”58 
Zufar’s warning is noteworthy because the sources use it to demonstrate the level that Abū 
Ḥanīfa’s support reached and the concerns it caused among his closest acquaintances. 

According to some reports, Abū Ḥanīfa’s support for the cause was not limited to 
encouraging people to revolt with Ibrāhīm; he also discouraged opponents of the revolt, 
as in a story about Caliph Abū Jaʿfar’s commander al-Ḥasan b. Qaḥṭaba (d. 181/797). When 
al-Ḥasan supposedly felt remorse for the misdeeds he had committed in that role, he asked 
Abū Ḥanīfa whether God would accept his repentance and forgive him. Abū Ḥanīfa replied 
that if al-Ḥasan were ever in a position to decide between the life of an innocent person and 
his own life and he chose himself (i.e., he chose to die instead of killing an innocent person), 
God would forgive him. Reportedly, al-Ḥasan b. Qaḥṭaba thereupon took an oath to never 
kill a Muslim again. After this encounter, Ibrāhīm’s rebellion in Basra broke out, and Abū 
Jaʿfar ordered al-Ḥasan to lead the army against Ibrāhīm’s forces. When al-Ḥasan informed 
Abū Ḥanīfa about this and asked for his advice, Abū Ḥanīfa reminded him that it was time 
for him to prove the sincerity of his repentance. Consequently, and much to Abū Jaʿfar’s 
annoyance, al-Ḥasan refused to lead the army against Ibrāhīm. Abū Jaʿfar investigated the 
reason behind al-Ḥasan’s odd behavior and learned that he had been visiting Abū Ḥanīfa.59 
According to this report, even among Abū Jaʿfar’s high-ranking officials some individuals 

54.  Al-Ṭabarī, Tārīkh, 1519–23; al-Masʿūdī, Murūj al-dhahab, 3:247–48.
55.  For a list of the ʿulamāʾ who supported Muḥammad’s rebellion, see Elad, Rebellion, 363–73; and for 

Ibrāhīm’s rebellion, see Zorlu, Âlim ve Muhalif, 238–39.
56.  Zorlu, Âlim ve Muhalif, 269.
57.  See, for example, al-Iṣfahānī, Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn, 242, 251.
58.  Ibn Abī al-ʿAwwām al-Saʿdī, Faḍāʾil Abī Ḥanīfa wa-akhbāruhu wa-manāqibuh, ed. L. R. al-Bahrāʾijī 

al-Qāsimī (Mecca: al-Maktaba al-Imdādiyya, 2010), 114–15; Abū Bakr al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Tārīkh madīnat 
al-salām, ed. B. ʿA. Maʿrūf (Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 2001), 15:452; al-Iṣfahānī, Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn, 
240; Abū ʿUmar Jamāl al-Dīn b. ʿAbd al-Barr al-Namarī, al-Intiqāʾ fī faḍāʾil al-aʾimma al-thalātha al-fuqahāʾ, 
ed. ʿA. F. Abū Ghudda (Beirut: Maktab al-Maṭbūʿāt al-Islāmiyya, 1997), 323; Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ṣaymarī, 
Akhbār Abī Ḥanīfa wa-aṣḥābih, 2nd ed. (Beirut: ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1985), 92.

59.  Al-Qurashī, al-Jawāhir al-muḍiyya, 2:503.



567  •  Ayşegül şimşek

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

doubted the legitimacy of his rule. What is more, Abū Ḥanīfa seemed willing to use his 
influence to encourage such a view of the caliph’s position.

A third way in which the reports suggest that Abū Ḥanīfa was involved in Ibrāhīm’s 
rebellion was by providing strategic guidance. According to one report, he wrote a letter 
to Ibrāhīm and recommended that he secretly move the center of his movement to Kufa, 
as Zayd b. ʿAlī’s followers were ready to help him there. He also informed Ibrāhīm that his 
Shīʿite followers were planning to abduct Abū Jaʿfar and bring him to Ibrāhīm.60 A different 
report claims that Abū Ḥanīfa wrote to Ibrāhīm a detailed description of the principles he 
should follow in the fight against Abū Jaʿfar’s army and made a significant comparison: he 
told Ibrāhīm that if he gained an advantage in the battle over his enemies, he should treat 
them as his father (i.e., his great-grandfather ʿAlī) treated his opponents in the Battle of 
Ṣiffīn, and not as he treated them in the Battle of the Camel. According to Abū Ḥanīfa, the 
difference between these two battles was that at Ṣiffīn, ʿAlī’s opponents had a backup group 
(fiʾa) that was able to assist them when they needed help, whereas in the Battle of the Camel 
they did not have one. Thus, ʿAlī killed the wounded and chased the fugitives at Ṣiffīn, but 
he spared their lives after the Battle of the Camel. Abū Ḥanīfa suggested that because Abū 
Jaʿfar’s army had backup forces, Ibrāhīm should kill the wounded and the fugitives as ʿAlī 
had done.61 

Even though Abū Ḥanīfa’s letter seems merely to give Ibrāhīm tactical advice, it bore dire 
consequences for its author. It is reported that Abū Jaʿfar got hold of the letter and became 
aware of Abū Ḥanīfa’s critical support for the revolt. To test him further, he wrote a forged 
letter to Abū Ḥanīfa using Ibrāhīm’s name. Unaware of the deception, Abū Ḥanīfa wrote 
an uncensored letter back.62 Abū Jaʿfar’s knowledge of Abū Ḥanīfa’s support for Ibrāhīm’s 
rebellion is most probably responsible for Abū Ḥanīfa’s death. The sources do not indicate 
that Abū Jaʿfar punished Abū Ḥanīfa immediately after the rebellion had been suppressed. 
Instead, according to various reports, he first asked Abū Ḥanīfa to be the qadi of Kufa 
after the death of the former qadi, Ibn Abī Laylā, and when Abū Ḥanīfa did not comply, 
the caliph had him imprisoned and tortured until he died.63 The reports about Abū Jaʿfar’s 
offer of the judgeship to Abū Ḥanīfa may seem suspicious, as one would not expect the 

60.  Al-Iṣfahānī, Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn, 243. If there was indeed such a letter, it shows that Abū Ḥanīfa 
maintained his connection with Zayd b. ʿAlī’s supporters even after the end of the latter’s revolt and was 
well aware of their plans. It is also worth noting that the revolts of Zayd b. ʿAlī and the two brothers 
are somewhat connected in the sense that they were supported by similar groups. Al-Nafs al-Zakiyya 
is considered a Zaydī imam, and his rebellion is often regarded as a Zaydī movement (Elad, Rebellion, 
46–47). Additionally, Zayd b. ʿAlī’s sons were reportedly actively involved in the revolt of the brothers; see 
al-Iṣfahānī, Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn, 186, 258; N. Haider, The Origins of the Shīʿa: Identity, Ritual, and Sacred 
Space in Eighth-Century Kūfa (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 204.

61.  Al-Iṣfahānī, Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn, 243–44; Abū al-ʿAbbās Jamāl al-Dīn b. ʿInaba, ʿUmdat al-ṭālib fī 
ansāb āl Abī Ṭālib, ed. M. Ḥ. Āl al-Ṭāliqānī, 2nd ed. (Najaf: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Ḥaydariyya, 1961), 109.

62.  Al-Iṣfahānī, Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn, 244; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Intiqāʾ, 324.
63.  For various reports about Abū Ḥanīfa’s death, see Ibn Abī al-ʿAwwām, Faḍāʾil Abī Ḥanīfa, 69–70; Ibn 

Ḥajar al-Haytamī, al-Khayrāt al-ḥisān fī manāqib al-Imām Abī Ḥanīfa al-Nuʿmān (Damascus: Dār al-Hudā 
wa-l-Rashād, 2007), 144–46, 151; al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Tārīkh, 15:450–52; al-Ṣaymarī, Akhbār Abī Ḥanīfa, 
92–93; al-Iṣfahānī, Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn, 244; al-Qurashī, al-Jawāhir al-muḍiyya, 2:503.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

Portrait of a Jurist between Obedience and Rebellion  •  568

caliph to be keen to appoint as judge someone known to have been supportive of a recent 
revolt.64 In this respect, the Shāfiʿī scholar Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī (d. 974/1567) provides an 
insight into Abū Jaʿfar’s possible motives. He narrates that, according to some, Abū Ḥanīfa’s 
refusal of the post did not justify killing him, and the real reason behind his execution was 
his involvement in Ibrāhīm’s movement. Abū Jaʿfar was afraid of Abū Ḥanīfa’s inclination 
toward Ibrāhīm because Abū Ḥanīfa was a prominent individual with a large fortune he had 
earned from trade. After the rebellion, Abū Jaʿfar did not dare kill him without an excuse, so 
he offered Abū Ḥanīfa the position knowing that Abū Ḥanīfa would not accept it.65 In other 
words, even if, as reported, the caliph offered Abū Ḥanīfa the judgeship, it is unlikely that 
his involvement in the rebellion had been forgotten; instead, the appointment could have 
been seen as a way to publicly co-opt Abū Ḥanīfa for the cause of Abbasid legitimacy. In this 
case, Abū Ḥanīfa’s alleged refusal of the post would have been seen as a public rejection 
of Abbasid authority. Indeed, if Abū Ḥanīfa’s sole crime had been refusing the judgeship, 
imprisonment and torture would have been much too severe a punishment. Everything 
points to the real reason being the caliph’s wish to punish Abū Ḥanīfa for his support of the 
rebellion.

To summarize, several sources claim that Abū Ḥanīfa was involved in or, at the very 
least, supportive of the revolts of Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbd Allāh and his brother Muḥammad. 
These sources, again, reflect diverse backgrounds and are not uniform in their tone or 
implications. Compared to the accounts about Zayd b. ʿAlī’s rebellion, these are both more 
detailed and more confident about Abū Ḥanīfa’s partiality for the brothers’ movement. Abū 
Ḥanīfa might, in fact, have shown his support more explicitly in the latter case because the 
brothers’ revolts were better organized than Zayd’s had been and had higher chances of 
success. It is likely that because of this explicit support, Abū Ḥanīfa provoked caliph Abū 
Jaʿfar’s wrath and was eventually killed.

Conclusion

This paper has examined conflicting narratives about Abū Ḥanīfa’s opinions on rebellion 
versus obedience to unjust rulers. Abū Ḥanīfa lived through some of the most ambitious 
revolts against the Umayyad and Abbasid authorities, and hints of his approach to baghy in 
his student al-Shaybānī’s (d. 189/805) Kitāb al-Aṣl constitute one of the earliest discussions 
of the legal repercussions of rebellion among Muslim jurists. However, whether Abū Ḥanīfa 
permitted rebellion against unjust rulers or defended obedience to them is not quite clear. 
On the basis of Fiqh absaṭ, a work that is attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa but in which the relevant 
passages date from a noticeably later time, some Ḥanafī scholars depict him as someone who 
accepted the rule of the unjust and thus opposed rebellion regardless of the ruler’s actions. 
On the other hand, certain Ḥanafī scholars with Muʿtazilite tendencies, such as al-Jaṣṣāṣ, 
objected to this image of Abū Ḥanīfa and claimed that far from recognizing the legitimacy 
of unjust rulers, he regarded armed rebellion against such rulers as a means of performing 

64.  Van Ess thinks that Abū Ḥanīfa’s imprisonment was probably caused by his support for the brothers’ 
revolt and had nothing to do with his refusal to serve as a judge. Van Ess, Theology and Society, 1:214, 241.

65.  Al-Haytamī, al-Khayrāt al-ḥisān, 151–52.



569  •  Ayşegül şimşek

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

the duty of enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ further argued that Abū 
Ḥanīfa did not hesitate to put his beliefs into practice, as he actively supported the revolt of 
Zayd b. ʿAlī against Umayyad rule in 122/740 and the revolts of the brothers Muḥammad b. 
ʿAbd Allāh (al-Nafs al-Zakiyya) and Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbd Allāh against Abbasid rule in 145/762–63. 
Several historical and biographical sources by authors from various backgrounds confirm 
Abū Ḥanīfa’s involvement in these rebellions, especially his open support for Ibrāhīm 
b. ʿAbd Allāh’s revolt and his consequent death by torture in Caliph Abū Jaʿfar’s prison. 
These sources are, of course, not exempt from questions concerning their historicity. But 
although it is difficult to establish definitively what Abū Ḥanīfa’s views on rebellion against 
unjust rulers were, he was probably an opponent of the requirement of unconditional 
obedience to rulers, and he likely supported several rebellions in one form or another. What 
can be stated with greater certainty is that a quietist image of Abū Ḥanīfa was promoted by 
scholars such as al-Bazdawī and Ibn al-Humām in later times and even inserted into a work 
that ascribed directly to him, namely, Fiqh absaṭ.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

Portrait of a Jurist between Obedience and Rebellion  •  570

Bibliography 

Abou El Fadl, K. Rebellion and Violence in Islamic Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press, 2001.

ʿAbd Allāh b. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. Kitāb al-Sunna. Edited by M. b. S. 
al-Qaḥṭānī. Dammam: Dār Ibn al-Qayyim, 1986.

Abū Ḥanīfa, al-Nuʿmān b. Thābit. Al-Fiqh al-akbar. Edited by M. b. ʿ A. R. al-Khumayyis. Ajman: 
Maktabat al-Furqān, 1999.

ʿĀlim b. ʿ Alāʾ al-Andarpatī, Farīd al-Dīn. Al-Fatāwā al-Tatarkhāniyya. Edited by Sh. A. al-Qāsimī. 
Deoband; Maktabat al-Zakariyyā, 2014. 

Badawi, N. Islamic Jurisprudence on the Regulation of Armed Conflict. Leiden: Brill, 2020.

al-Bazdawī, Abū al-Yusr. Uṣūl al-dīn. Edited by H. P. Linss. Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Azhariyya 
li-l-Turāth, 2003.

Bernheimer, T. The ʿAlids: The First Family of Islam, 750–1200. Edinburgh: Edinburgh 
University Press, 2013. 

Boynukalın, M. İmam Muhammed b. Hasan eş-Şeybânî’nin Kitâbü’l-Asl Adlı Eserinin Tanıtımı 
ve Fıkıh Usulü Açısından Tahlili. Istanbul: Ocak Yayıncılık, 2009.

Cook, M. Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press, 2004.

Crone, P. “On the Meaning of the ʿ Abbasid Call to al-Riḍā.” In The Islamic World from Classical 
to Modern Times: Essays in Honor of Bernard Lewis, edited by C. E. Bosworth, C. Issawi, 
R. Savory, and A. L. Udovich, 95–111. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1989.

Elad, A. The Rebellion of Muḥammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyya in 145/762: Ṭālibīs and Early ʿAbbāsīs 
in Conflict. Leiden: Brill, 2016.

Givony, J. “The Murjiʾa and the Theological School of Abū Ḥanīfa: A Historical and Ideological 
Study.” PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1977.

Gölcük, Ş., and A. Bebek. “El-Fıkhu’l-Ekber.” In Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslâm Ansiklopedisi 
(DİA), 12:544–45. Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, 1995.

Gündüz, E. “The Relationship between Abū Ḥanīfa and Zayd ibn ʿAlī: An Assessment in the 
Context of an Account in al-Majmūʿ al-Fiqhī.” Ilahiyat Studies 2, no. 2 (2011): 189–213.

Haider, N. “Ḥamza b. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam, 3rd ed., edited by Kate 
Fleet et al. Leiden: Brill Online.

———. The Origins of the Shīʿa: Identity, Ritual, and Sacred Space in Eighth-Century Kūfa. 
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 



571  •  Ayşegül şimşek

Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

al-Haytamī, Ibn Ḥajar Abū al-ʿAbbās Shihāb al-Dīn. Al-Khayrāt al-ḥisān fī manāqib al-Imām 
Abī Ḥanīfa al-Nuʿmān. Damascus: Dār al-Hudā wa-l-Rashād, 2007. 

Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Abū ʿUmar Jamāl al-Dīn al-Namarī. Al-Intiqāʾ fī faḍāʾil al-aʾimma al-thalātha 
al-fuqahāʾ. Edited by ʿA. F. Abū Ghudda. Beirut: Maktab al-Maṭbūʿāt al-Islāmiyya, 1997.

Ibn Abī al-ʿAwwām, ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad al-Saʿdī. Faḍāʾil Abī Ḥanīfa wa-akhbāruhu 
wa-manāqibuh. Edited by L. R. al-Bahrāʾijī al-Qāsimī. Mecca: al-Maktaba al-Imdādiyya, 
2010.

Ibn Abī Sharīf, Kamāl al-Dīn. Kitāb al-Musāmara fī sharḥ al-Musāyara. 2nd ed. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat 
al-Saʿāda, 1347/1928–29.

Ibn al-Humām, Kamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wāḥid. Fatḥ al-Qadīr. Edited by ʿA. R. Gh. 
al-Mahdī. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 2003.

Ibn al-ʿImād, ʿ Abd al-Ḥayy b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Ḥanbalī. Shadharāt al-dhahab fī akhbār 
man dhahab. Edited by ʿA. Q. al-Arnāʾūṭ and M. al-Arnāʾūṭ. Beirut: Dār Ibn Kathīr, 1988.

Ibn ʿInaba, Abū al-ʿAbbās Jamāl al-Dīn Aḥmad b. ʿAlī. ʿUmdat al-ṭālib fī ansāb āl Abī Ṭālib. 
Edited by M. Ḥ. Āl al-Ṭāliqānī. 2nd ed. Najaf: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Ḥaydariyya, 1961.

al-Iṣfahānī, Abū al-Faraj ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn. Maqātil al-Ṭālibiyyīn. Edited by K. al-Muẓaffar. 2nd 
ed. Najaf: al-Maṭbaʿa al-Ḥaydariyya, 1965.

al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Abū Bakr Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Rāzī. Aḥkām al-Qurʾān. Edited by M. Ṣ. al-Qamḥāwī. 
Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-ʿArabī, 1985.

Kennedy, H. The Early Abbasid Caliphate: A Political History. New York: Routledge, 2016.

al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Abū Bakr Aḥmad b. ʿAlī. Tārīkh madīnat al-salām. Edited by B. ʿA. 
Maʿrūf. Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī, 2001.

Kutlu, S. Türklerin İslamlaşma Sürecinde Mürcie ve Tesirleri. 2nd ed. Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet 
Vakfı, 2002.

al-Masʿūdī, Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī. Murūj al-dhahab wa-maʿādin al-jawhar. 
Edited by K. Ḥ. Marʿī. Beirut: al-Maktaba al-ʿAṣriyya, 2005.

al-Qurashī, Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Qādir. Al-Jawāhir al-muḍiyya fī ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanafīyya. 
Karachi: Mīr Muḥammad Kutubkhāna, n.d.

Rudolph, U. Al-Māturīdī and the Development of Sunnī Theology in Samarqand. Translated 
by R. Adem. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

al-Sarakhsī, Abū Bakr Shams al-Aʾimma Muḥammad b. Abī Sahl. Kitāb al-Mabsūṭ. Beirut: Dār 
al-Maʿrifa, 1993.



Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 30 (2022)

Portrait of a Jurist between Obedience and Rebellion  •  572

al-Ṣaymarī, Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī. Akhbār Abī Ḥanīfa wa-aṣḥābih. 2nd ed. Beirut: 
ʿĀlam al-Kutub, 1985.

al-Shaybānī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan. Al-Aṣl. Edited by M. Boynukalın. Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, 
2012.

al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad b. Jarīr. The History of al-Ṭabarī. Vol. 26, The Waning of 
the Umayyad Caliphate. Translated by C. Hillenbrand. Albany: State University of New 
York Press, 1989.

———. Tārīkh al-umam wa-l-mulūk. Edited by A. Ṣ. al-Karmī. Riyadh: Bayt al-Afkār al-Dawliyya, 
n.d.

Tabassum, S. “Discourse on the Legality of Rebellion in the Ḥanafi Jurisprudence.” Peshawar 
Islamicus 8, no. 2 (2017): 15–30.

Thomas, D. “Heresiographical Works.” In Encyclopedia of Islamic Civilization and Religion, 
edited by I. R. Netton, 226–29. New York: Routledge, 2008.

van Ess, J. “Kritisches zum Fiqh akbar.” In Kleine Schriften, edited by H. Biesterfeldt, 749–62. 
Leiden: Brill, 2018.

———. Theology and Society in the Second and Third Centuries of the Hijra: A History of 
Religious Thought in Early Islam. Translated by J. O’Kane. Leiden: Brill, 2017. 

Watt, W. M. The Formative Period of Islamic Thought. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University 
Press, 1973.

Wensinck, A. J. The Muslim Creed: Its Genesis and Historical Development. New York: 
Routledge, 2008.

Yılmaz, A. “Hanefi Mezhebinin Rical ve Kitabiyatına Dair Bazı Tetkikat.” Rıhle Dergisi, no. 11 
(2011): 61–66.

al-Zamakhsharī, Abū al-Qāsim Maḥmūd b. ʿ Umar. Al-Kashshāf ʿ an ḥaqāʾiq ghawāmiḍ al-tanzīl. 
3rd ed. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿArabī, 1407/1986–87.

Zawadi, B. “Imam Abu Hanifah (d. 148 A.H.)—Regarding Rebellion against Unjust Rulers.” 
Unpublished paper. Accessed September 4, 2021. https://www.academia.edu/25169471/
Imam_Abu_Hanifah_d_148_A_H_Regarding_Rebellion_Against_Unjust_Rulers. 

Zorlu, C. Âlim ve Muhalif: İmam-ı Azam Ebu Hanife’nin Siyasî Otorite Karşısındaki Tutumu. 
2nd ed. Istanbul: İz Yayıncılık, 2013.

https://www.academia.edu/25169471/Imam_Abu_Hanifah_d_148_A_H_Regarding_Rebellion_Against_Unjust_Rulers
https://www.academia.edu/25169471/Imam_Abu_Hanifah_d_148_A_H_Regarding_Rebellion_Against_Unjust_Rulers