whereupon the Master, Abū Ḥāmid al-Isfarāʾīnī, along with a group of others, studied jurisprudence under him. Ultimate expertise in the school came to rest with him. He was known for several distinctive legal positions, among them his view that a salam contract may not be concluded for flour (1).
Abū Ḥāmid used to say, “I have never seen anyone more proficient in fiqh than he.”
Ibn Khallikān relates: “He was suspected of Muʿtazilite leanings, and at times he would adopt an independent choice in issuing a fatwa (2). When this was raised with him, he would reply, ‘Woe to you! So-and-so narrated from so-and-so, from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, such-and-such; acting upon the hadith is preferable to following the opinion of al-Shāfiʿī or Abū Ḥanīfah’ (3).”
I say: That is acceptable—provided that an imam of comparable rank to those two, such as Mālik, Sufyān, or al-Awzāʿī, has also adopted that hadith; that the hadith itself is established and free of defect; and that the proof adduced by Abū Ḥanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī is not another sound hadith that contradicts it.
As for one who follows a sound hadith which all the other leading mujtahids have deliberately avoided, that is not permitted—such as the report, “If he drinks a fourth time, then kill him” (4), and the hadith, “May Allah curse the thief who steals an egg,”
(1) Al-Nawawi said: “One of the rarities reported from al-Daraki is his statement that a salam (forward-sale) contract on flour is impermissible. Al-Rafi‘i transmitted this view, whereas the well-known position is that it is permissible.” See Tahdhib al-asma wa-l-lughat, 2/264.
(2) Ibn Khallikan’s wording is: “He would sometimes issue fatwas contrary to the school of the two Imams, al-Shafi‘i and Abu Hanifa …”
(3) Wafayat al-a‘yan, 3/189. The material enclosed in brackets is taken from that source.
(4) The hadith is sound; its documentation has already been given. The majority of scholars consider it abrogated. Al-Tirmidhi stated in his Sunan, 4/49, after hadith no. 1444: “This applied only at the beginning and was later abrogated.” Thus Muhammad ibn Ishaq reported from Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir, from Jabir, that the Prophet ﷺ said: “If he drinks wine, flog him; if he returns a fourth time, kill him.” Later a man who had drunk a fourth time was brought to the Prophet; he struck him but did not kill him. Al-Zuhri likewise related from Qubaysa ibn Dhuayb a similar report, saying that the order to kill was lifted and replaced with a concession. This remains the practice of the vast majority of scholars; we know of no disagreement among them, early or late. What reinforces this is the fact that it is reported from the Prophet through numerous chains that he =