—al-Thaljī—who said, “Muḥammad ibn Samāʿah narrated to us from Abū Yūsuf regarding it.”

Yet this chain is worthless: al-Thaljī has been declared abandoned, as stated in al-Taqrīb, so reliance must rest on the earlier isnāds.

As for the report that al-Khaṭīb records (13/379) through Saʿīd ibn Muslim al-Bāhilī—who said, “We asked Abū Yūsuf, ‘Why do you not relate to us from Abū Ḥanīfah?’ He replied, ‘What would you do with him? The day he died he was still saying, “The Qurʾān is created.”’”—

I say: its attribution to Abū Yūsuf is doubtful, because this al-Bāhilī is unknown as a transmitter. For that reason the scholars ignored him and did not include him in their biographical works; even Ibn Abī Ḥātim, despite the breadth of his book, omits him. The explanation may lie in what al-Khaṭīb mentions at the close of the man’s entry (9/74):

“Originally from Basra, he settled in Khurāsān, and the ruler appointed him to an administrative post in Marw. He then came to Baghdad and transmitted there, reporting from Muḥammad ibn Ziyād ibn al-Aʿrabī, the philologist. He was knowledgeable in ḥadīth and Arabic, yet he would not make himself available to the public.”

There are, to be sure, other reports in the History stating that Abū Ḥanīfah maintained, “The Qurʾān is created.” I examined some of them and found none free of a serious defect—very likely the rest are the same—especially since al-Khaṭīb transmits that Imām Aḥmad said: “Nothing sound has reached us indicating that Abū Ḥanīfah said, ‘The Qurʾān is created.’”

I say: this is precisely what one expects of Imām Abū Ḥanīfah and his knowledge. If something contrary were ever authentically established, it was perhaps before Abū Yūsuf debated him, as the reliable report in the book indicates. When they did debate— and for some reason the exchange lasted six months— they eventually agreed that the Qurʾān is uncreated and that whoever says, “The Qurʾān is created,” is a disbeliever.

In truth, this is among the many proofs of Abū Ḥanīfah’s virtue: pride did not overtake him, nor did he disdain to follow his own student Abū Yūsuf once it became clear that the truth lay with him. May Allah have mercy on him and be pleased with him.

What is most regrettable, however, is that many of his followers—especially the later ones—have re-interpreted his words in a way that nullifies them, by treating them as a reference to the so-called “speech of the self,” as I believe I have already noted. Thus Shaykh al-Kawtharī—the standard-bearer of the later theologians and the critic of the early scholars—remarks on Abū Yūsuf’s debate with Abū Ḥanīfah. After listing the various theological positions on the divine speech and branding the people of ḥadīth “hashwiyyah” for affirming that Allah’s speech consists of letters and sound, declaring that their dissent carries no weight, he says: