Talk:Abu Hanifa

Changing his date of birth in Gregorian Calender only

His date of birth in the infobox was 80 Hijri and 699 AD. but as we all know that the difference between Gregorian and Hijri date is 621 or 622 years because our Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) made Hijrat in 622 A.D. so the correct Gregorian date will be 622+80= 702 A.D and similarly his death date should be 150 Hijri or 150+622=772 A.D.

AI generated pictures and sourcing

I don't think AI generated pictures should be used in articles, unless they're articles about AI generated pictures. It's difficult or impossible to assess the accuracy of them, and what sources they draw upon, and it comes close to AI-assisted original research. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

New Source For Article

As-Salamu Alaykum to the Muslim users, and hello for everyone else!

I have found a book source that I think would be perfect for this article,

Ibn Hajar al-Haythami (August 2022). Hussain al-Azhari, Hafiz Ather (ed.). The Greatest Imam: Abu Hanifah al-Nu'man. Translated by Ashraf, Muhammad Nizam. Bolton: Nizami Publications. ISBN 9781739680503.

This is a translation of a medieval classical work, by Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haythami. If not already used in the article, then its addition would definitely benefit the article.

I may also cite it in the future myself! MarjanTheCoralStone (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Persistent changes to the side bar image

Hello All. I've noticed that there appears to be some type of editorial dispute/warring with regards to the side bar image. Namely, it changes between a calligraphic seal and no image. It has made sense to me that a picture of his tomb would be most appropriate. As it is, however, the seal seems to be the popular choice and is then removed by editors who cite MOS:calligraphy. I don't think the recent incarnation of the seal violates MOS:calligraphy because it is not "user generated", it is a digital reproduction of the seal in masjid nabawi. I realize that some editors may still consider that as user generated, and that is the very discussion which recently took place regarding the policy which ended without consensus. i.e. There is no consensus on whether the policy prohibits a digital reproduction such as the one recently used. Photographs of the seal can be found, but they are typically of very poor quality because of the location of it within masjid nabawi coupled with the fact that photography is generally prohibited there.

So, for the editors who keep removing the image because of MOS:calligraphy, I ask

1. Is the problem that the people who keep putting the digital reproduction there that they fail to properly label it in any way as a reproduction of the seal?

2. If your answer is "no" to question 1, would you be satisfied with a low quality photograph?

3. Do you think a picture of his tomb would be better/appropriate?

4. If the answer to all of the above is "no", what do you think would make for a better image? A15730 (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The image should ideally be something illustrative, which means if there are encyclopaedically relevant illustrations that aren't calligraphy or a grave they should be preferred. The illustration from the Cream of Histories isn't just some image but a very famous piece of Islamic art that's representative of general Islamic iconography of Abu Hanfia compare modern depictions such as:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqbbA_n7PyA8-NR5aaAdsoSRpSDC0t3LRveA&s

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRXWQhxcaGmOhuTE_iRrpa52EBC3kfsANuiUA&s

https://www.islamiqate.com/qa-plugin/islamiqa-core/upload/3617.jpg?1597760642

https://zahraa.at/WebRoot/Store/Shops/48397248/5DAA/F71B/A047/DB9C/896E/596E/84E2/3F34/front-cover-abu-hanifa.jpg

19th century Ottoman calligraphy is largely illustrative of other 19th century calligraphy and not much more and the tomb looks quite different now after the most recent renovations funded by the Turkish state.

https://tika.gov.tr/en/detail-tika_renovates_the_shrine_of_imam_al_adham_abu_hanifa_in_baghdad/

While categories like sainthood don't neatly translate from Christian to Islamic contexts, in the case of Abu Hanifa his shrine is a very popular pilgrimage site and there exists a widely held belief that one praying two rakʿatayn at the tomb will be granted Tawasul through it etc. This corresponds to most aspects of sainthood in a Christian context. ("Ora pro nobis...")

Parts of this religious practice are discussed here

https://mrehan786.blogspot.com/2013/02/imam-shafis-tawasul-through-grave-of.html

Therefore a possible lack of accuracy of Ottoman depictions can be disregarded as it's not normal for religious iconography of saints to be quasi-photographic rather they are notable when they conform to the general tropes of the depiction of the saint (here an old man with a turban and beard sitting and teaching etc).

Wikipedia is wp:notcensored that means that considerations of religious offense by iconoclastic groups are beyond this project, which given their necessary absence from this discussion means there is not reason to prefer an outdated image of a shrine or a digitial recreation of a 19th century calligraphic work over common Islamic saint pictures. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, the image has flipped from your illustration to the tomb to calligraphy and back to the tomb since our discussion on your talk page. So, I don't know if this is going to end, but I appreciate that you, at least, are willing to discuss and try to build a consensus. Anyways, some points to throw out:

1. Anyone discussing this should read WP:notcensored and WP:portrait first. Also, Bari' bin Farangi and I already discussed some of these points in general on their talk page. Reading that may give some more depth.
2. The purpose of a side-bar image is to "illustrate" the subject in a manner which lets the reader know they have landed on the correct page. I do not agree that the fact that it should be "illustrative" means that it should be an illustration and therefore not calligraphy or the like. The fact that pictures are preferred to illustrations totally undermines that argument. i.e. If we had a photograph of the subject, we would rarely ever argue that it should be replaced with a drawing.
3. For this and a number of the other illustrations put in similar articles, the illustration fails WP:portrait. While the drawing contains the themes commonly used to represent Abu Hanifa, those themes do not identify Abu Hanifa. i.e. People do not generally identify the picture as Abu Hanifa, unlike those of many Christian icons or most of those currently used for the Islamic prophets. e.g. While also not widely known and totally fictional, somebody looking at the image used for Salih can readily figure out who it represents because the themes uniquely identify Salih.
4. Just because wikipedia is not censored does not mean that the reverse is true and that any image should be put in any place if it can be. WP:gratuitous is a policy as well. If we are trying to present information to people in a manner easy to digest, opening with a sidebar image they find offensive or leads them to jump to the conclusion that we are ignorant of the subject may be counter to that point and it may reinforce the perception that Wikipedia is an "orientalist" endeavor. The constant refrain used by some of saying wikipedia is not censored and so we don't care if you're offended doesn't help. i.e. The fact that "... considerations of religious offense by iconoclastic groups are beyond this project..." should mean that the considerations do not dictate the inclusion or exclusion of material and not that such considerations should have no place in the structuring of the article-- The articles should still be presented in order to be as easily digestible as possible.
5. I didn't do any of the sidebar changes, but I did re-add the portrait to the section actually labeled "Character and Appearance" where it is an excellent addition and fit. I think it can be argued that the tomb picture should be in the section labeled "Adulthood and Death", but this would lead me to the conclusion that the best choice for the sidebar would be the digital recreation of the calligraphy.

A15730 (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I think using the digital calligraphic image comes with the massive problem of it not identifiably being a photograph or not authored by the people writing the article, that coupled with the Islamic honorifics in there ("Razi'llahu 3nh" etc.) seems to me like a clear violation of npov as understood on the English Wikipedia—I know there is a different consensus on Arabic Wikipedia and projects like wikishia.net but for English Wikipedia it is actively discouraged to use honorifics in the article for the problems it causes with npov. The only way I could see this calligraphic work as the sidebar image is if it weren't causing the impression to most readers who actually understand what's written there that it is a statement of faith by the authors of the article in the Islamic god and a statement of goodwill towards Abu Hanifa in particular. Obviously compared to a photograph of the man himself none of this is ideal but if we think of someone unfamiliar with the larger subject reading this article, I think the impression we should give that person is Abu Hanfia was a revered Islamic scholar and for hundreds of years people imagined him to look a little something like this, instead of either a wall of digital text with theistic proclamations in there or an outdated image of a tomb.

Lastly, I don't think that's true with regards to religious offence simply because it's impossible to quantify what someone finds religiously offensive, weighing the religious offence of a non-muslim seeing Wikipedia seemingly praying for an Islamic saint against the religious offence of an iconoclastic Muslim seeing a pictorial image of an Islamic saint is like trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin... There are no common mores or global norms we can draw on wrt iconoclasm. I therefore think the only logical conclusion is to disregard this category of purely religious offence both when deciding what to include and how to structure the article. With regards to WP:GRATUITOUS, I would argue that material that is offensive not because it transgresses by being socially inadequate (in the sense Karl Larenz defined that term) but merely by being incompatible with a particular religious belief held by some groups should not get any special treatment as Wikipedia has a clearly defined policy of religious neutrality which simply cannot co-exist with trying to make articles conform or at least conflict less with certain religious beliefs. Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

We agree concerning the calligraphy. Obviously, there's not a blanket ban as evidenced by the many images of the medallions in Hagia Sophia throughout wikipedia. When people keep adding it without it being a photo and without any type of captioning, however, they should expect that other editors are going to remove it. So, the original questions were aimed at trying to figure out if the calligraphy could be "fixed" to satisfy those concerns.

The second part is a longer discussion which we don't really need to go into as it is a secondary point. I would just say that "yes" we do have to weigh and balance different criteria-- that is part of the role of editors. Furthermore, we should try to harmonize principles rather than use one in order to ignore others. When WP:leadimage suggests "While Wikipedia is not censored, lead images should be selected with care ..." it doesn't put exceptions. The effect and our goal with the readers is still the same. WP:pla should be applied in all cases in order to have the most effective article. What some people seem to not grasp and which I see you regularly push back on (correctly) is the idea that offense should dictate the final inclusion or exclusion of material.

Anyways, I don't think the Ottoman miniature is suitable for the lead image for all the reasons we have discussed before including WP:portrait. I know you think differently, and that's fine. If you say that the calligraphic seals are just too much of a gray area to have for a lead image whether or not they actually violate MOS:calligraphy, I can respect that too. That would leave for the lead image either the image of the grave, no image, or some other image.

Lastly, this subject has been up for over two months here. The back and forth with the lead images for this articles and a number of other similar ones has been going on for at least a year. Yet, you are the only editor I've seen willing to engage in a civil discussion. It would nice if at least a few other editors could weigh in as well. A15730 (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Dispute regarding Abu Hanifa's origins

Sources that identified Abu Hanifa as a Jat (already cited in the article):

1. Schacht; Lewis; Pellat, eds. (1998). Encyclopaedia of Islam. Vol. II (C-G). Brill. p. 489. ISBN 978-90-04-07026-4. Abu Hanīfa was also of Zuṭṭ stock, his grandfather being known as Zūṭi, apparently a corruption of Zuṭṭi.
2. Wink, André (1991). Al-hind: The Making of the Indo-islamic World. BRILL. p. 161. ISBN 978-90-04-09249-5. Some Jat freemen became famous in the Islamic world, as for instance Abu Hanifa ( 699-767 ? )
3. Malik, Jamal (2020). Islam in South Asia: Revised, Enlarged and Updated Second Edition. BRILL. p. 44. ISBN 978-90-04-42271-1. ...Abu Hanifa (699–767), the founder of the Hanafi school of law, who was of Jat stock, most likely descending from those early prisoners sent to Iraq.

Other sources that Identified Abu Hanifa as an Arab, the book, The Arabian Origins of Imam Abu Hanifa al-Nu'man by Naji Ma'ruf discussed the origins of Abu Hanfia and questioned the sources that attributed him of being an Afghan (Jatt), Persian, or Iraqi (Iraqi Arab). Ma'ruf concluded in the end "In conclusion, after many years of research and contemplation on this subject,'I have concluded that Imam Abu Hanifa was of Arab descent, originally from the Arabs of Anbar in Iraq, who lived there before Islam.

Ma'ruf's discussion and conclusion of Abu Hanifa's origins:

Thabit ibn al-Nu'man al-Kufi is considered one of the most important figures in Arab-Islamic history and civilization. He played a significant and effective role in the Arab-Islamic renaissance, being the founder of a large Fatimid school, which still exists, and the founder of the Grand Mosque in Baghdad. All historical accounts agree on the man's Iraqi origin and his birthplace, but differ regarding his family's origins. Some say he was Persian, others Afghan, and still others Arab. Therefore, we must research, verify, and report based on available historical and geographical data. It is historically established that he was born in Kufa, Iraq, to ​​a purely Iraqi family, and it is most likely that he was from Anbar in the land of Babylon (Iraq). Historical sources confirm that Iraq was inhabited by Arab tribes before the Islamic conquest, To a large extent, and it played the largest and most distinguished role in the Arab-Islamic liberation operations. They agreed that the religion of his family was Christianity, which is the religion of the Arabs of Iraq and the religion of the Arab Lakhmid state.In fact, the name of Imam Abu Hanif al-Nu'man has a great historical significance regarding the affiliation of his ancestors to the Arabs of Iraq who inhabited it before Islam, as it is the name of an important king of the Arab kings of Iraq, who had campaigns against the Sasanian state that oppressed the people of Iraq for a long period of time. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi said: Abu Hanifa was a Nabataean, that is, from the Arabs of the Sawad of Iraq, and their names indicated them, such as Haritha, Jabala, al-Nu'man, and other explicitly Arabic names. In another narration by al-Khatib, he confirms that he descended from Anbar in western Iraq, which is the most likely in our view because it is the only place specifically identified within the land of Babylon, which indicates the authenticity of the narration. In a narration attributed to his grandson, Judge Ismail ibn Hammad, he said: "We are the sons of the free Persians", It is known that the sons of that era were of Arab descent, and it is known that the capital of Persia was Ctesiphon (al-Mada'in). This means that he was from Iraq, which was part of the Sasanian Persian Empire and its center. Ibn Sibat confirmed his Arab-Iraqi lineage by saying, "Abu Hanifa was born to a Christian father." It is known that the Arabs of Iraq were Christians and the Persians were Zoroastrians, and they were a minority who returned to their homes in Persia after the conquest. Al-Kurdari, in his book "Manaqib Abi Hanifa" (The Virtues of Abu Hanifa), one of the prominent figures of the Hanafi school, said that Abu Hanifa was from Baghdad before the Abbasids entered it. He said: He was from Babylon, and all of Iraq was known as Babylon—and historical Babylon is Iraq. (Current: A Dialogue with Taha Baqir All these accounts confirm the corruption of the word Babylon to the word Kabul by Ibn al-Nadim He who said he was from Kabul, and this has no historical or geographical basis. Based on the saying, "The people of Mecca know its valleys best," Hanafi sources confirm that he was of Arab origin, and that Thabit ibn al-Nu'man ibn al-Marzuban, from the Banu Yahya ibn Zayd ibn Asad, from the Azd Arabs who migrated from Yemen and settled in the land of Iraq after the collapse of the Ma'rib Dam due to the flood of al-'Arim. Some modern studies insist, with reprehensible persistence, on his being Persian, without verifying the information or even comparing it with similar sources. For example, the Egyptian jurist Muhammad Abu Zahra's book on Abu Hanifa. Abu Zahra was a jurist, not a historian, even though he wrote on the history of jurisprudence and its figures. Unfortunately, those who came after him relied on his work. Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltout (the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar) told me that he was completely convinced that the great Imam was of Arab descent. He discussed Abu Zahra's book after its publication and promised to publish the discussion, but death did not grant him the time. In the margin of his book, he mentioned the existence of these narrations claiming the great Imam's Arab origin, attributing them to fanatical Hanafis. I don't know if he was aware that the Hanafis were the adherents of his school of thought, his followers, and the people most familiar with him and his history Among the Orientalists, the great Orientalist Carl Brockelmann expressed surprise in his published study in the German Journal of Orientalists regarding the Iraqi origins of Abu Hanifa and his status as one of the ancient Arabs of Hira, attributing him to someone other than his own people, despite him being a national symbol of Baghdad. Among the Indian Hanafis, Shah Waliullah Dehlawi affirms that the Great Imam was an Arab and no one else, and he strongly criticized anyone who attributed him to anyone else.

R3YBOl (🌲) 08:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I understand that there are such sources, the point is that it is a minority position. But whatever. We can compromise, and include these sources, as long as we are very strict about saying that they are minority positions. I just did that in a new edit, I think it was a good compromise between my position and your position. Ideally I wouldn't include the jatt and arab part but I included it for the sake of collaboration Idris Shirazi (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Idris Shirazi I really appreciate your efforts in "compromising". it's good to see that you finally understood the idea of how we should all represent the sources' different views but there are issues with some paragraphs like:

Although this theory is not taken seriously in Western scholarship, it is popular and considered plausible in Iraq and surrounding Arab countries. Overall, this theory is largely limited to Arabist and Salafist circles this is clearly WP:OR and not even valid to be included in the article. I haven't agreed yet with the new changes. I am restoring it to the older version, until we can sort this out. we have to agree on changes and then later add them, to avoid edit-warring and others. R3YBOl (🌲) 17:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Idris Shirazi Since the sources contradict each other. I thought of including this discussion of his ethnicity, and a short explanation of how is he attributed to Arabs, Persians, and Jats (better than seperated sections) . which it goes by:

Extended content

Abu Hanifa is thought to be of Persian ancestry.. However, he has also been stated to have descended from the Zutt, Jats who migrated into Iraq during the Islamic Golden Age. His grandfather, Zuta, may have been captured by Muslim troops in Kabul and sold as a slave in Kufa, where he was purchased and freed by an Arab tribesman of the Taym Allah, a branch of the Banu Bakr. Zuta and his progeny thereafter would have become clients of the Taym Allah, hence the sporadic references to Abu Hanifa as "al-Taymi". Abu Hanifa was also described as being of Arab descent, originally from the Arabs of Anbar in Iraq, who lived there before Islam.Hanafi sources confirm that he was of Arab stock, and that Thabit ibn al-Nu'man ibn al-Marzuban was from the Banu Yahya ibn Zayd ibn Asad, from the Arab tribe of al-Azd who migrated from Yemen and settled in Iraqi lands after the collapse of the Marib Dam due to the Great Flood, becoming part of the Nabataeans of Iraq. As Abu Hanifa's family were Christians, which was the religion of the Arabs of Iraq and the religion of the Arab Lakhmid kingdom. the name of Imam Abu Hanifa al-Nu'man has a great historical significance regarding the affiliation of his ancestors to the Arabs of Iraq who inhabited it before Islam, as it is the name of an important king of the Arab kings of Iraq, who had campaigns against the Sasanian Empire. According to Abu Hanifa's grandson, Isma'il ibn Hammad: "We were from among the free people of Persia. I swear by Allah, we were never enslaved". He called Abu Hanifa's great-grandfather "Marzuban", which is an Arabicized form of the Sasanian military office of marzban, held by governors of the frontier provinces of the Sasanian realm. historian Naji Ma'ruf argues that the statement of Abu Hanifa's grandson, Ismail ibn Hammad, is interpreted to mean that Abu Hanifa's grandson was only referring to the place, rather than the ethnicity. That is to say, Abu Hanifa was from an Arab family that lived within Sasanian borders, not necessarily a Persian family.

R3YBOl (🌲) 17:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

References