Re: Wisdom of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh)
Dear Brother Salam,
Its pretty good that you seem to be intelligent then a person you claim to follow him (Imam Abu Hanifa).
Imam Abu Hanifa Say:Abu Hanifa used to say: had it not been for these two years, I would have been damned.
But you have doubt in Imam Jaffar Sadiq(as) knowledge, where knowledge is in his heridity from Imam Ali (as). If you have more doubt , please read Ahle Sunnat Writer Book: Hundred Great Muslims, where Imam Jaffar is declared teacher of Imam Abu Hanifa. You people does not know about the direct decendents of Holy prophet Mohammad (PBUH). but you people know all about about Dammed YAZID (Cursed to be on him). Shame on you ..First go and see who is the prophet family in Holy Quran then compare some one him...
The Imam of Scholars and Knowledge
Imam As-Sadiq was the teacher of that stage, whom all scholars of the various sects used to learn from. One of his students was Abu Hanifa, the Imam of the Hanafi sect, who spent two years in the Imam's school.
Abu Hanifa used to say: had it not been for these two years, I would have been damned. For although Abu Hanifa did not become a Jaafari, he learned the various religious sciences in these two years. Abu Hanifa also reports that he was asked by Abu Jaa'far Al-Mansour, the Abassid Khalifate of that age, to paper forty complicated questions to Jaafar bin Muhammad for he has charmed the people. Faced by these questions, the Imam used to say: We say this and the people of Medina say that and that group says that, until he went through all the different opinions.
Thus Abu Hanifa concluded:
He is the most knowledgeable person, since the most knowledgeable is the one who know best the peoples' differences:
A historian of that era says that I entered the Mosque and saw 900 Sheiks each saying: "Jaafar bin Muhammad As-Sadiq told me" .He was the teacher of that age, the teacher of those who agreed with him and those who don't for they all used to go back to him, and it is said that those who narrated his traditions exceeded four thousand scholars.
ALLAH AP SAB HAMI WA NASIR HO.
'Why then are just two witnesses required to convict for murder and four for adultery?'
As for this question, the number of witnesses has nothing to do with the severity of the crime. As you know, the punishment for both are equal. Capital punishment. So, most likely, the severity is the same, or similar if not totally equal. Whether that means you get thrashed in hell 20 more times for adultery than murder, I don't know.
The reason for the differences in number of witnesses is simple. People are quick to jump on each other and accuse each other of adultery. So if you limit the number of witnesses to 1 or 2, its easier for someone to incriminate a person they dislike of adultery. Its harder to do it if the requirement is 4 witnesses, and most good legal trials will be able to figure out if the 4 banded together to make up some story about someone. 4 witnesses coming forth and saying they witnessed full out adultery is going to be rare and probably questionable. Prevents innocent people from getting in trouble for no reason. Murder is a different story. You WANT to get ahold of the murderer and execute them before they hurt other people. What has an adulterous person done? They've hurt their family and their sin is more personal. They're not out and posing danger to people en masse, like a murderer on the loose. So, a private sin is more likely to be delt with privately.
IMHO, that's the reasoning I've heard and read about, and its what makes sense to me. You don't want to buy it, you don't have to.