(8,313 words)Article Table of Contents

1. His views 2. FIQH: Essential Features 3. His juridical method 4. The sources of public law in his jurisprudence 5. Abū Yūsuf and uṣūl al-fiqh (legal theory) 6. Abū Yūsuf's position in Ḥanafī jurisprudence 7. Abū Yūsuf and the Aṣḥāb al-ḥadīth 8. Works 9. Unpublished Works 10. Lost Works 11. Bibliography

Abū Yūsuf, Yaʿqūb b. Ibrāhīm b. Ḥabīb b. Khunays al-Anṣārī (113–182/731–798), was a famous judge (qāḍī) and one of the founders of the Ḥanafī school of jurisprudence. His forebear was Saʿd b. Bujayr of the Bajīla tribe, who was one of the Companions of the Prophet and one of the first to emigrate from Medina to Kūfa (Ibn Saʿd, 6/34; Ibn Qutayba, al-Maʿārif, 499; al-Dhahabī, 57). According to Abū Yūsuf's own account, his father died while he was ¶ still a child, and because of their poverty and straitened circumstances his mother sent him out to work for a fuller (qaṣṣār) (al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/244; al-Ṣaymarī, 92). Although he was poor, he took every opportunity to study and learn.

Abū Yūsuf studied with two groups of Kūfan traditionists (muḥaddithūn), whom Ibn Saʿd classified amongst the fourth and fifth ṭabaqāt of the tābiʿūn (the generation following that of the Prophet's Companions). The most famous teachers in the earlier group were Manṣūr b. al-Muʿtamir, ʿAṭāʾ b. al-Sāʾib, Sulaymān al-Aʿmash, Abū Isḥāq al-Shaybānī, Muṭarrif b. Ṭarīf, Ismāʿīl b. Abī Khālid, and Mujālid b. Saʿīd; the later group included al-Ḥajjāj b. Arṭāt, Muḥammad b. al-Sāʾib al-Kalbī, Abū Ḥamza al-Thumālī, and Misʿar b. Kidām (Ibn Saʿd, 7(2)/74; al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/242; al-Dhahabī, 58; see also Abū Yūsuf's reports scattered throughout his extant works).

Abū Yūsuf also studied ḥadīth under the shaykhs of Baṣra, including Abān b. Abī ʿAyyāsh and Dāwūd b. Abī Hind, who belonged to the fourth ṭabaqa of the tābiʿūn, and Ḥasan b. Dīnār and Saʿīd b. Abī ʿArūba who belonged to the fifth. In addition, he stayed for a while in the Ḥijāz in order to learn ḥadīth there. He studied under the shaykhs of Medina, including ʿUbayd Allāh b. ʿUmar al-ʿUmarī and Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Anṣārī, and under the shaykhs of Mecca, including Ibn Jurayj and Ḥanẓala b. Abī Sufyān (Ibn Saʿd, 7(2)/74; al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/242; al-Dhahabī, 58). He was well known for learning ḥadīths by heart, and he attended some of the shaykhs' lessons as their scribe and amanuensis. From time to time he would write down the ḥadīths that he had heard (Ibn Saʿd, 7(2)/74; Wakīʿ, 3/255).

After having attended the gatherings of the muḥaddiths, Abū Yūsuf became interested in Abū Ḥanīfa's

school of jurisprudence, and became one of his companions (Ibn Saʿd, 7(2)/74). As a result, he embarked on a new phase in his train-¶ ing which revolutionised the nature of his scholarship. Although he was regarded as a scholar among the traditionists, he was also considered the greatest faqīh (jurist) of the aṣḥab al-raʾy (proponents of considered opinion). During this period of his life Abū Yūsuf was still living in great poverty, and it is reported that Abū Ḥanīfa supported him (al-Ṣaymarī, 92; al-Tanūkhī, al-Faraj, 2/387).

According to some accounts, Abū Yūsuf was Abū Ḥanīfa's companion for seventeen years (al-Ṣaymarī, 93; al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/252), which correspond to the years between the date of Abū Ḥanīfa's return from the Ḥijāz to Kūfa in 132/750 and his death in 150/767. Gradually Abū Yūsuf lost interest in attending the lessons of the traditionists, and his liking for Abū Ḥanīfa's fiqh was founded on the use of personal judgement (raʾy). His studies came to an end with the death of Abū Ḥanīfa. Thereafter he was regarded as Abū Ḥanīfa's most distinguished student and as an important faqīh in scholarly circles in Iraq.

After a while Abū Yūsuf moved from Kūfa to Baghdad. He was appointed qāḍī (judge) of Baghdad during the caliphate of the ʿAbbāsid al-Mahdī (r. 158–169/775–786) (Wakīʿ, 3/255–256). Some sources state that Abū Yūsuf was appointed soon after the death in 162/779 of Abū Bakr b. ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad b. Abī Sabra, who had been qāḍī of Baghdad (Ibn Qutayba, al-Maʿārif, 489). In 166/783 al-Mahdī ordered Abū Yūsuf to accompany his son and appointed heir, Mūsā, to Gurgān, and appointed Abū Yūsuf's son Yūsuf, who was a great jurist, as qāḍī of Baghdad in his father's absence (Wakīʿ, 255–256; al-Ṭabarī, Taʾrīkh, 8/162). Abū Yūsuf had to stay with Mūsā during his time in Gurgān; while there, he served as qāḍī (Ibn Saʿd, 7(2)/74; al-Masʿūdī, 3/340), and also maintained his scholarly activities. One of the people who learnt from Abū Yūsuf and his responses on, fiqh was Muḥammad b. ʿAwwād b. Rāshid, his host's son (see al-Sahmī, 487).

¶ When a messenger arrived in Gurgān announcing the death of al-Mahdī and Mūsā's succession to the caliphate, Abū Yūsuf and Mūsā returned to Baghdad (Ibn Saʿd, 7(2)/74). Mūsā succeeded under the title of al-Hādī (r. 169–170/786–787), and Abū Yūsuf was reappointed as qāḍī of Baghdad (Ibn Saʿd, 7(2)/74; Wakīʿ, 3/256). However, less than two years later al-Hādī died.

Hārūn al-Rashīd (r. 170–193/787–809) allowed Abū Yūsuf to remain qāḍī of Baghdad until his death (Ibn Saʿd, 7(2)/74). After a while Hārūn gave Abū Yūsuf the title of qāḍī al-quḍāt (supreme judge), the first time in Islamic history that this title was used (Wakīʿ, 3/256; al-Ṣaymarī, 90; al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/242; al-Dhahabī, 61). Although it is not known exactly what powers and responsibilities this job entailed, some accounts indicate that Abū Yūsuf was responsible for appointing and dismissing qāḍīs in the provinces of the empire (see for example al-Tanūkhī, al-Faraj, 2/228; al-Maqrīzī, 2/333).

Abū Yūsuf travelled extensively with Hārūn al-Rashīd, and during his absences his own son, Yūsuf, was again appointed to his post. For instance, Abū Yūsuf went twice to Baṣra: once in 176/792 and again in 180/796 (Khalīfa, 2/716; al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/255). He also accompanied the caliph (on one or more occasions) on a journey to the Ḥijāz. According to some accounts, it was during one of these journeys that Abū Yūsuf met Imām Mūsā al-Kāẓim in Mecca (Imāmate: 148–183/765–799), and they discussed certain issues relating to the pilgrim's donning of the iḥrām, the clothes signifying ritual

consecration for the pilgrimage. The imam is said to have criticised him for adhering to reasoning by analogy (qiyās) (al-Kulaynī, 4/350, 352–353; Ibn Bābawayh, ʿUyūn, 1/64; cf. al-Mufīd, al-Irshād, 298; Ibn Ṭāwūs, 298). Sources also refer to Abū Yūsuf's meeting in Medina with Mālik b. Anas, the epon-¶ ymous founder of one of the four Sunni madhhabs, and to an altercation between them (see Wakīʿ, 3/259 ff.; Ibn Qutayba (attrib.), al-Imāma, 1/154–155; al-ʿUqaylī, 4/441). When a rebellion led by ʿAṭṭāf b. Sufyān al-Azdī broke out in Mawṣil in 180/796, and Hārūn went there resolved to kill all the men in the city, Abū Yūsuf accompanied him and was able to utilise his considerable political skills to save lives (al-Azdī, 284–285, 289; Ibn al-Athīr, 6/152).

An overall assessment of Abū Yūsuf's public and political persona shows that he was a political faqīh who used his intelligence and talent in legal matters to find solutions to critical situations. Because of his political influence in the ʿAbbāsid state, Abū Yūsuf was able to play a significant role in certain historical events, although at times he attempted to justify acts of wrongdoing and abuse of power on the part of the caliph and ʿAbbāsid court officials (al-Ṣaymarī, 99; Abū Ḥayyān, 3(1)/168–171; al-Tanūkhī, Nishwār, 1/252–254). According to the accounts, one of his most significant and lasting acts when he was qāḍī was the introduction of a specific formal gown to be worn by qāḍīs and religious scholars (ʿulamāʾ) to distinguish them from other people (Ibn Khallikān, 6/379). Abū Yūsuf died in Baghdad in 182/798.

His views Whilst Abū Yūsuf sought to retain his influence over the adherents of the Ḥanafī madhhab, it was also important to him that the traditionists took a positive view of him (see al-Ṣaymarī, 96–97). To achieve this goal during such a tumultuous period Abū Yūsuf had to avoid, as far as possible, being too explicit on controversial matters.

Although some sources refer to Abū Yūsuf's knowledge of theology (kalām) (see al-Makkī, 1/112–113), he was never known as a theoretician, unlike Abū Ḥanīfa. Tradi-¶ tionist sources point to statements in which Abū Yūsuf criticised kalām and considered it either a heresy or the result of ignorance (see Wakīʿ, 3/258; Ibn Baṭṭa, 1/419, 2/536 et passim). Al-Baghdādī also mentions that Abū Yūsuf regarded the Muʿtazilīs as heretics (p. 104).

Some of the more fanatical traditionists attempted to criticise Abū Yūsuf for being one of the Jahmiyya (an early theological sect allegedly founded by Jahm b. Ṣafwān), like his master Abū Ḥanīfa (al-ʿUqaylī, 4/444), while others made use of Abū Yūsuf's doctrines to attack Abū Ḥanīfa because of their religious fanaticism (see al-Fasawī, 2/782, 783; Ibn Ḥibbān, Kitāb al-majrūḥīn, 3/65). They argued that Abū Yūsuf did not follow Abū Ḥanīfa's teachings, and regarded him merely as having taught him fiqh (see Wakīʿ, 3/258; al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 13/386). Ibn Ḥibbān observes that this was his own view (see al-Thaqāt, 7/645, Mashāhīr, 270). On the other hand, Sunni writers of the Ḥanafī school, such as Abū al-Qāsim al-Ḥakīm al-Samarqandī in his al-Sawād al-aʿẓam (p. 145) and Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭaḥāwī in al-ʿAqīda (p. 7), argued that the views of Abū Yūsuf and his fellow-student Muḥammad b. Ḥasan al-Shaybānī were perfectly consonant with the Ḥanafī imam's doctrines.

An analysis of Abū Yūsuf's views and jurisprudence reveals that he was a Ḥanafī scholar who by and large agreed with the traditionists. On controversial issues such as whether the Qurʾān was created or uncreated, Abū Yūsuf seems to have agreed with the traditionist viewpoint (that it was uncreated), or at least did not express a divergent opinion (Wakīʿ, 3/257–258; al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/253). Various sources—Ḥanafī, traditionist and others—state that Abū Yūsuf agreed with moderate Ḥanafī irjāʾ, the doctrine which held that judgement of the actions of believers is postponed until the Day of Resurrection (see Wakīʿ, 3/261; Abū Layth al-Samarqandī, 181; al-Khaṭīb, ¶ Taʾrīkh, 14/256–257; al-Nawbakhtī, 13; al-Shahrastānī, 1/130).

Abū Yūsuf's cooperation with the ʿAbbāsid caliphs and his official position as a faqīh at the ʿAbbāsid court suggest that he disagreed with Abū Ḥanīfa on questions such as the necessary qualifications for a rightful imam and rebelling against the rule of a tyrant. However, his remarks in al-Kharāj about the just imam and the tyrannical imam (see below) show that he took Abū Ḥanīfa's views into consideration on this matter. Abū Yūsuf's prominent position among Abū Ḥanīfa's students, on the one hand, and his conservative opinions and beliefs on the other, meant that he was regarded as an authority by two opposing groups within the Ḥanafī madhhab; the Sunni school and the school that advocated justice.

Abū Yūsuf's views on doctrine, in brief summaries divided into several chapters, have survived; and these are regarded as expositions of the doctrines of the Sunni Ḥanafī school prior to the mid-3rd/10th century (q.v. Abū Ḥanīfa). In some of these treatises the fundamental doctrines of the Ḥanafī school are attributed by Abū Yūsuf to Abū Ḥanīfa. The main headings which these treatises give to the responses that Abū Ḥanīfa provided to questions about the ahl al-sunna wa al-jamāʿa include: tafḍīl al-shaykhayn (giving preference to the two masters, that is, Abū Bakr and ʿUmar), ḥubb al-khatanayn (loving the two sons-in-law, that is, ʿAlī and ʿUthmān), al-masḥ ʿalā al-khuffayn (wiping over leather socks as part of the ritual ablution), and ʿadam takfīr murtakib al-dhanb (not declaring a sinner to be a disbeliever) (see al-Khwārazmī, Qāsim, 4/1545; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, 161). Those summaries written in the second half of the 3rd/10th century, including al-Sawād al-aʿẓam of Abū al-Qāsim Ḥakīm al-Samarqandī and al-ʿAqīda of al-Ṭaḥāwī (al-Khwārazmī, Qāsim, 4/1545; Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, 161), take the doctrines of Abū ¶ Ḥanīfa, Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad b. Ḥasan al-Shaybānī as the official tenets of the Sunni Ḥanafī school.

On the other hand, Bishr b. Ghiyāth al-Marīsī, one of the first representatives of the Ḥanafī school of jurisprudence, was a student of Abū Yūsuf's (see al-Ṣaymarī, 156; al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 7/56); and Muḥammad b. Shujāʿ b. al-Thaljī, another scholar of that school, narrated several reports praising Abū Yūsuf (al-Ṣaymarī, 93, 95; al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/260). In the mid-3rd/10th century the Ḥanafī jurists, who were criticised by ʿUthmān b. Saʿīd al-Dārimī and Faḍl b. Shādhān al-Nīsābūrī, regarded Abū Yūsuf as one of their leaders (al-Dārimī, 125, 127 et passim; Faḍl b. Shādhān, 81, 168 et passim).

FIQH: Essential Features Abū Yūsuf's scholarship began to emerge in Kūfa at a time when the exercise of raʾy (subjective legal opinion) was much discussed and debated in Kūfan jurisprudence. Ibn Shubruma, Ibn Abī Laylā and Abū Ḥanīfa were regarded as the three greatest Kūfan jurists of the first half of the 2nd/9th century. According to the available evidence on Abū Yūsuf's life, he initially attended the gatherings of the traditionists and learnt from them, but then gradually moved closer to the aṣḥāb al-raʾy. In Kūfa Abū Yūsuf went to the classes of Ibn Abī Laylā and particularly Abū Ḥanīfa, and thus acquired a vast knowledge of the jurisprudence and teachings of the aṣḥāb al-raʾy (al-Ṣaymarī, 93; al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/245). A variety of sources regard Abū Yūsuf as a companion and friend of Abū Ḥanīfa, but seldom refer to his close relationship with Ibn Abī Laylā. However, a study of his writings indicates that Ibn Abī Laylā greatly influenced Abū Yūsuf's ideas about fiqh. Although ʿAmmār b. Abī Mālik's statement that Abū Yūsuf sought to pass on the doctrines of Ibn Abī Laylā and Abū ¶ Ḥanīfa to future generations (al-Ṣaymarī, 92) would appear to be exaggerated, at least his remarks about Ibn Abī Laylā are not so far from the mark.

It is clear that Abū Ḥanīfa's jurisprudence was more disciplined, systematic and established than that of Ibn Abī Laylā, but Ibn Abī Laylā's was more traditional thanks to his long career as a judge. Perhaps it was such comparisons that made Abū Yūsuf prefer Ibn Abī Laylā's jurisprudence and impelled him to select his method for subsidiary subjects, while not rejecting outright Abū Ḥanīfa's jurisprudence. Abū Yūsuf's attitude towards these two faqīhs led some people to regard Abū Yūsuf's fiqh as a combination of Abū Ḥanīfa's and Ibn Abī Laylā's doctrines (al-Makkī, 1/104). The fact that Abū Yūsuf's best-known work, Ikhtilāf Abī Ḥanīfa wa Ibn Abī Laylā, describes the great contrast between the two styles of jurisprudence, suggests that Abū Yūsuf felt free to select a given view and—depending on the circumstances—prefer one to the other (Abū Yūsuf, al-Kharāj, 88, 174; al-Ṭaḥāwī, Ikhtilāf, 1/159, 197–202, 219–220; al-Kindī, 452).

Nobody has disproved the assertion that Abū Yūsuf was a jurist of the raʾy school. However, a comparative study of the doctrines of faqīhs who were proponents of raʾy shows that Abū Yūsuf clearly inclined towards the traditionist approach. This preference led al-Muzanī al-Shāfiʿī to regard him as a jurist of the Iraqi school (who followed Abū Ḥanīfa and favoured raʾy) who adhered closely to the sunna (al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/246), while ʿAmr al-Nāqid, a traditionist scholar, put forward the extreme view that he was the only one of the aṣḥāb al-raʾy who followed the sunna (al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/253; al-Dhahabī, 63). Ibn ʿAdī, another traditionist, stated that Abū Yūsuf often followed ‘athar’ (pl. āthār: traditions of the practices and sayings of the Prophet and his Companions) and was not intimidated by the objections of his colleagues (Ibn ʿAdī, 7/2604).

¶ A study of Abū Yūsuf's writings, particularly the al-Kharāj and al-Radd ʿalā siyar al-Awzāʿī, shows that Abū Yūsuf followed the standard methods of the traditionists (viz. referring to the ḥadīth together with its isnād or chain of transmission). So whilst traditionists criticised other raʾy school jurists for dispensing with the revealed and transmitted texts (al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/260), Abū Yūsuf cited traditions with uninterrupted chains of transmission.

His juridical method In one of his works Abū Yūsuf describes his method as follows: ‘Take the Qurʾān and the accepted (maʿrūf) sunna as your guide, and follow that. And measure by it those problems which are not clear to you from the Qurʾān and sunna’ (al-Radd, 32). This was equally the general principle of Abū Ḥanīfa's jurisprudence. However, the only distinctive characteristics of Abū Yūsuf's juridical proofs are certain details that he took into consideration, such as limiting authorised traditions to those classified as maʿrūf (al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/254).

By going back to the primary sources of Ḥanafī jurisprudence, particularly to Abū Yūsuf's works, and analysing the differences between Abū Yūsuf and Abū Ḥanīfa, it is possible to elucidate the nature of Abū Yūsuf's general doctrines on the derivation of juristic rulings (aḥkām al-fiqh). Since Abū Yūsuf's fiqh is largely based on Abū Ḥanīfa's, and can in fact be regarded as a continuation of it, this article only discusses the differences between them.

One of the most significant differences between Abū Yūsuf and Abū Ḥanīfa in matters of fiqh is the avoidance of shudhūdh (irregularity) and the endeavour to follow ijmāʿ (consensus). In fact, Abū Yūsuf dissented from Abū Ḥanīfa's more extreme juristic decisions, which were also profoundly disagreed with by jurists of other madhhabs. For instance, one can cite the ¶ following examples: the permissibility of reciting the Qurʾān in Persian during the ritual prayer (al-Sarakhsī, al-Mabsūṭ, 1/37); that reciting any verses of the Qurʾān will suffice as prayer (al-Qudūrī, 1/77); referring to ‘Allāh’ as the shortest khuṭba (sermon) that will suffice for the Friday prayer (al-Qudūrī, 1/110–111), praying for rain not being regarded as sunna (al-Qudūrī, 1/120–121); and the invalidity of sharecropping contracts and leases (muzāraʿa wa musāqā) (al-Qudūrī, 2/228–233). While Abū Yūsuf had no interest in Abū Ḥanīfa's combative approach to fiqh, he nonetheless adhered to the systematic and disciplined principles of legal deduction and reasoning which the latter had established. If he departed from these, the departure would always be justified by reference to another rigorously argued and systematic doctrine.

Before going into Abū Yūsuf's juristic methodology and its most significant differences compared with Abū Ḥanīfa's fiqh, it should be said that in those cases where they differed Abū Yūsuf's doctrines were sometimes extremely perceptive, mature and expedient in comparison with Abū Ḥanīfa's. Yet there are many instances where Abū Yūsuf rejected Abū Ḥanīfa's formulations in favour of older written opinions which were more superficial (for an example of this, see Schacht, The Origins, 303–306). Disagreements between Abū Yūsuf and Abū Ḥanīfa can be found throughout Ḥanafī works of jurisprudence, but are more often found in chapters on ritual and religious observances (ʿibādāt), including prayer and alms, and in those on social life (muʿāmalāt) such as confinement, hire, power of attorney and endowment. One feature of the chapter on alms (zakāt), for example, is that whenever Abū Yūsuf refutes Abū Ḥanīfa's viewpoint, al-Shāfiʿī takes exactly the same line and also rejects Abū Ḥanīfa (al-Ṭūsī, al-Khilāf, ‘Kitāb al-zakāt’, case nos 4, 15, 33, 62, 68, 73, 83, 96, 119).

¶ Another notable feature of Abū Yūsuf's fiqh is his upholding and following akhbār āḥād [sing. khabar wāḥid, a tradition of which the isnād (chain of transmission) goes back to a single authority].

Here Abū Yūsuf and Abū Ḥanīfa's ideas on akhbār āḥād diverged in two different ways: firstly, the vast collection of ḥadīth that was assembled during the lifetime of Abū Yūsuf meant that his studies under several prominent shaykhs in Iraq and the Ḥijāz clearly provided him with access to traditions that were unknown to his teacher, Abū Ḥanīfa (see Schacht, The Origins, 301–302). Secondly, Abū Yūsuf often shifted the boundaries between devotional and non-devotional acts and sometimes preferred akhbār āḥād over raʾy, a point with which his teacher disagreed. Furthermore, their disagreements on subjects such as social transactions and legal provisions also arise from this issue.

Abū Yūsuf's views on the authenticity of khabar wāḥid are noteworthy in the history of jurisprudence. In order to refute the views of the Syrian traditionists, in his chapter on ‘Siyar’, Abū Yūsuf argues that traditionists refer to a ḥadīth which is ḥadīth wāḥid and which is not authentic. He stated that any ḥadīth wāḥid should be considered shādhdh (irregular) and therefore, from a juristic viewpoint, is not adducible (al-Radd, 41). To what extent this statement can be taken as a rule for legal issues, including religious observance, social transactions and other legal provisions, requires examination. However, what is known as ‘Abū Yūsuf's rule’ is his opposition to those ḥadīths which he regards as shādhdh. He regards those traditions which are known to most scholars as maʿrūf as authentic Traditions. He states that ḥadīths which are shādhdh are not authentic and one should not rely upon them (al-Radd, 24). In another source, when Abū Yūsuf criticises a large number of ḥadīths he states that a tradition is regarded as shādhdh if it is either not known to the ʿulamāʾ or it conflicts with ¶ the Qurʾān and sunna (al-Radd, 31, 105; al-Khaṭīb, Sharaf, 126). Accordingly, he sometimes regarded ḥadīths to which Abū Ḥanīfa had referred as shādhdh, as ‘akthar’ (transmitted by several), awthaq (established as sound), or aʿamm (generally accepted) (al-Kharāj, 18–19, 52–53, 89).

Although Abū Yūsuf, designated a ḥadīth as authentic sometimes on the grounds of its popularity, he designated some traditions that were known and popular amongst the people of the Ḥijāz and al-Shām as inauthentic on the grounds that they lacked an uninterrupted isnād going back to the Prophet. He was critical of jurists from the Ḥijāz and al-Shām who regarded those traditions as authentic (Abū Yusuf, al-Radd, 11, 21, 41). This raises the question as to whether Abū Yūsuf departs from Abū Ḥanīfa's doctrines, such as ‘saying “Allāh Akbar” before performing the ʿĪd prayer’, were made simply to contradict Abū Ḥanīfa's rulings, or whether Abū Yūsuf had come across an authorised isnād and was returning to the prevailing tradition. In this particular instance, however, because of the lack of an authorised isnād, a large number of prominent Ḥanafī scholars have emphasised the correctness of Abū Ḥanīfa's viewpoint instead (al-Ghanīmī, 1/165).

Examples can often be found in Abū Yūsuf's works of both istiḥsān (applying personal discretion in juristic decisions) and diverging from qiyās (systematic reasoning by analogy) in favour of athar (taking a tradition as precedent), a process which he also calls istiḥsān (al-Kharāj, 178). In certain cases a serious question arises as to whether it was athar which prompted Abū Yūsuf to abandon qiyās, or whether on the contrary athar was merely an excuse (mubarrir) for doing so. In other words, according to Abū Yūsuf it is possible for the content of the athar to be mustaḥsan (approved) through the exercise of raʾy, and in some cases discretion should be applied to an ¶ athar; in such cases istiḥsān will compensate for the weakness of the athar's chain of transmission. Here one can refer to a case in

which Abū Yūsuf abandoned qiyās and preferred to accept the opinion (raʾy) of an unnamed jurist, describing this act of his as istiḥsān. There can be no doubt that the main principle of istiḥsān was based on raʾy (al-Kharāj, 189).

A general comparison of Abū Ḥanīfa and Abū Yūsuf's jurisprudence indicates that while istiḥsān can also be found in Abū Ḥanīfa's fiqh (q.v. Abū Ḥanīfa), Abū Yūsuf uses istiḥsān more extensively. In fact Abū Yūsuf diverges from qiyās in favour of istiḥsān in many cases where Abū Ḥanīfa simply uses qiyās (see for example Ibn Mundhir, 2/479, 526; al-Sarakhsī, al-Mabsūṭ, 24/46 et passim; al-Ghanīmī, 2/57, 93 et passim).

As a result of the use of istiḥsān, the principle of taghyīr al-aḥkām, or the mutability of juristic rulings, developed in Abū Yūsuf's fiqh. It has drawn the attention of scholars, even non-Ḥanafīs, including Ibn ʿAbd al-Salām and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, in the modern period. This rule states that religious obligations are mutable and changeable depending on the circumstances of time and place. The principle that a legal decision based on customary law (ʿurf) and convention (ʿāda) can be subject to change if the customary law changes, allows Abū Yūsuf to pronounce a ruling which, although at variance with the apparent text of legal proof, is in fact in accord with the real motive of the law (ʿillat al-sharʿ). A notable example of Abū Yūsuf's views in this is the amount of tax (kharāj) to be levied: he states that kharāj should be paid according to the particular circumstances of time and place, but he does not recommend following the wording of a proof-text which has been handed down by tradition on the matter (al-Kharāj, 85–86; al-Qudūrī, 4/141; for examples of this kind of reasoning and Abū Yūsuf's istiḥsān views, such as ‘Qāʿidat taysīr lil-¶ ḍarūra’ and ‘Taʿassuf fī istiʿmāl al-ḥuqūq’, see al-Maḥmaṣānī, 126–130).

The sources of public law in his jurisprudence In his book al-Kharāj, which was written to give the caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd guidance on the governing of provinces and on administering certain matters of state, Abū Yūsuf deals with many legal issues which in modern classifications of law are regarded as public law. Although the book largely discusses matters of debate such as public finance and taxation, and, to a lesser extent, issues concerning the penal code and warfare, one can also find certain detailed and disparate observations which are significant for the study of the history of public law in Islamic civilisation and also for recognising a legal entity in Islamic jurisprudence.

Abū Yūsuf describes the supreme head of an Islamic state as al-imām al-ʿādil (the just imam) and al-wālī al-mahdī (the rightly-guided governor), someone who has full authority and responsibility in Muslim society (for the use of these terms, see Abū Yusuf, p. 58). Although Abū Yūsuf does not mention what Muslims are required to do when the state is ruled by an unjust or tyrannical imam (al-imām al-jāʾir), or specify his attitude towards the doctrine of ‘rebelling against the unjust ruler’ which his teacher Abū Ḥanīfa upheld, he does from time to time in the book warn the caliph Hārūn against committing injustice (jawr) (see pp. 3, 106–107 et passim).

In several places in his other book, al-Radd ʿalā siyar al-Awzāʿī (pp. 24, 34, 131), Abū Yūsuf mentions his general attitude towards state and government. He states that there are major distinctions between the prerogative and authority of the Prophet and the imams (by which he means the caliphs): for instance, the caliphs had no right to take booty in time of war, whereas this was permitted for the Prophet. In ¶ several places in al-Kharāj (pp. 60–61, 64–66), he emphasises the inalienable financial rights of the people, and states unequivocally that rulers are not allowed to seize or remove the people's wealth without legitimate cause.

In a significant statement in al-Kharāj (p. 94), which can be regarded as a precept, Abū Yūsuf says that the imam is responsible for the people's general well-being (maṣlaḥa) and prosperity (manfaʿa) (see also p. 105). On the subject of public works and improving the people's prosperity, he even includes dredging silt and mud from the river (presumably in this instance the Tigris) in the ruler's duties and responsibilities (pp. 97, 110). The use of the words ḥalāl (permissible) and ḥarām (forbidden) in relation to public administration is a noteworthy feature of al-Kharāj. Abū Yūsuf argues that the arbitrary increase of taxes is unlawful (p. 106). In another place, he states that it is forbidden (ḥarām) for the ruler to employ dishonest and corrupt persons (p. 111).

Abū Yūsuf warned the government against interfering in matters which were not necessarily relevant to the state. On the issue of reviving dead land (i.e. land not used or owned by anyone), unlike Abū Ḥanīfa, Abū Yūsuf affirms that it is not essential to obtain the ruler's permission for the appropriation of land which is to be revived, and he argues that the ruler does not have the right to undermine the right of appropriation. Referring to the Prophetic ḥadīth: ‘Man aḥyā arḍan mawātan, fahiya lahu’ (Whoever revives dead land, that land belongs to him [and a trespasser has no right]), he states that every individual is authorised and at liberty to revive dead land, that is, unless his liberty to do so infringes on the liberty of others (see p. 64).

It should be said that Abū Yūsuf provides practical advice on the matter of selecting executors and supervising their work, and also on certain reforms to the judicial system, urban infrastructure and ¶ public administration (pp. 108–112, 123, 186–187).

Abū Yūsuf and uṣūl al-fiqh (legal theory)In the first half of the 2nd/8th century, certain fundamental issues in the development of legal methodology, such as qiyās and raʾy, were under discussion. Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ (d. 142/759), in a brief but valuable treatise entitled Risālat al-ṣaḥāba (pp. 125–126) addressed to the ʿAbbāsid al-Manṣūr, referred to the chaotic condition of the judicial system at that time, and urged the caliph to ensure that all legal provisions and laws be codified systematically, and that the law be generally promulgated as a rule and a statute. However, there is no evidence to show that this task was accomplished. By writing the book of Adab al-qāḍī (chapter on Āthār), which was regarded as the first book on the proper foundations of legal judgement in Islamic civilisation, Abū Yūsuf was able to codify legal provisions and laws to some extent. However, how effective Abū Yūsuf's codification or compiling of the principles of jurisprudence is another matter. In al-Radd ʿalā siyar al-Awzāʿī (p. 21), Abū Yūsuf criticised his traditionist opponents for their ignorance of what he termed uṣūl al-fiqh (the theoretical

principles of Islamic jurisprudence). By this he meant a kind of general understanding of inference and juristic deduction in legal thought. Replacement of the phrase adillat al-fiqh (juristic proofs) with the equivalent term uṣūl al-fiqh (legal theory) can be found throughout works of the 4th/10th century (al-Khwārazmī, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad, 7–9; al-Mufīd, al-Tadhkira, 27–28), and demonstrates that ‘uṣūl al-fiqh’ became the phrase used to explain this particular science over a period of time, and was not coined by Abū Yūsuf.

There is no doubt, however, that after Abū Ḥanīfa, Abū Yūsuf played a signifi-¶ cant role in the establishment of the primary principles of Islamic jurisprudence. He laid the bases on which Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī and al-Shāfiʿī were able to build. Abū Yūsuf's works are noteworthy because they contain issues of principle such as qiyās (reasoning by analogy) and istiḥsān (juristic preference), as well as akhbār āḥād (traditions going back to a single authority). The juristic and theological writings of Ḥanafī scholars in later centuries refer to many formulations of principle as those of Abū Yūsuf, and compare his views with the opinions of Abū Ḥanīfa and Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī (al-Bazdawī, 1/248, 2/76 et passim; al-Sarakhsī, Uṣūl, 1/29, 36, 47 et passim). Those views, however, were not taken directly from Abū Yūsuf's works, but were either understood or deduced from his juristic thinking. Although some sources say that Abū Yūsuf was the first to write works on uṣūl al-fiqh (al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/245–246; al-Makkī, 2/245), this is doubtful.

Abū Yūsuf laid particular emphasis on the need to establish proper juridical reasoning, and sometimes criticised al-Awzāʿī for being unsystematic in this regard, giving examples of how contradictory and confused his arguments were (Abū Yusuf, al-Radd, 47–48, 50–51, 55–56, 77, 124). It is worth mentioning that Abū Yūsuf frequently followed certain specific methods in his argumentation, one of his favourite being similar to the burhān al-khulf (reductio ad absurdum) of the logicians. As a way of proving the falsity of their position, he would first state the principles that his opponents upheld and then apply them to extreme or border-line cases in order to demonstrate that their opinion was false (Abū Yūsuf, al-Radd, 62, 68, 95–96; Schacht, The Origins, 302). This approach caught Schacht's attention and he refers to it as ‘reductio ad absurdum’ (Schacht, The Origins, 302); however, Abū Yūsuf's methods are more complex, and cannot ¶ be reduced to this simple formula of logic, even if there is a certain similarity on the surface.

Abū Yūsuf's position in Ḥanafī jurisprudence After Abū Ḥanīfa, Abū Yūsuf is the principal founder of the Ḥanafī madhhab. These two jurists, along with Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ṣhaybānī, constitute the three pillars of Ḥanafī fiqh. For 1,200 years, their juridical opinions have been discussed along with Abū Ḥanīfa's viewpoints, and the differences between them pointed out. During the Middle Ages, jurists had to approve and accept a single opinion as the authoritative and final ruling on a given matter. As a result they started to lay down criteria by which to choose the definitive ruling. According to al-Ūzjandī (1/2–3), if Abū Ḥanīfa and Abū Yūsuf held the same opinion on a matter, that opinion was regarded as authoritative. However, if Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan both disagreed with Abū Ḥanīfa's opinion in a case where their disagreement was to do with the circumstances of the time (they both coming later than Abū Ḥanīfa),

then their opinion was considered superior to his (for example, the legitimacy of leasing agricultural land). On other matters, opinions varied according to the mujtahid (the legal expert who uses his own discretion), with some accepting the opinion of Abū Ḥanīfa (Mustawfī, 628; Ibn ʿĀbidīn, 1/26–27). As for issues on which Abū Ḥanīfa did not comment, if Abū Yūsuf discussed them then his opinion is regarded as the authenticated viewpoint; but if he too did not supply a comment, then Muḥammad b. Ḥasan's view is considered the authoritative one (Mustawfī, 628; Ibn ʿĀbidīn, 1/26–27). It is a significant fact that in the history of Ḥanafī jurisprudence, the shaykhs of Balkh laid great emphasis on the superiority of Abū Yūsuf's opinion over that of Muḥammad b. Ḥasan ¶ (al-Ghanīmī, 2/180, 186; cf. idem, 1/23 on reports written by Abū Ḥanīfa).

As with the doctrines of Abū Ḥanīfa and Muḥammad b. Ḥasan, Ḥanafīs divide the reported viewpoints of Abū Yūsuf into two categories. The first category is al-uṣūl (principles) or ẓāhir al-riwāya (apparent meaning of the tradition), which refers to the whole authoritative body of doctrine explained in the ‘six canonical books’, which are: al-Mabsūṭ, al-Ziyādāt, al-Jāmiʿ al-ṣaghīr, al-Jāmiʿ al-kabīr, al-Siyar al-ṣaghīr, al-Siyar al-kabīr. The second category is al-nawādir (rare cases), which refers to those opinions given in books by Abū Ḥanīfa's students. The uṣūl were given doctrinal precedence over the nawādir, and this precedence was established on the basis of the authority of the Ḥanafī ʿulamāʾ and their references to the traditions cited in the six canonical books.

It should be pointed out that although Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī died only seven years after Abū Yūsuf, and like him attended Abū Ḥanīfa's teaching circle, he also listened to Abū Yūsuf's teachings as if he were a student and became one of the most important authorised transmitters of Abū Yūsuf's fiqh. As has been said, al-Shaybānī's works are regarded as the earliest available source on Abū Yūsuf's juristic views (al-Shaybānī, al-Aṣl, 1/57 et passim, al-Jāmiʿ al-ṣaghīr, 154 et passim, and other works).

During Abū Ḥanīfa's time and immediately afterwards, Abū Yūsuf and Zufar b. Hudhayl al-ʿAnbarī (d. 158/775) were regarded as two of his most prominent students. Several accounts show that they were also viewed as rivals at Abū Ḥanīfa's lectures (al-Ṣaymarī, 95, 105–107; al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/247–248). This juxtaposition of contrasting ideas and perspectives can be seen by comparing the fiqh of the two men, and one example was the early work Ikhtilāf Zufar wa Yaʿqūb, on which al-Sarakhsī would later base himself (al-Sarakhsī, al-Mabsūṭ, 4/106).

¶ In contrast to the opposing doctrines of Abū Yūsuf and Zufar, many similarities can be seen between Abū Yūsuf and Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī. Statistical analysis of the differences between the three pillars of Ḥanafī jurisprudence shows that Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan's views were largely in accord with those of Abū Yūsuf. He also had the same attitude towards his teacher (Abū Ḥanīfa) as Abū Yūsuf. One can point to the circumstances of time and place, their residence in the same city, Baghdad, and other common social and intellectual circumstances as elements which may have influenced this similarity of outlook.

Apart from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī, the following fuqahāʾ studied under Abū Yūsuf and reported his juristic opinions: Abū Sulaymān al-Jūzjānī and Abū Yaʿlā al-Muʿallā b. Manṣūr al-Rāzī, the transmitters of Kutub and Amālī; Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. Samāʿa, who transmitted the

Nawādir; Bishr b. al-Walīd al-Kindī, the transmitter of Amālī; Hishām b. ʿUbayd Allāh al-Rāzī, Ḥasan b. Abī Mālik, Bishr b. Ghiyāth al-Marīsī, Ibrāhīm b. al-Jarrāḥ, the qāḍī of Egypt, and Hilāl b. Yaḥyā known as ‘Hilāl al-Raʾy’ (Ibn al-Nadīm, 257; al-Ṣaymarī, 154–156; al-Dhahabī, 61). Reports by these jurists can be found in works such as al-Ṭaḥāwī's Ikhtilāf al-fuqahāʾ (1/105–108, 122–123, 177 et passim).

Some works of jurisprudence mention two contradictory reports deriving from Abū Yūsuf (al-Ghanīmī, 3/11). They refer to two views: one earlier and one later (al-Ṭabarī, Ikhtilāf, 232–233, 247; al-Ṭūsī, al-Khilāf, 1/146, 216). This raises the question whether the fundamental change in viewpoint to which al-Sahmī refers in Taʾrīkh Jurjān (p. 488), where he also states that Abū Yūsuf withdrew the unknown and shādhdh (exceptional) reports which he had narrated during his stay in Gurgān, may have some connection to Abū Yūsuf's earlier and later doctrines.

Abū Yūsuf and the Aṣḥāb al-ḥadīth Because Abū Yūsuf avoided making explicit statements on the opinions of the traditionists, on the one hand, and because of the similarities between the fiqh of the traditionists and his juristic opinions, on the other, the aṣḥāb al-ḥadīth were able to take a positive view of Abū Yūsuf's scholarship. In consideration of his social status, Abū Yūsuf tried to give positive opinions about the traditionists and to be on good terms with them (al-Khaṭīb, Sharaf, 49, Taʾrīkh, 14/255).

The traditionists of Kūfa, such as Sufyān al-Thawrī (d. 161/778), Sharīk b. ʿAbd Allāh al-Nakhaʿī (d. 177/793) and their successors, Wakīʿ b. al-Jarrāḥ and ʿAbd Allāh b. Idrīs, and others such as Yazīd b. Hārūn, the faqīh of Wāsiṭ, had a personal rivalry with Abū Ḥanīfa and with his student, Abū Yūsuf, which made agreement more difficult (al-ʿUqaylī, 4/441–442; al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/257–258). In other lands, however, it was possible for traditionists who were Abū Yūsuf's contemporaries and later generations to find points of agreement. Two different viewpoints can be discerned amongst his contemporaries. On the one hand, there is a tradition which reports a friendly and a respectful relationship between Abū Yūsuf and Sufyān b. ʿUyayna, the scholar of Mecca (al-Ṣaymarī, 94); on the other hand, the reports by ʿAbd Allāh Ibn al-Mubārak, the jurist of Marw, indicate that he was very antagonistic towards Abū Yūsuf (al-ʿUqaylī, 4/440–443; al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/256–257).

A number of prominent traditionists, including Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Yaḥyā b. Maʿīn, ʿAlī b. Jaʿd, and Aḥmad b. Manīʿ learnt ḥadīths from Abū Yūsuf, and Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal even regarded Abū Yūsuf as his first ḥadīth teacher (al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/242, 255). These traditionists, although not interested in circulating Abū Yūsuf's ḥadīths, still upheld his integrity and ¶ believed in his honesty. In their writings dealing with the aṣḥāb al-raʾy, they regarded Abū Yūsuf as unique within this group (Ibn Abī Ḥātim, 4(2)/201; al-Ṣaymarī, 90, 95–96; al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/243, 259).

In later centuries, the aṣḥāb al-ḥadīth had two different views regarding Abū Yūsuf: some, such as al-Nasāʾī, Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī and Ibn Shāhīn, regarded him as a trustworthy narrator and upheld the authority of his ḥadīths (Ibn Abī Ḥātim, 4(2)/202; Ibn Shāhīn, 358; Ibn Ḥajar, 6/301), while others, such as ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bukhārī (4(2)/397), al-Jūzjānī (p. 76) and al-Dāraquṭnī, regarded him as weak (ḍaʿīf) and unreliable (al-Khaṭīb, Taʾrīkh, 14/260).

A number of Abū Yūsuf's reports are recorded in certain Shiʿi books of ḥadīth, such as al-kutub al-arbaʿa. For instance, one can point to the report of Abū al-Qāsim al-Kūfī from Abū Yūsuf, on the authority of Layth b. Abī Salīm (some sources spell this incorrectly as Sulaymān), with an uninterrupted chain of transmission back to Imam ʿAlī, which discusses obligations (on questions of inheritance) (Ibn Bābawayh, Faqīh, 4/188–189; al-Ṭūsī, Tahdhīb, 9/249–250; Ibn Bābawayh, Amālī, 185).

It has been said that apart from jurisprudence and ḥadīth, Abū Yūsuf had a vast knowledge of other fields of study including taʾwīl and tafsīr, maghāzī, and ayyām al-ʿArab (al-Ṣaymarī, 93).

Works

Published Works

1.

al-Āthār [a collection of Abū Yūsuf's juristic transmissions from Abū Ḥanīfa.] The work is known as Musnad Abī Ḥanīfa, although Abū Yūsuf refers throughout to many related transmissions from his other shaykhs (p. 11, nos 49, 51). It was edited by Abū al-Wafāʾ al-Afghānī and publisehd in Cairo in 1355/1936 (for the connection between al-Āthār and Musnad Abū Ḥanīfa, see al-Khwārazmī, ¶ Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd, 1/75; Sezgin, 1/414).

2.

Ikhtilāf Abī Ḥanīfa wa Ibn Abī Laylā, which contains Abū Yūsuf's comparative study of the viewpoints and analyses of the Kūfan faqīhs. Besides outlining their views, Abū Yūsuf explains his own opinions. Al-Shāfiʿī gave a description of the book and added some annotations to it. Abū Yūsuf's book and the notes by al-Shāfiʿī can be found in al-Imām Shāfiʿī (7/96–163) (al-Sarakhsī, al-Mabsūṭ, 30/128, ff.). It was published separately in Cairo in 1357/1938 by Abū al-Wafāʾ al-Afghānī.

3.

al-Kharāj is the earliest comprehensive treatise on the theory of public finance and taxation. It was written at the request of Hārūn al-Rashīd, the ʿAbbāsid caliph (see the introduction to the book; also Ibn al-Nadīm, 257). Although others, including Abū ʿUbayd Allāh Muʿāwiya b. Yasār, the vizier of al-Mahdī, and Ḥafṣawayh (or Ḥafaṣawiya, perhaps a corruption of Muʿāwiya) are reported to have written books bearing the same title (Ibn al-Nadīm, 150; Ibn al-Ṭiqṭaqā, 247), assuming that the reports are accurate, their work had no influence on the structure of fiqh relating to kharāj, and their ideas soon became obsolete or disappeared. The few pages written on kharāj by Abū al-Wazīr (q.v. Abū al-Wazīr), while composed before Abū Yūsuf's monograph, were also not theoretical in nature. Abū Yūsuf's work was originally written for the caliph, but later became a textbook for study by the Ḥanafī school, where it was copied with interpolations such as ‘Said Abū Yūsuf…’ which are found in modern editions (Ben Shemesh, 1/11). In 1302/1885 al-Kharāj was published for the first time in Būlāq, and it was subsequently republished several times. The work was translated into Italian by Tripodo (Rome, 1906); and into French by Fagnan (Paris, 1921) (for related articles in ¶ German by

Riedel and Hartmann, see Brockelmann, SI/288). Turkish translations, under the title Waḍʿ al-āthār ʿan ʿulamāʾ al-amṣār (Vaz' ül-asar ‘an ‘ulema il-emsar), by Muḥammad Muʿīdzādah (Mehmed Mü'idzade) and M. Ruduslī Zādah (M. Rodosluzade) exist in manuscript form in certain libraries in Turkey (Sezgin, 1/420; see also the copy in the Dār al-Kutub in Cairo, Fihris, 1/246–247). In 1169/1756 ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Muḥammad al-Raḥabī al-Baghdādī wrote a description of Abū Yūsuf's work entitled Fiqh al-mulūk wa miftāḥ al-ritāj al-muraṣṣad ʿalā khizānat kitāb al-Kharāj, which was edited by Aḥmad ʿUbayd al-Kubaysī in Baghdad in 1974.

4.

al-Radd ʿalā siyar al-Awzāʿī is about the Sharīʿa rulings on warfare. In this book, Abū Yūsuf often, but not always, defends the statements made by Abū Ḥanīfa, and gives substantial replies to Abū Ḥanīfa's critic ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAmr al-Awzāʿī (d. 157/773), the traditionist and jurist of al-Shām. It was edited by Abū al-Wafāʾ al-Afghānī and published in Cairo in 1357/1938 (as part of al-Shāfiʿī's Kitāb al-umm, 7/339–369).

Apart from these, Abū Yūsuf wrote a work entitled al-Ḥiyal (on legal devices) (al-Jāḥiẓ, 3/11), which Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī summarises in his al-Makhārij fī al-ḥiyal (ed. Schacht, Leipzig, 1930) (Schacht, ‘Die arabische’, 217; Abū Yusuf, al-Kharāj, 80).

Unpublished Works Adab al-qāḍī, which has been described as the first work on judicial procedures in Islamic jurisprudence (Ḥājjī Khalīfa, 1/46). There is a manuscript in the National Library of Tunisia (Bibliothèque nationale de Tunisie) (Sezgin, 1/421).

Lost Works Apart from al-Kharāj, the following works are listed by Ibn al-Nadīm (pp. 256–257) ¶ among the writings by Abū Yūsuf: al-Ṣalāt, al-Zakāt, al-Ṣiyām, al-Farāʾiḍ, al-Buyūʿ, al-Ḥudūd, al-Wakāla, al-Waṣāyā, al-Ṣayd wa al-dhabāʾiḥ, al-Ghaṣb wa al-istibrāʾ, Ikhtilāf al-amṣār and al-Radd ʿalā Mālik b. Anas, the last two being on comparative jurisprudence. According to Ibn al-Nadīm, Abū Yūsuf compiled al-Jawāmiʿ, which was also on comparative jurisprudence and comprised forty works of jurisprudence, for Yaḥyā b. Khālid (al-Barmakī, the vizier of Hārūn al-Rashīd). Apart from these, Ibn al-Nadīm (pp. 256–257) mentions a collection called al-Amālī consisting of thirty-six juridical works which Bishr b. al-Walīd transmitted from Abū Yūsuf.

Ḥanafī authors refer to copies of a work by Abū Yūsuf entitled either al-Amālī or al-Imlāʾ, about which little is known (see for example al-Ṭaḥāwī, Ikhtilāf, 1/67; al-Sarakhsī, Uṣūl, 1/333; al-Kāsānī, 1/46, 189; regarding two works entitled al-Ṣarf and al-Zawāl, see al-Ṣaymarī, 97; al-Ṭūsī, al-Khilāf, 1/56).

A testament attributed to Abū Ḥanīfa and addressed to Abū Yūsuf was published in al-Ashbāh wa al-naẓāʾir of Ibn Nujaym (pp. 516–522), although the attribution is doubtful. Various biographical works were written on Abū Yūsuf, such as Manāqib Abī Ḥanīfa wa ṣāḥibayh Abī Yūsuf wa Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan by Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Dhahabī, and another with the same title by Muḥarram b. Muḥammad al-Zaylaʿī (d. 1007/1599, Sezgin, 1/420). Apart from these, numerous books and articles about Abū Yūsuf's life and scholarship have been produced by modern writers.

Ahmad Pakatchi Tr. Maryam Rezaee

BibliographyAbū Layth al-Samarqandī, Naṣr, ‘Bustān al-ʿārifīn’, in the margins of Tanbīh al-ghāfilīn (Delhi, n.d.)

Abū Yūsuf, Yaʿqūb, ‘Ikhtilāf Abī Ḥanīfa wa Ibn Abī Laylā’, in vol. 7 of al-Shāfiʿī's Kitāb al-umm

idem, al-Kharāj (Beirut, 1399/1979)

idem, Kitāb al-āthār, ed. Abū al-Wafāʾ al-Afghānī (Cairo, 1355/1936)

idem, al-Radd ʿalā siyar al-Awzāʿī, ed. Abū al-Wafāʾ al-Afghānī (Cairo, 1357/1938)

ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bukhārī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Kashf al-asrār (Istanbul, 1308/1890)

¶ al-Azdī, Yazīd, Taʾrīkh Mawṣil, ed. ʿAlī Ḥabība (Cairo, 1387/1967)

al-Baghdādī, ʿAbd al-Qāhir, al-Milal wa al-niḥal, ed. Albīr Naṣrī Nādir (Beirut, 1986)

al-Bazdawī, ʿAlī, Uṣūl al-fiqh, in the margins of Kashf al-asrār (see ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Bukhārī)

Ben Shemesh, A., Taxation in Islam (Leiden, 1958)

Brockelmann SI

al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad, al-Taʾrīkh al-kabīr (Hyderabad, 1398/1978)

al-Dārimī, ʿUthmān, al-Radd ʿalā Bishr al-Marīsī, ed. Muḥammad Ḥāmid al-Fiqī (Beirut, n.d.)

al-Dhahabī, Muḥammad, Manāqib al-Imām Abī Ḥanīfa wa ṣāḥibayh, ed. Muḥammad Zāhid al-Kawtharī and Abū al-Wafāʾ al-Afghānī (Beirut, 1408/1987)

Dutton, Yasin, The Origins of Islamic Law (London, 2002)

van Ess, Josef, Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra, vols. 1–6 (Berlin, 1997)

Faḍl b. Shādhān (attrib.), al-Īḍāḥ (Beirut, 1402/1982)

al-Fasawī (al-Basawī), Yaʿqūb, al-Maʿrifa wa al-taʾrīkh, ed. Akram Ḍiyāʾ al-ʿUmarī (Baghdad, 1394–1396/1974–1976)

Fihris al-makhṭūṭāt al-Turkiyya al-ʿUthmāniyya (Cairo, 1987)

al-Ghanīmī, ʿAbd al-Ghanī, al-Lubāb fī sharḥ al-kitāb, ed. Muḥammad Muḥyī al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd and Maḥmūd Amīn al-Nawāwī (Cairo, 1383/1963)

Ḥājjī Khalīfa, Kashf

al-Ḥakīm al-Samarqandī, Abū al-Qāsim, al-Sawād al-aʿẓam, Early Persian translation, ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Ḥabībī (Tehran, 1348 Sh./1970)

Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Yūsuf, al-Intiqāʾ ʿan faḍāʾil al-thalātha al-aʾimma al-fuqahāʾ (Beirut, n.d.)

Ibn ʿĀbidīn, Muḥammad Amīn, Majmūʿa rasāʾil (Damascus, 1301/1884)

Ibn Abī Ḥātim, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, al-Jarḥ wa al-taʿdīl (Hyderabad, 1373/1953)

Ibn ʿAdī, ʿAbd Allāh, al-Kāmil fī ḍuʿafāʾ al-rijāl (Beirut, 1405/1985)

Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil

Ibn Baṭṭa al-ʿUkbarī, ʿUbayd Allāh, al-Ibāna, ed. Riḍā b. Naʿsān al-Muʿṭī (Riyadh, 1409/1988)

Ibn Bābawayh, Muḥammad, al-Amālī (Beirut, 1400/1980)

idem, Man lā yaḥḍuruh al-faqīh, ed. Ḥasan al-Mūsawī al-Kharsān (Najaf, 1376/1957)

idem, ʿUyūn akhbār al-Riḍā (Najaf, 1390/1970)

Hallaq, Wael B., Authority, Continuity and Change in Islamic Law (Cambridge, 2001)

Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Aḥmad, Lisān al-mīzān (Hyderabad, 1331/1913)

Ibn Ḥibbān, Muḥammad, Kitāb al-majrūḥīn, ed. Maḥmūd Ibrāhīm Zāyid (Aleppo, 1396/1976)

idem, Mashāhīr ʿulamāʾ al-amṣār, ed. Marzūq ʿAlī Ibrāhīm (Beirut, 1408/1987)

idem, al-Thiqāt (Hyderabad, 1401/1981)

Ibn Khallikān, Wafayāt

Ibn Mundhir, Muḥammad, al-Ishrāf ʿalā madhāhib ahl al-ʿilm, ed. Muḥammad Najīb Sirāj al-Dīn (Qatar, 1406/1986)

Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ, ʿAbd Allāh, ‘Risālat al-ṣaḥāba’, in Rasāʾil al-bulaghāʾ, ed. Muḥammad Kurd ʿAlī (Cairo, 1331/1913)

Ibn al-Nadīm, al-Fihrist

Abū Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī, ʿAlī b. Muḥammad, al-Baṣāʾir wa al-dhakhāʾir, ed. Ibrāhīm al-Kīlānī (Damascus, 1385/1966)

Ibn Nujaym, Zayn al-Dīn, al-Ashbāh wa al-naẓāʾir, ed. Muḥammad Muṭīʿ Ḥāfiẓ (Damascus, 1403/1983)

Ibn ¶ Qutayba, ʿAbd Allāh (attrib.), al-Imāma wa al-siyāsa, ed. Ṭāhā Muḥammad al-Zaynī (Beirut, n.d.)

idem, al-Maʿārif, ed. Tharwat ʿUkāsha (Cairo, 1960)

Ibn Shāhīn, ʿUmar, Taʾrīkh asmāʾ al-thiqāt, ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Amīn Qalʿajī (Beirut, 1406/1986)

Ibn Saʿd, Muḥammad, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr, ed. E. Sachau et al. (Leiden, 1904–1915)

Ibn Ṭāwūs, ʿAlī, Muhaj al-daʿawāt (Tehran, 1323/1945)

Ibn al-Ṭiqṭaqā, Muḥammad, al-Fakhrī, ed. H. Derenbourg (Paris, 1894)

al-Jūzjānī, Ibrāhīm, Aḥwāl al-rijāl, ed. Ṣubḥī Badrī Sāmarrāʾī (Beirut, 1405/1985)

al-Jāḥiẓ, ʿAmr, al-Ḥayawān, ed. ʿAbd al-Salām Hārūn (Cairo, 1357/1938)

al-Kāsānī, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn, Badāʾiʿ al-ṣanāʾiʿ (Cairo, 1406/1986)

Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Taʾrīkh, ed. Suhayl Zakkār (Damascus, 1968)

al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, Aḥmad, Sharaf aṣḥāb al-ḥadīth, ed. Mehmed Said Hatiboğlu (Ankara, 1971)

idem, Taʾrīkh Baghdād (Cairo, 1349/1930)

al-Khwārazmī, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad, Mafātīḥ al-ʿulūm, ed. G. van Vloten (Leiden, 1895)

al-Khwārazmī, Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd, Jāmiʿ masānīd Abī Ḥanīfa (Hyderabad, 1332/1914)

al-Khwārazmī, al-Qāsim, ‘Ḍarām al-Siqṭ’, in Shurūḥ Siqṭ al-Zand (Cairo, 1383/1964)

al-Kindī, Muḥammad, Kitāb al-wulāt wa kitāb al-quḍāt, ed. Rhuvon Guest (Beirut, 1908)

al-Kulaynī, Muḥammad, al-Kāfī, ed. ʿAlī Akbar al-Ghaffārī (Tehran, 1391/1971)

al-Makkī, al-Muwaffaq, Manāqib Abī Ḥanīfa (Hyderabad, 1321/1903)

al-Maqrīzī, Aḥmad, al-Khiṭaṭ (Cairo, 1270/1853)

al-Masʿūdī, ʿAlī, Murūj al-dhahab, ed. Yūsuf Asʿad Dāghir (Beirut, 1385/1966)

al-Maḥmaṣānī, Ṣubḥī, ‘Qāḍī quḍāt Baghdād wa atharuh fī al-fiqh al-Islāmī’, in Majallat al-Majmaʿ al-ʿIlmī al-ʿArabī, 40 (n.p., 1384/1965), pp. 117–136

Motzki, Harald, The Origins of Islamic Jurisprudence: Meccan Fiqh before the Classical Schools (Leiden, 2002)

al-Mufīd, Muḥammad, al-Irshād (Najaf, 1382/1962)

idem, al-Tadhkira (Qumm, 1413/1992)

Mustawfī, Ḥamd Allāh, Taʾrīkh-i guzīdah, ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn Nawāʾī (Tehran, 1362/1984)

al-Nawbakhtī, Ḥasan, Firaq al-Shīʿa, ed. Muḥammad Ṣādiq Āl Baḥr al-ʿUlūm (Najaf, 1355/1936)

al-Qudūrī, Aḥmad, ‘Mukhtaṣar’, in al-Ghanīmī's al-Lubāb (see above)

al-Sahmī, Ḥamza, Taʾrīkh Jurjān, ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Muʿīd Khān (Beirut, 1407/1987)

al-Sarakhsī, Muḥammad, al-Mabsūṭ (Cairo, n.d.)

idem, Uṣūl, ed. Abū al-Wafāʾ al-Afghānī (Hyderabad, 1372/1952)

al-Ṣaymarī, Ḥusayn, Akhbār Abī Ḥanīfa wa aṣḥābih (Hyderabad, 1394/1974)

Schacht, J., ‘Die arabische Ḥijal-Literatur’, Der Islam, 15 (1926), pp. 211–323

idem, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (Oxford, 1953)

Sezgin, GAS

al-Shāfiʿī, Muḥammad, Kitāb al-umm (Beirut, n.d.)

al-Shahrastānī, Muḥammad, al-Milal wa al-niḥal, ed. Muḥammad Badrān (Cairo, 1375/1956)

¶ al-Shaybānī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan, al-Aṣl (Hyderabad, 1389/1969)

idem, al-Jāmiʿ al-ṣaghīr (Beirut, 1406/1986)

al-Ṭabarī, Ikhtilāf al-fuqahāʾ (Beirut, n.d.)

idem, Taʾrīkh

al-Ṭaḥāwī, Aḥmad, al-ʿAqīda (Beirut, 1408/1988)

idem, Ikhtilāf al-fuqahāʾ, ed. Muḥammad Ṣaghīr Ḥasan Maʿṣūmī (Islamabad, 1391/1971)

al-Tanūkhī, al-Muḥassin, al-Faraj baʿd al-shidda, ed. ʿAbbūd al-Shāljī (Beirut, 1398/1978)

idem, Nishwār al-muḥāḍara, ed. ʿAbbūd al-Shāljī (Beirut, 1391/1971)

al-Ṭūsī, Muḥammad, al-Khilāf (Tehran, 1377/1999)

idem, Tahdhīb al-aḥkām, ed. Ḥasan al-Mūsawī al-Kharsān (Najaf, 1379/1959)

al-ʿUqaylī, Muḥammad, al-Ḍuʿafāʾ al-kabīr, ed. ʿAbd al-Muʿṭī Amīn Qalʿajī (Beirut, 1404/1984)

al-Ūzjandī, Fakhr al-Dīn, ‘Fatāwā’, in the margins of al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyya (Cairo, 1323/1905)

Wakīʿ, Muḥammad, Akhbār al-quḍāt (Beirut, n.d.).

Cite this page

Pakatchi, Ahmad; Rezaee, Maryam. "Abū Yūsuf." Encyclopaedia Islamica. Editors-in-Chief: Wilferd Madelung and, Farhad Daftary. Brill Online, 2015. Reference. Emory University. 05 November 2015 <http://referenceworks.brillonline.com.proxy.library.emory.edu/entries/encyclopaedia-islamica/abu-yusuf-COM_0164> First appeared online: 2008