المسائل التي خالف فيها الإمام أبو حنيفة الجمهور في الجنايات والحدود

The difference between the jurists is a result of the jurisprudence that Muslims have followed since the time of the Prophethood and beyond, as the legal texts bear multiple meanings. Also, perceptions and understandings differ from one person to another. Therefore, it was natural for the existence of a difference in rulings between the jurists according to their differences in understanding the texts, and among these differences is the disagreement of Imam Abu Hanifa to the jurists. This research aims to clarify some of the issues in which Imam Abu Hanifa disagreed with the rest of the jurists in the chapters on crimes and hudud. He collected them in an independent study and explained the origin on which the imam relied in his disagreements. It is also clear that knowledge of the provisions of crimes and hudud requires the necessity of knowing their details and vocabulary throughout the ages by all Muslims who are required to implement the Sharia. In order for the study to achieve its objectives, the researcher followed the historical descriptive approach when introducing Imam Abu Hanifa and his scientific biography, and the analytical inductive approach when collecting issues in which the imam disagreed with the public in cases of crimes and hudud, analyzing these opinions and extracting evidence for each team, then weighting according to the preponderance of the argument and the legitimate interest, and this was done Referring to the books of jurisprudence approved in the four schools of thought and contemporary encyclopedias of jurisprudence on the subject. The conclusions of the study were as follows: Imam Abu Hanifa wasn't fanatical like other scholars, but what he disagreed with was based on evidence of the principles of the Sharia, and among the issues with which the public disagreed: with regard to issues of killing by weight and drowning, limiting the tools that indicate intent and intentionality In killing on what cuts flesh and skin, such as iron and fire, and also among them: his condition to kill whoever killed a Muslim in the abode of war, Islam and residency in the abode of Islam, while the majority stipulated Islam only, just as the apostate woman is not killed with him, but rather imprisoned and repented until she returns to Islam. In sum, the difference between the jurists is evidence of the flexibility of Islamic law and its validity for all times and places.