النص المفهرس

world for sins which deserve that punishment, his destiny is up to Allah as to
whether He punishes him or forgives him." (al-Manaqib, p. 174)
Imam Ahmad declared, "We do not declare any of the adherents of tawhid to
be unbelievers, even if they commit major sins." He criticised the
Mu'tazilites for claiming that someone who sins is an unbeliever and the
consequences of that position. But we do find it transmitted from him that
anyone who abandons the prayer is an unbeliever. He singled out that
particular sin above all others, saying, "The only practice whose non-
performance constitutes disbelief is the ritual prayer. Whoever abandons it is
an unbeliever and Allah has allowed that he be killed." (al-Manaqib, p. 173)
This text is somewhat strange in that the prayer is singled out and the isnad is
not clear. Perhaps Imam Ahmad meant someone who persists in not praying
in such a way that it is tantamount to denial of one of the pillars of the deen.
If he denies one of the pillars, the Muslims agree that he is an unbeliever
because that which he denies what has come from the Messenger of Allah.
Qadar and human actions
One of the most evident qualities that characterised Ahmad's life was his
absolute self-surrender to the judgement of Allah and his full submission to
the Decree of Allah. He entrusted his affairs to Allah in respect of what was
absent and what was present. But he was not one of those who are passive
and do not act. He acted but put his trust in his Lord, believing in His decree
of good and evil. The statements transmitted from him which show his
absolute belief in the decree of good and evil are numerous. It was a deep and
firm belief he held without that making him cease to act.
We read in a 1 - M a n a q i b that "Seventy men of the Ta b i ' u n, Muslim
Imams and fuqaha' of the cities agreed that the Sunna to which the
Messenger of Allah held until he died was first of all contentment with the
Decree of Allah, submission to His command, steadfastness under His
decree, taking what Allah commanded and being far from what He
prohibited, sincerity in acting for Allah, belief in Destiny for good or evil,
and abandoning argument, debate and quarrels about the Deen." (al-Manaqib,
p. 186)

This quotation indicates that Ahmad believed in Destiny for good or evil, and
in surrendering all affairs to Allah. It also shows that he did not consider it
proper to debate and argue this question. He particularly detested argument
on this matter because it was an endless conundrum. The more it was debated
the most abstruse it became. As Abu Hanifa observed, "This is a question
which is difficult for people. How should they be capable of understanding
it? It is a lock whose key is lost. If the key is found, what is in it will be
known. It can only be opened when someone is informed by Allah."
So Ahmad believed that all that a man does is by the Decree and Will of
Allah. That is contrary to the Qadarite view that man creates his own actions.
Ahmad and the Orthodox Muslim Community believe that nothing occurs in
existence except by the Will of Allah. Nonetheless Ahmad refused to debate
this matter. He wrote to a friend of his, "I am not someone who deals with
kalam and I do not think that there should be discussion about any of this
except what is in the Book, or the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah, may
Allah bless him and grant him peace, or what the Companions said. Anything
other than that is not praiseworthy. " (al-Manaqib, p. 156)
The Divine Attributes and the createdness of the Qur'an
Ahmad affirmed all the Attributes by which Allah describes Himself in His
Book and those by which Allah is described in hadiths. The Attributes are as
the texts state and no one should go further than that. So Allah is Hearing,
Seeing, Speaking, Powerful, Knowing, Willing, and so forth, and "He is not
like anything". The hadiths are taken as related. Ahmad did not investigate
what they meant, as he considered excessive interpretation to be outside the
Sunna and that delving into the simile or metaphor would lead to discord and
innovation. He described the believer among the people of the Sunna as
someone who "leaves things which are beyond his ken to Allah," as when the
hadith from the Prophet reports that the people of the Garden will see their
Lord and affirm him.
One of the Attributes of Allah is speech and this pertains to the issue of the
createdness of the Qur'an. As we saw in the Inquisition, Ahmad would not
affirm that the Qur'an is created, as the Abbasid authorities demanded. Was
his view that the Qur'an was uncreated, and did that also apply to the Qur'an
which is recited, written in copies and spoken by the reciters and whose

letters are present in copies of the Qur'an? Or did he simply not say that the
Qur'an was created because to say so would be innovation?
Transmissions from Ahmad vary, and before we explain his opinion we say
that the Qur'an, meaning its recitation, is in time, not timeless. If someone
says that the Qur'an as recitation is created and in time, his words are sound.
That is because recitation is a description applying to the reader, not to Allah.
This usage of " Qur'an" is found in the Qur'an where Allah says, "The
dawn recitation (qur'an) is certainly witnessed." (17:78) This requires no
analysis. Nonetheless, Ibn Qutayba reports that some people said that the
actual recitation was timeless - which would entail the actions of the human
being who performed it being uncreated.
In the time of Ahmad there was great confusion on this topic. There was
disagreement about actual recitation and there was also disagreement about
the Qur'an itself. There were two views. One considered its source: Allah has
speech, and His speech is timeless as His Essence is timeless. The second
view considered the letters, words and the meanings indicated by them. One
group said that Ahmad preferred not to delve into the details because he
thought that to do so was innovation.
Although some hold that he refused to discuss it, Ibn Qutayba reports that
Ahmad was not silent on this matter. He said about those who were silent, 'I
cannot see in these sects anyone with less excuse than him who demands
silence and claims ignorance after this sedition. ... It is not in human nature
to refrain from a matter concerning the deen which has spread like this and
become public in this way. If intelligent men were to refrain, the ignorant
would not refrain. If tongues are restrained, hearts are not. People have a
model in earlier scholars, since Jahm and Abu Hanifa spoke about the
Qur'an. This had not happened before and was unprecedented, since people
had not previously spoken about it. When people resorted to their scholars,
they did not tell them it was innovation to discuss it, but they removed doubt
with certainty, dispelled confusion and removed distress. They agreed that
the Qur'an is not created and gave a f a t w a to that effect. They used
evidence and proofs, investigated and compared, and deduced evidence for
their fatwa from the Book of Allah ... "
Ahmad is reported as saying, "Whoever claims that the Qur'an is created is a

Jahmite. The Jahmites are unbelievers. Whoever claims that it is not created
is an innovator." Ibn Qutayba rejected this transmission and said it was rare
and was unlikely to be authentic.
After looking into all the sources, it seems that at first Ahmad hesitated to
discuss the matter at first. Eventually, he did express himself on it as we see
in a letter which he wrote to al-Mutawakkil and which is recorded in the
History of Islam by adh-Dhahabi. In this letter he pointed out that discussion
on the subject leads to the inculcation of doubts in people's hearts, and he
shows that in the view of the S a l a f the Qur'an is not created. The Qur'an is
the Word of Allah and the Word of Allah cannot be considered Allah's
creation. The Qur'an is part of Allah's knowledge and Allah's knowledge is
not created. This is all derived from the texts of the Book and S u n n a and
reports of the Companions and Followers, not just from logic. So after
studying the texts of the Book and Sunna, Ahmad concluded that the Qur'an
is not created. He relied on the Qur'an and Traditions and followed the Path
of the Salaf without employing reasoning - something he did not consider his
business as he was not one of the people of kalam and debate.
Seeing Allah on the Day of Rising
This is a question which was discussed in the time of Ahmad. The
Mu'tazilites denied that Allah would be seen on the Day of Rising because
vision entails corporeality and corporeality resembles temporal things, and
"there is nothing like Allah". They interpret in other ways the verses about
vision which appear in the Qur'an such as "Faces that Day will be radiant,
gazing at their L o rd " (75:22-23), and other such verses which suggest
actual vision.
At the end of his life, al-Ma'mun tried to compel people to say that the
Qur'an is created, but did not insist on their believing in the negation of
vision of Allah even though, as a Mu'tazilite, he took that position. But al-
Wathiq went on to force people to deny the vision of Allah and that
continued until al-Mutawakkil's reign.
Ahmad accepted the texts without interpreting them. He believed fully in the
Vision. One of his letters expounded the doctrine of the people of the Sunna
and Community that belief in the vision on the Day of Rising was part of

belief. He said, "Belief in the Vision on the Day of Rising is as it is related by
the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and confirmed in
sound ha dith s. The Prophet saw his Lord. That is reported in sound h a d i
th s. Qatada reported it from 'Ikrima from 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas ...
Discussion about it is innovation. We take it at face value and do not debate
with anyone about it." (al-Manaqib, Ibn al-Jawzi, p. 173)
Ahmad believed in the Vision of Allah on the Day of Rising because the texts
mention it and the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saw his
Lord; but he also thought that one should not debate how that would come
about and how it does or does not relate to or reflect the idea of corporeality.
" There is nothing like Him," (42:11) and so the true nature of Vision in
this context is unknown. Thus he took a middle course between those who
totally rejected the possibility of seeing Allah and those who
anthropomorphised. We also see that in his method Ahmad relied on the S u
n n a and not the Qur'an, since the S u n n a explains the Qur'an.
This is a general summary of the views of Ahmad regarding the subjects into
which the proponents of k a l a m delved and which were problematical in his
time. You can see that in his studies he followed the same method as he did
in the study of fiqh and kept himself from exceeding the limit by two means.
One is that he did not go beyond the texts or try to interpret them or explain
them at any level beyond face value, even if they required understanding, and
he did not use pure reason to help. He sought help in the S u n n a and used it
to explain the Book. The second is that in respect of the Attributes which
Allah affirms in the Book or which are in the Sunna of the Prophet he was
eager to negate any resemblance between Allah and His creation and cling to
the words of the Almighty, " T h e re is nothing like Him." ( 4 2 : 11) In aff i
r m i n g the Attributes and the Vision, he was eager to deny any resemblance
between Allah and creation.
Imam Ahmad's political views
In his studies of political matters, Imam Ahmad followed sound tradition and
did not deviate from that course. As regards his opinions about the
Companions, he followed what was transmitted and the position of the great
majority of the Companions and Tab'iun, may Allah be pleased with all of

them. He was a traditionist in this as in the rest of his studies.
In respect of the khalif and khalifate and who should be chosen and how he
should be chosen, he was a pragmatic man who avoided sedition and strove
for the unity of the Muslims and preferred to obey the ruler, even if he was
unjust, to rebellion against the Community. His views in this respect
resembled those of Imam Malik. They both agreed on the order of the relative
positions of the Companions, the choice of the khalif, and that rebelling
against the khalif, even if he was unjust, was not permitted because of the
possible consequences.
If there are differences between the two Imams, it is because Malik witnessed
and lived through rebellions and civil war. Ahmad did not witness civil unrest
and only saw the civil war between al-Amin and al-Ma'mun, observing how
it led to evil rather than good and to the ascendancy of Persian influence, and
the appearance of different religions and innovations in the deen and opened
the way to unjust rule. He endured flogging, imprisonment and constriction
and experienced the consequences of such injustice.
Regarding the Companions, he doubted whether anyone who curses one of
the Companions of the Messenger of Allah was or indeed could really be
considered a Muslim believer. He said, "I saw a man speak ill of one of the
Companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him
peace, and so I suspected his Islam."
He defined a Companion as "Anyone who kept the company of the Prophet
for a year, a month, a day or an hour is one of his Companions. He was a
Companion if he was with him, listened to him, or looked at him, even once.
The least of them is better than all of the generations which did not see him,
even if they meet Allah with every good action, so those who were
Companions are better than the Ta b i ' u n by virtue of their companionship
of the Prophet, even if the latter were to perform all possible good actions.
Anyone who deprecates any of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah,
may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or hates one of them for something
he did, or mentions his bad qualities is an innovator. One should pray for
mercy for all of them." (al-Manaqib, p. 161)
In ranking the Companions, Imam Ahmad followed the Salaf and Ta bi ' u n.

He said, "The best of this Community after its Prophet are Abu Bakr as-
Siddiq, 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, and 'Uthman ibn 'Affan without dispute and
after them the five members of the S h u r a: 'Ali, az-Zubayr, Talha, 'Abdu'r-
Rahman ibn 'Awf and Sa'd, all of whom were fit to be khalif." After those of
the S hur a , he mentioned the M u h a j i run present at the Battle of Badr
and then the Ansar who were at Badr. He took a middle position, based on
the sources. Abu Hanifa preferred 'Ali to 'Uthman; Malik mentioned the first
three and then said that the others were equal.
Ahmad was also strong in defending 'Ali against anyone who attacked his
khalifate, for in the reign of al-Mutawakkil there were many people who
attacked that just Imam and Sword of Islam since al-Mutawwakil was a
Nasibite, i.e. one of those who were hostile towards 'Ali and attacked him.
Ahmad refuted their statements and mentioned the khalifate and virtues of
'Ali. He said, "The khalifate did not adorn 'Ali: 'Ali adorned it." He stressed
'Ali's virtues but he did not attack 'Ali's opponents. When asked about the
conflict between 'Ali and Mu'awiya, he said, "I have only the best to say
about them. May Allah have mercy on all of them. Mu'awiya, 'Amr ibn
al-'As and Abu Musa al-Ash'ari were all described by Allah Almighty in His
Book when He says 'Their mark is on their faces, the traces of prostration."
(48:29)
But we do not find that Ahmad proposed any clear method for the selection
of the khalif; nor did he clearly state whether he preferred any particular
house for the khalifate, except that he seemed to consider that the khalif's
designation of his successor was valid. He related a Tradition about this, in
which the Prophet indicated his choice of Abu Bakr by selecting him to lead
the prayer when he was ill. Then Abu Bakr chose 'Umar, and 'Umar chose
one of six and left the decision to them. Ahmad, who, followed the method of
the Companions, must have thought this correct because that is what the
Companions did.
Chapter Five The Hadiths and Figh of Ahmad
This subject is in fact the object of our studies. We passed by way of
Ahmad's political views and views on dogma because they were occasioned
by the intellectual environment and circumstances of his time, the debates

which were taking place with the Mu'tazilites, and the khalifs who espoused
their views. He avoided dealing with the adherents of sects. He called people
to what he thought contained true guidance, avoided disputation, and was
steadfast in the face of affliction. So it was to figh and hadiths that he
directed his efforts and gifts by learning hadiths and the traditions and
decisions of the Companions. When he met ash-Shafi'i, he learned the rules
for sound understanding of the Book, comparison of textual sources, and
knowledge of the abrogating and abrogated, and in general how to deduce
and extrapolate secondary rulings from the basic sources of the Shari'a.
What Imam Ahmad learned from ash-Shafi'i and saw him through his own
intellect was that he was a genius, not to be ignored by anyone seeking
knowledge of the Book and Sunna. A scholar is nourished by various sources
and it is a righteous nourishment whose fruit is sincere knowledge. By
learning the fiqh and deductive methods of ash-Shafi'i, he was able to study
the Sunna and traditions in a correct manner and proceed with his fiqh even if
he did not know the decision of a Companion or Follower in a particular case.
Thus we can say that Ahmad was an Imam in hadiths and that through this
leadership in h a d i t h s and traditions, he became an Imam in fiqh. His fiqh,
in its reality, logic, criteria, rules, tone and appearance, was based on
Tradition. That is why at-Tabari denied that he was a f a q i h and Ibn
Qutayba counted him among the h a d i t h scholars and not among the f u q a
h a '. Several people took this view, but a close analysis of Ahmad's studies
and the positions and f a t w a s transmitted from him on different questions
makes it clear to us that he was a f a q i h absorbed in Tradition and its
methodology.
Whatever the verdict of the scholars as to whether Ahmad was a faqih or not,
we possess a legal collection attributed to him and different transmissions
with an isnad on which scholars disagree. The reason for the controversy over
the soundness of its ascription to him is that Ahmad used to forbid his
adherents and those who listened to him to write down anything except h a d i
th s. In the beginning he thought that recording anything other than h a d i t h
s was an innovation: how could pages containing the words of the Messenger
be combined with the words of other people? He also feared that people
would abandon the knowledge of h a d i t h s a n d traditions when they
recorded the opinions of fu q a h a '; and that they would concentrate on

studying what was said about secondary rulings and their extrapolations
about questions and so would dispense with h a d i t h s and the study of
transmission and Tradition. He was worried and fearful about what might
happen to people.
He used to say, "Do not look into what Ishaq, Sufyan, ashShafi'i or Malik
wrote; you have the source." When asked about some of the people of h a d i
t h who wrote out the books of ashShafi'i he said, "I do not think they should
do so." He was asked about the books of Abu Thawr and said, "A book that
is innovated is an innovation. It is hadiths which are essential." It appears that
first he did not allow the transmission of any book except the Muwatta' of
Imam Malik, and that only because it contained many hadiths.
But along with these traditions relating to us Ahmad's prohibition of the
transmission of his f a t w a s and his instructions to his followers to confine
themselves to hadiths, we find other traditions which indicate that he later
permitted such transmission both orally and in writing. Indeed he sometimes
consulted books and referred to them. To reconcile the two positions, we may
say that at the beginning of his career he forbade transmission of anything
other than hadiths, and did not allow his fatwas to be disseminated because
he thought that giving a fatwa was a kind of disaster into which a faqih fell
when forced to give a ruling on a matter about which there was no explicit
text from the Prophet or fatwa from the Companions. Ahmad thought that
personal fatwas were something which should only be resorted to as a last
resort. As such, they should not be transmitted since they were in fact an
affliction which it was not good to disseminate although they were acceptable
provided they were soundly based on hadith or valid tradition.
At the end of his life, however, Ahmad had to permit his fatwas to be written
down and disseminated. He disliked his personal opinions being transmitted
but was too diffident to forbid them being written down completely.
Furthermore, his companions kept insisting on it until he became reconciled
to it and his dislike more or less ended. It is reported in Kitab al-Minhaj by
Ishaq ibn Mansur al-Marwazi (d. 251 AH) that Imam Ahmad retracted some
rulings which had been transmitted from him. Ishaq collected those rulings in
a book, took them to Baghdad and presented to Ahmad every question on
which he had issued a f a t w a; and he confirmed them a second time,
approving of what he had done. He was the fittest of people to have his f a t

w a s accepted since they were derived from hadiths and he was clear in
following the Salaf in them rather than adopting legal reasoning which did
not have as strong a connection to hadiths and tradition as his fatwas did.
In brief, Ahmad the h a d i t h scholar transmitted to us his Musnad, which he
collected and passed on to posterity in the form of a book as to whose
transmission from him there is no doubt. As for Ahmad the f a q i h, he did
not write a book on fi q h or dictate anything to his companions about it. At
first he refused to allow anything to be recorded from him on the subject of
figh but eventually his companions had him agree to the transmission of his
fat was and opinions.
The Musnad
The M u s n a d is the collection of h a d i t h s which Ahmad transmitted and
which he travelled to many places to collect. The Musnad contains those
hadiths which Ahmad learned and recorded together with their i s n a d s. He
began to compile it when he started to learn hadiths at the age of sixteen.
Scholars of the Sunna agree that he began compiling it in 180 AH at the
beginning of his quest for knowledge.
Although Ahmad disliked writing in general, he liked writing hadiths and
began to write down the Musnad early on. The reason is evident in his answer
to a question posed to him by his son 'Abdullah, who said, "I asked my
father, 'Why do you dislike writing books when you have compiled the
Musnad?' He replied, 'I created this book as a model for people to consult
when they disagree about a sunna from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah
bless him and grant him peace.""
Ahmad set himself the task of collecting hadiths from reliable men, meeting
them and relating from them, and he exerted himself to that end, no matter
how much difficulty might be involved. He continued doing this throughout
his entire life. He did not concern himself with organising it and dividing it
into chapters, but only with compiling it and recording hadiths. It appears that
he continued to collect and write on separate pages until he felt his end
approaching. Then he gathered his sons and elite students and dictated to
them what he had written and collected. Ibn al-Jazari states: "Imam Ahmad

began to compile the Musnad, wrote it down on separate sheets, and divided
it into separate parts in instalments in a rough copy. But he died before being
able to complete it properly. He had given it orally to his sons and the people
of his house, but died before reviewing and editing it. It remained as it was
until his son 'Abdullah supplemented it and added to it what he had heard."
This would indicate that Imam Ahmad only read the Musnad to his sons and
the people of his house. That would appear to contradict what is known about
him dictating the hadiths which he had compiled to all who asked him about
them. In fact there is no contradiction because in his lessons he only read to
his students from his books things which they specifically asked him about.
This is not the same as letting them hear the complete collection from all the
different shaykhs in different regions. He transmitted what he thought the
enquirer needed. What Ibn al-Jazari is referring to is the actual transmission
of the Musnad itself.
Ahmad 's son 'Abdullah was his greatest transmitter: Ahmad had
remarked on his memory. We read in the Ta b a q a t of Abu Ya'la, "Salih
(Ahmad's other son) wrote little from his father. As for 'Abdullah, there is no
one in the world who transmitted more from his father than him. He learnt the
Musnad and the Tafsir and also many other works." 'Abdullah transmitted
the Musnad from his father and disseminated his knowledge among people. It
seems that it was he who put the Musnad in its present order. The hadiths are
arranged according to the Companions from whom they are transmitted and,
if they are m u r s a 1, from the Ta b i ' i from whom they are transmitted.
The transmission of Ahmad's fiqh
We have already mentioned that Ahmad did not write a book on fiqh which
could be considered as the foundation on which his school is based and
therefore as its source. He wrote only hadiths. Scholars, however, have
mentioned some books on legal subjects attributed to him, including one
about the rites of Hajj and a small treatise on ritual prayer which he wrote to
an imam behind whom he had prayed and who had prayed incorrectly. They
take the form of treatises in sections which contain many Traditions and in
which there is no opinion, analogy, or legal deduction; so they are really
books of ha dith s, even though they do pertain to f i q h b y explanation

and clarification.
Since Ahmad did not write on fiqh, one must rely on the words of his
students for the transmission of his fi q h. We find, as has been noted, that
there is considerable confusion concerning that transmission, which stems
from several factors.
· As we know, Ahmad disliked his fatwas being transmitted or written down
or published in his name. In that connection it is related that Ahmad ibn al-
Husayn said, "A man told Abu 'Abdullah, 'I want to write these rulings: I am
afraid that I will f o rget.' Ahmad said, 'Do not write them down. I dislike my
opinions being written down.' Once he was aware of someone writing
secretly and said, 'Do not write down my opinion. I might say something
today and retract it tomorrow."" Because of his dislike of rulings being
transmitted from him, if anything was written it was despite his objection or
done secretly, and so there is a greater possibility of error in the transmission.
Many opinions were transmitted from him, no less than were transmitted
from Abu Hanifa and Malik, and so there must be numerous errors in many
of them.
. Some of Ahmad's companions, who transmitted many statements from him
and were a major source of the fiqh attributed to him, use expressions which
indicate that his opinions had become public knowledge before they met him.
Thus Harb alHarmani, who transmitted much from him, mentioned that he
published 4000 rulings of Ahmad which he had heard before he saw him.
. It is known that Imam Ahmad did not resort to opinion except in dire
necessity; and yet a great number of statements were related from him, many
of which are contradictory. That is not in keeping with what is known about
him. Moreover he was not known to give fatwa except on cases that had
actually arisen. He did not resort to theoretical cases in order to derive
secondary rulings by the use of legal reasoning. He often said, "I do not
know," and in that respect he imitated Malik and Ibn 'Uyayna. This
abundance of opinions is, therefore, not consonant with the known fact that
he often said, "I do not know" and, as that is well-known, he did not issue
fatwa by opinion except in the utmost necessity.
. Ahmad was famous for having disowned many of the opinions attributed to

him in Khurasan, saying that they were not his. So how can so much be
ascribed to him which he himself repudiated and said were not his views?
· Much of the fi q h transmitted from Ahmad is contradictory, and it is
logically difficult to accept that all the positions ascribed to him are his. Open
any of the books of the Hanbalis and go to any chapter and you will find that
a number of questions have different transmissions, some affirming a position
and others negating it.
These points raise some uncertainty about Hanbali fi q h. Furthermore some
early authorities, like at-Tabari and Ibn Qutayba, considered Ahmad to be a
hadith scholar rather than a faqih. If his legal rulings had been well-known,
there is no doubt that Ahmad would then have been considered a f a q ih by
those sources. Thus there is controversy surrounding the legal collection
ascribed to him, despite which generations of scholars have accepted the
ascription of that f i q h to Ahmad. Our approach regarding the soundness of
historical questions is that we do not reject or deny what generations of
scholars have accepted unless there is substantive evidence to invalidate their
conclusions.
If those scholars did not consider Ahmad a fa q i h, that is because his first
and primary concern was for hadiths, and his fat w a s and the questions he
answered were closer to transmission than to legal deduction. He was not like
Malik, who had a particular legal method in the light of which he studied
hadiths, or like Abu Hanifa who viewed transmission as a faqih, as a source
from which to deduce a ruling in cases with no precedent, or like ashShafi'i
who developed the principles of fi q h and facilitated the study of its
techniques, even though he based his work on the transmitted texts.
Ahmad was a hadith scholar before he was a faqih, and he did not study
hadiths with a view to extrapolation. For him the study of the hadiths was the
goal in itself and not a means to something else. His f i q h came about when
he became an imam for people who asked him for fatwas and so he was
forced to provide them. If there was a text on the question, even from a
Companion or one of the great Tabi'un, he would mention it. If there was no
fatwa by any of them, he derived from what he had without resorting to
analogy except when that was absolutely unavoidable. Hence his fiqh was
tradition-based.

The two points which cast doubt on the body of Hanbali fiqh are its
abundance, in spite of the Imam's known reluctance to transmit it, and the
fact that some of his companions transmitted a large number of his fatwas
before actually meeting him. The truth is that after the Inquisition and what
he endured during it, Imam Ahmad became famous in all Muslim regions for
knowledge of all branches of religious knowledge, whether it be dogma,
hadith or fi q h. He lived for more than 20 years after the Inquisition, and
many people considered him to be their Imam and consulted him about any
matters which troubled them and whose rulings they wanted to learn. He
could not leave the giving of fatwas to Bishr al-Marisi and his like whom he
considered to be deviants, so he must have given many fatwas based on the
knowledge which he had.
As for the differences in position attributed to him, the same applies to all the
Imams. There are disagreements in a general sense within all the schools and
they are transmitted from all the Imams. That is a consequence of their
sincerity in seeking the truth. One of them would make a statement based on
opinion and then something else would become clear to him and so, out of
desire for the truth, he would voice another opinion. Since A h m a d 's fi qh
was transmitted orally, differences are very likely: Ahmad may have given an
opinion on a question and then later retracted it while those who heard the
first position did not know that it had been retracted, and so two positions
were transmitted.
Ash-Shafi'i either wrote or dictated his figh, and yet there are different
positions related from him so that ar-Rabi' ibn Sulayman, the transmitter of
the books of ash-Shafi'i in his final stage, transmits two opinions from him
about a particular question. That should not occasion any suspicion about
their soundness. Sometimes ash-Shafi'i would mention two possibilities and
not prefer either. This was a result of scrupulousness.
The transmitters of Ahmad's fiqh
Ahmad had many companions, including some who transmitted only h a d i t
h s from him, some who transmitted h a d i t h s and fi q h, and some who
were known especially for transmission of fiqh. The author of al-Minhaj al-
Ahmad mentioned a number of them and categorised them: "Some of them

transmitted a lot and some a little. They also varied in their position with
Imam Ahmad, the amount they heard from him, and their precision and
memory. Among those who transmitted a great deal were Ibrahim al-Harbi,
Ibrahim ibn Hani' and his son Ishaq, Abu Talib al-Mishkati, Abu Bakr al-
Marwazi, Abu Bakr al-Athram, Abu'l-Harith Ahmad, Ishaq ibn Mansur al-
Kawsanj, Isma'il ash-Shalikhi, Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Kahhali, Abu'l-
Muzaffar Isma'il, Bishr ibn Musa, Bakr ibn Muhammad, Harb al-Kirmani,
al-Hasan ibn Thawab, alHasan ibn Ziyad, Abu Dawud as-Sijistani,
'Abdullah, Salih, and many others."
Imam Ahmad mentioned those in his book, and they are only the men who
transmitted much of his figh or, according to the definition of the historians
of Hanbali fi q h, who transmitted legal questions rather than hadiths o n l y.
We find that the person who collated all this material was one of the scholars
of the second generation, Abu Bakr al-Khallal. In Hanbali fiqh he occupies a
position equivalent to that of Muhammad ash-Shaybani in Hanafi fiqh,
Sahnun in Maliki fiqh, and ar-Rabi' ibn Sulayman in Shafi'i fiqh, although
ash-Shaybani saw Abu Hanifa and transmitted from him and ar-Rabi' was a
student of ash-Shafi'i. We will now mention some of the men from whom al-
Khallal learned Ahmad's fi q h, confining ourselves to those who transmitted
a lot.
Some of the transmitters among Ahmad's companions
As we have seen, many listened to Ahmad, and the Hanbalis became very
numerous. We have therefore singled out a few of those who played a
prominent part in disseminating his teaching.
Salih ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal
Salih was the eldest son of Imam Ahmad. Ahmad was concerned with his
upbringing, glad that he was ascetic like him. He brought him up in an
exemplary manner and he became a very scrupulous and upright man. Salih
had many children and was very generous. Because of the size of his family
he had to accept the office of Qadi of Tartus. He wept at to do so. He learned
figh and hadiths from his father and other contemporaries. He transmitted
many rulings on fiqh which his father had decided. Abu Bakr al-Khallal says:

"He listened to many questions and people used to write to him from
Khurasan to ask his father about certain questions to which he would send
them replies. Thus he was a means of disseminating the fiqh of his father. He
died in 266 AH.
'Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Ahmad
Imam Ahmad's son 'Abdullah was born in 213. Ahmad took care over his
upbringing as well as that of his brother Salih. He was very concerned with h
a di th s, being more interested in them whereas his brother was interested in
fiqh. He died in 290 AH.
Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hani' al-Athram
Al-Athram was one of the companions of Ahmad ibn Hanbal who studied
with him when he was mature. He was interested in figh, deduction and legal
disagreements. Once he had met Ahmad, he restricted himself to Tradition.
He devoted himself to Ahmad because of his scrupulousness and
righteousness. He related questions of f i q h from Ahmad as well as many h
a dith s. Al-Athram died in either 260 or 261 AH.
'Abdu'l-Malik ibn 'Abdi'l-Hamid Mahran alMaymuni
'Abdu'l-Malik listened to Ahmad and other contemporary scholars. Al-
Khallal admired his transmission from Ahmad and often relied on him for his
transmission. He wrote down the rulings of Ahmad; because of his
knowledge, Ahmad was too diffident to forbid him to record them. He had
recommended that Ahmad should have his rulings recorded because they
were derived from the Sunna and did not oppose it or add to it. He kept his
company for more than twenty years until 227 AH. He died in 274.
Abu Bakr al-Khallal says about him: "He was the highly esteemed Imam
among the companions of Ahmad, and Ahmad honoured him. He behaved
with him as he did not behave with others. He told me, 'I accompanied Abu
'Abdullah devotedly from 205 to 227 AH, and after that I used to come and
go from time to time. Abu 'Abdullah used to compare me to Ibn Jurayh ibn
'Ata' because of the great amount I asked him. He said to me, "I do not
behave with anyone as I do with you." He had many rulings from Ahmad in

a collection of about twenty sections and two large sections taking up 100
pages. I have not heard of that in the case of anyone but him."
Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hajjaj al-Marwazi
Al-Marwazi was the closest of Ahmad's companions and it was who washed
him when he died. He was esteemed by Ahmad and transmitted the Book of
Scrupulousness from him. He was reliable and Ahmad trusted him
completely. He related many rulings from Ahmad which al-Khallal
transmitted. He died in 275 AH.
Harb ibn Isma'il al-Hanzali al-Kirmani
Harb began as a Sufi, as was common at that time. He met Ahmad late in life.
It is reported that al-Khallal asked him why he met him so late and he replied,
"I was a Sufi before and I did not s t u d y." He was friends with al-Marwazi
and stayed in his house when he came to Ahmad. It was al-Marwazi who
encouraged alKhallal, his student, to travel to Harb and listen to him and
transmit rulings from him, and who assisted him in doing so. Harb
transmitted a lot from Ahmad, but did not hear from him directly all that he
disseminated from him. He mentioned that Ahmad said, "People need
knowledge as much as they need bread and water." He probably died in 280
AH.
Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al-Harbi
Abu Ya'la describes al-Harbi thus: "He was an imam in knowledge, a leader
in asceticism, with knowledge of f i q h and insight into rulings and memory
of ha dith s. He wrote many books." Ibrahim, who transmitted the fiqh and
hadiths of Ahmad, died in 285 AH.
Ahmad ibn Muhammad Abu Bakr al-Khallal
We have mentioned here some of the most notable students of Ahmad who
transmitted his fiqh. They were his closest companions and some recorded
his fiqh with his permission. Some memorised his rulings, even before
meeting him. But, as we mentioned earlier, there was one faqih who collated
all this material, travelling great distances to do so: Abu Bakr al-Khallal. He
is considered to be the great compiler and transmitter of Hanbali fiqh and so

we must single him out for mention.
Al-Khallal kept the company of al-Marwazi until he died. It seems that he
preferred to transmit the fiqh of Ahmad and put all his energy into that. He
travelled extensively in search of it, deriving much from the sons and uncle
of Imam Ahmad, Harb alKirmani, al-Maymuni and others. Al-'Alimi said,
"He collected from so many sources that it is impossible to name them all. He
heard the rulings of Ahmad from them and travelled to remote parts of the
earth to collect them and hear them."
After he had collected Ahmad's transmissions, al-Khallal taught them to his
students at the Mahdi Mosque in Baghdad, which became the circle from
which the Hanbali school spread out. He transmitted it as a legal collection in
about twenty volumes.
The fuqaha' agree that he compiled all the various legal rulings ascribed to
Ahmad and there is no doubt about that. But is the transmission so accurate
that there is no room for uncertainty? In our view, many accepted his
transmission of h a d i t h s, and so his transmission of fiqh should also be
accepted. The scholars of alK h a 11 a 1 's generation accepted his
transmission. There is a great deal of testimony to the soundness of his
transmission, including that of the major figures of this school.
What are the books which al-Khallal wrote to record the school of Ahmad ibn
Hanbal? Ibn al-Jawzi says, "He wrote several books, including The Great
Collection in about 200 parts." It is clear that this collection constitutes the
basis of all Hanbali figh. He also has books on other subjects. That is why Ibn
al-Qayyim said, "Al-Khallal collected his texts in The Great Collection,
which contains 20 volumes or more." This indicates that The Great
Collection is the compendium of the fiqh of Ahmad by all its paths and
transmissions. To reconcile the numbers given by Ibn al-Jawzi and Ibn al-
Qayyim, Ibn Qayyim refers to volumes, which are large, and Ibn al-Jawzi to
fascicules, which are smaller. AlKhallal died in 311AH.
Chapter Six Description of Hanbali Figh
Al-'Alimi reports, regarding the knowledge of Imam Ahmad and the position

of his fiqh, that 'Abdu'l-Wahhab al-Warraq said, "I have not seen anyone to
compare with Ahmad ibn Hanbal." He was asked, "How was his excellence
made apparent to you?" He replied, "What can you say about a man who was
asked 60,000 questions and replied to all of them, 'It was reported to us' and
'It was related to us'?"
This illustrates two points. One is that Imam Ahmad answered as many as
60,000 legal questions, which is a huge number. He was the most trusted
person in respect of giving fatwa in his time throughout the Islamic world.
The second point is that it shows that Ahmad's fatwas were based on hadiths,
traditions, and reports from the Salaf, of which his knowledge was vast. He
supported his fatwas with statements and decisions of the Prophet and
undisputed positions of the Companions. When there was a disagreement
between the Companions he would choose the position of one of them. He
would also accept the position of a Follower or that of a faqih famous for
knowledge of tradition, like Malik, al-Awza'i and others. Ahmad made great
efforts not to be an innovator and to remain firm in following the path of the
Companions. He resorted to use of opinion (ra'y) only when absolutely
necessary.
Hanbali f i q h avoids hypothetical rulings about matters which have not
happened or are unlikely to happen. Ibn al-Qayyim said on this point, "When
one is asked for a f a t w a about something which has not occurred, is a reply
recommended or disliked, or can one choose? There are three positions. It is
reported of many of the Salaf that they did not discuss things that had never
arisen. When one of the Salaf was asked a question, he would say, 'Has it
happened?' If the answer was affirmative, he would give an answer.
Otherwise, he would say, 'Leave us as we are.' Imam Ahmad said to one of
his students, 'Beware of speaking about matters for which you have no
precedent. If there is a text from the Book of Allah and the Sunna of the
Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or a tradition
from the Companions, it is all right to discuss it. If there is no text or
tradition, and it is unlikely to occur and therefore hypothetical, it is not
recommended to discuss it. If its occurrence is not rare or it appears likely to
happen, and the questioner wants to know so that he will have a correct view
of it if it occurs, then it is recommended to give an answer according to what
one knows, especially when the enquirer will thereby learn something.""
(I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, pt. 4, p. 193)

The reader should not suppose that Ahmad's reliance on traditions in his fiqh,
and his only leaving them when he was sure of being illuminated by their
light, made his fiqh rigid or distant from the needs of everyday life. He found
adequate and complete texts for all acts of worship, so that no analogy was
ever needed in that realm whereas it was sometimes required where human
transactions were concerned. In worldly matters he held strongly to texts
about what is unlawful or a sin so as to avoid calling unlawful something
Allah had made lawful. If there was no text stating that something was
unlawful, he proceeded on the assumption that it was permitted. He only
declared unlawful what Allah had declared unlawful. As Ibn al-Qayyim says,
"The basic position in respect of all transactions is that they are sound unless
there is definite evidence that they are invalid or unlawful."
Since its basic position is broad and transactions are basically allowed unless
there is evidence from the Lawgiver that they are unlawful, the Hanbali
school is the most permissive of the schools regarding freedom of contract
and the preconditions which can be stipulated in a contract. The school
presumes validity unless there is definite evidence to the contrary. We also
find that Ahmad ibn Hanbal gave fatwas on the basis of the public interest
(masalih) in the absence of relevant texts because the general good is the
basic intention behind most legal judgements. In this he resembled Malik ibn
Anas, even though he did not accord that principle as much force as Malik
did.
Hanbali fi q h also admits the principle of judgement of the means (dhara'i')
so that the means incur the judgement of the end: in other words, the things
which lead to a particular result bear the same ruling as the result which
comes from them. That also expands the scope of Hanbali fi q h and makes it
fruitful and vibrant. It is not rigid, but rules according to motives and ends. In
this respect, it is very clearly distinct from the Shafi'i school which takes a
more inflexible view of transactions. The Hanbali school is a psychological
and pragmatic one which judges actions and statements according to clear
intentions and actual results.
The foundations of deduction in Hanbali fiqh
Ibn al-Qayyim indicated that the principles on which Imam Ahmad based his