Indexed OCR Text

preconditions which a f a q i h must have when making analogy. Then he
distinguished analogy from other types of deduction by opinion since he
thought that they were all unsound, with the exception of analogy.
Ash-Shafi'i did not actually define analogy but in the examples he gave and
the categories and preconditions he formulated he made it clear what he
meant by it when used as a technical term by the scholars of usual as an
independent objective. It is evident that in his time logical methods were not
prevalent in sciences. That is why he did not try to explain analogy in terms
of a logical definition as was done later when things were systematised.
Scholars have defined analogy as relating a question for which there is no
ruling to another matter whose ruling is based on a text, on the grounds that
they have the same underlying cause. He used many examples to illustrate
this.
One of the major premises of ash-Shafi'i in his discussion of analogy is that
all events and occurrences must be subject to a ruling in Islam. Since the
Shari'a embraces all things, there must be a ruling on every occurrence,
either from a text or from an indication or evidence which the seeker can
find. What must be explained is the methodology of evidence and indications
which Allah has prepared to guide thinking minds to find these rulings. This
is what the m u j t a h i d must strive to discover. For ash-Shafi'i i j tih ado
n points for which there is no text or consensus can only be made through
analogy. One could say that for him, ijtihad means analogy.
The invalidation of istihsan
Ash-Shafi'i says in The Invalidation of I s t i h s a n: "All that is described as
I have mentioned regarding the ruling of Allah, then the ruling of the
Messenger of Allah, and then the judgement of the community of Muslims, is
evidence. No judge or mufti is permitted to judge or give fatwa unless it is
based on a binding report: that is, the Book, then the Sunna, or what the
people of knowledge said and is not disputed, or an analogy based on one or
more of these. There is no fatwa by istihsan since istihsan is not mandatory
nor does it fall into one of these categories."
This sentence is representative of his position on istihsan in all his books and

shows two things. One is that any ijtihad in which the mujtahid does not rely
on the Book, Sunna, tradition, consensus, or analogy based on one of them, is
istihsan because the muj tahid takes what he prefers in it, not being based on
the evidence or indication of a text. The second is that ijtihad by way of istih
san without relying on a firm text and proper evidence is, in his opinion, false
and has no connection to the Shari'a.
Statements of the Companions
We mentioned earlier that ash-Shafi'i put the statements of the Companions
in the fourth rank after the Book, Sunna and consensus and before analogy;
and that he accepted the statement of a Companion if it was not opposed, and
chose between them when there were conflicting statements. So we say here
that he accepted the statements of Companions and used them in deriving
judgements. You might think that he did this in his old school but not in the
new - but this is not what we find in the Egyptian Risala from ar-Rabi' and in
al-Umm, which articulates the new school. He did the same in both the old
and new schools, as Ibn al-Qayyim states in I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in. However,
it appears that he did not consider that the statements of Tabi'un constituted
evidence in themselves.
Ash - Shafi'i's reliance on outward rather than inward
meaning
We can say that in his explanation of the Shari'a, his extrapolation of its
rulings, and his deduction of its principles, ash-Shafi'i relied on the outward
and apparent indication of the texts. That is why he rejected istihsan: because
it was based on the state of the faqih or the spirit of the Shari'a and depended
on the perception of the faqih who was trained and skilled in the practice of
the Shari'a and had a firm grasp of its roots, branches, and sources.
AshShafi'i rejected this approach because it was not based on a text in its
expressions, indications, or evidence. He took a more literal and objective
approach to texts. In his view the legal rulings and judgements of the S h a r i
'a concerned outward matters only. The function of the qadi is not to delve
into people's inner secrets - that is between them and their Creator.

The work of ash-Shafi'i on the fundamental principles
There is no doubt that the science of fiqh preceded the science of the
principles of fi q h and fi q h developed by deduction, f a t w a and ijtihad.
Ijtihad occurred even while the Messenger was alive. The Companions used
to exercise i j ti h a d when they were away from him and later submit the
matter to him to learn whether their decision was correct or not. Then ijtihad
continued after him and ijtihad was at its peak in the time of the Rightly
Guided Khalifs.
Along with the h a d i t h s of the Messenger of Allah, they bequeathed to
people a wealth of cases, fatwas and actual rulings made in the course of
running the state and keeping order and dealing with others. Then came the
Tabi'un, some of whom were skilled in fatwa and gave fatwas in connection
with situations that occurred or might occur. Then the time of the m u j ta h i
ds w h o founded the schools of law arrived, bringing a wealth of f a t w a s,
cases and judgements in Muslim lands which had various and disparate
forms. Malik had a legal collection; the hadith scholars of Makka had a
collection of hadiths and traditions relating to fiqh; and the people of Iraq had
their fiqh, much of which was collected from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ash-
Shaybani. There were various legal collections which were a very rich source
of knowledge and deduction.
Ash-Shafi'i came upon this wealth and the vigorous debates over it between
people of different orientations. He became involved in it in an intelligent
manner. The debating led him to reflect on the criteria which underpinned
people's positions in debate: how to distinguish the correct from the false,
and the bases of investigation, deduction and ijtihad. One aspect of that was
to examine the principles of the methodology of fiqh so as to formulate a firm
basis for deduction, systematic rules and criteria by which to analyse
opinions and ascertain the sound from the weak.
When ash-Shafi'i arrived on the scene, because of his knowledge of language
he was able to deduce rules for the understanding of the rulings of the
Qur'an. He was helped in that by the studies the Companions had made of the
Qur'an, especially 'Abdullah ibn 'Abbas who was the first teacher of the
Makkan school and the Companion with the greatest knowledge of the

Qur'an and its abrogating and abrogated verses. At the same time, because of
his knowledge of hadiths and the agreement and disagreement about them, he
was able to define the position of the Sunna in relation to the Qur'an. It is
clear from ash-Shafi'i's books that he was interested in studying the
disagreements of the Companions and analysing them. He was familiar with
the fiqh of the adherents of opinion who were concerned with analogy even
though they had not formulated its rules.
Ash-Shafi'i took upon himself the task of setting out the principles for the
methodology of deduction to provide guidance for the mujtahid and
formulate its criteria. He set out a universal system founded on firm
principles other than a mere collection of fatwas and precedents or resolving
hypothetical questions, thus providing a system for all subsequent mujtahids
to follow. His influence on the subsequent development of Islam cannot be
overstated and it is fair to say that the Islam we have inherited today is in no
small part due to the system which ash-Shafi'i formulated twelve centuries
ago.
Ahmad ibn Hanbal
(164/780 - 241/855)
Preface
Abu Thawr said about Ahmad ibn Hanbal, "If anyone were to say that
Ahmad ibn Hanbal was one of the people of the Garden, he would not be
rebuked for that. For if you went to Khurasan, you would hear people say,
'Ahmad ibn Hanbal is a righteous man.' The same is true if you went to
Syria: they too would say, 'Ahmad ibn Hanbal is a righteous man.' The same
would apply if you went to Iraq: they would say, 'Ahmad ibn Hanbal is a
righteous man.' That is the consensus, so if he were to be rebuked for his
opinion it would be like saying that the consensus was invalid."
This is the statement of a h a d i t h scholar contemporary with Imam Ahmad.
He shows his opinion of the Imam by demonstrating how he was seen by all

his contemporaries. The people of all regions of the Muslim Umma agreed
that he was a righteous man and his righteousness, fear of Allah,
scrupulousness, strength of faith and asceticism were well-known and
doubted by none.
In fact Ahmad was tested and passed the test, and he purified himself by
undergoing some difficult and unpleasant trials. He emerged from them like
gold which has been refined by the bellows - purified of every impurity.
Ahmad was tested by this world and its pleasures and turned from it.
Although his self desired the good things of life, he abandoned its appetites,
weaned himself from all luxury, and left what gave him doubt for what gave
him no doubt. He rejected comforts and was not attracted to any of the
luxuries of life, in the same way that dirt will not adhere to a polished
surface. Ahmad was tested with both good and bad, and persecution did not
bow his neck nor did joy disturb his composure.
Four khalifs tried him in various ways but he emerged from all these trials a
righteous man. Al-Ma'mun tested him through injury. He was brought to him
shackled in heavy iron chains and subjected to great hardship. Al-Mu'tasim
tested him with imprisonment and flogging. Al-Wathiq tested him with a ban
and constriction. They did not deflect him from his convinctions. Then after
those afflictions, he was tested by a different sort of trial. Al-Mutawakkil sent
him good things but he rejected them, making himself go hungry and not
taking anything whose lawfulness was uncertain. He was scrupulous about
that.
Finally Ahmad was tested after all this with the greatest trial which the
human soul can undergo: the excessive admiration of other people, which can
so easily delude people and beguile them into pride. But he humbled himself
before the majesty of Allah, and Shaytan failed to misguide him. He said, "If
I could find a way to avoid being mentioned, I would take it." He also said,
"Would that I were in a ravine at Makka so that I might be unknown! I have
been tested by fame to such an extent that I wish for death morning and
evening."
Imam Ahmad was the faqih who was dominated by righteousness to the point
that his very righteousness prevented him from following through his fiqh to
the furthest extent. He hesitated when others went ahead and wavered when

others resolved. He paused over the meaning when others spoke. He was
silent about fatwas when others rushed to give them. That is why his
inclination to hadiths predominated over his fiqh, leading some scholars to
reckon him a hadith scholar rather than a faqih.
Thus at-Tabari did not mention Imam Ahmad's school when discussing the
disagreements of the f u q a h a '. He said about him, "He was a man of
hadith, not a man of figh, and he was tried on that account." Some fu q aha
' who used to study disagreements, like at-Tahawi, ad-Dabusi, an-Nasafi, al-
Asili al-Maliki and alGhazali, did not mention him among the fuqaha' whose
disagreements are taken into account. In al-Ma'arif Ibn Qutayba did not
mention him among the fuqaha'. Al-Maqdisi mentioned him in the best
category of the people of hadiths.
Qadi 'Iyad states in al-Madarik: "He was less than an Imam in fi q h
although he had excellence in investigation of its sources." The view of those
who denied that Imam Ahmad was a fa q i h i s supported by the fact that no
book on fiqh is reported from him, whereas the Musnad is. During his time a
great deal was written about f i q h. Muhammad ash-Shaybani collected the f
i q h of Iraq. Abu Yusuf wrote books on figh, and ash-Shafi'i dictated or
wrote down his school. Ahmad, on the other hand, as historians agree, did not
do so at all.
That shows that he was a muhaddith and not a faqih, or at least that h a d i t h
s dominated his f i q h. There is no doubt that some hadith scholars held
opinions regarding matters of fiqh: al-Bukhari falls into that category, as does
Muslim. That does not change them from being hadith scholars to being
fugaha'. If someone is absorbed in the study of h a d i t h s and specialises in
it, he is a muhaddith. If someone gives many fatwas and is absorbed in that,
he is a fa q i h. We do not find anyone who combines them both equally
except Imam Malik ibn Anas, who was unique in that respect.
Ahmad ibn Hanbal was a faqih as well as a hadith scholar, even though we
admit that his inclination to h a d i t h s was stronger. He did not leave any
writing on fi q h but left the great M u s n a d o n hadiths. He became an
Imam in figh after his death, and that was because his students collected
together his statements, fatwas and opinions, forming a legal collection which
was ascribed to him. Sometimes the transmissions from him varied, as was

the case on several occasions, and sometimes they agreed.
That was the view of Ibn al-Qayyim, who states in I'lam alM u w a qq ' in :
"The reason why Ahmad did not write a book was that he strongly disliked
writing books on any other subject than h a d i t h s, but Allah knows best
what his intention was. It was his students who concerned themselves with
recording his books and f a t w a s." Ibn al-Qayyim also says in the same
book: "Al-Khallal collected Imam Ahmad's texts in the Great Collection,
which comprised twenty or more volumes. His fatwas and questions were
related, and people reported them generation after generation. He became an
Imam and model for people of the Sunna in subsequent generations, to the
point that even those who opposed his school by ijtihad and imitated others
esteemed his texts and fatwas. They gave them their due and acknowledged
their closeness to the texts and fatwas of the Companions. Anyone who
considers his fatwas and those of the Companions will see a correspondence
between them. All can see that it seems as if they came from the same niche."
Since Ahmad declined to write a book of fiqh and forbade his companions to
read books of figh out of fear that doing so would make them dispense with h
a di th s, he relied on his companions' transmission from him for the
transmission of his fiqh. They transmitted his f a t w a s and statements in
simple books. Transmission varies to the extent that it is based on
verbal transmission. The Imam himself was not concerned with recording his
fiqh, and so one must choose among the various transmissions.
We find that those who composed biographical collections speak about the
transmission of some of his companions. In his Tabaqat Ibn al-Farra'
transmitted from Abu Bakr al-Marwazi, alAthram, Musaddad, Harb and
others. There were many reliable men who transmitted Hanbali figh and
ascribed it to the Imam. But we also find some of the writers of reports
saying, "Two righteous men were tested by inconsistent colleagues: Ja'far ibn
Muhammad and Ahmad ibn Hanbal."
Ja'far ibn Muhammad, known as Ja'far as-Sadiq, was one of the Shi'ite
Imams and many words are ascribed to him which are recorded in Imami f i q
h. Some of the Hanbalis ascribe views on dogma to Ibn Hanbal which cast
doubt on the ascription to Ahmad of Hanbali fi q h, or at least some of this f i
q h ; for when there is doubt about the truthfulness of the transmitter, the

soundness of what is transmitted is also impeached. So there is controversy
surrounding the ascription of Hanbali fiqh to Imam Ahmad.
If we wanted to study the schools of law in a systematic way it would be
sufficient to examine the collection of fiqh which forms the Hanbali school
inasmuch as it comprises a legal corpus with a unified method, reasoning and
direction. One would be justified in studying the corpus without investigating
its origins. However, since we are studying the Imam and his fi q h, we must
study the extent to which this legal collection can truly be ascribed to him
and what doubts there are about it.
We must, therefore, study these matters without jumping to conclusions. Our
method in this study is based on what scholars of different times have
accepted, including evidence of false ascription. This is because scholars
accept a text when it appears to be the truth on the basis of its having been
transmitted and accepted by subsequent generations. When there is multiple
transmission close to the actual time, it is not rejected unless there is evidence
against it. If every ascription of doubt were to invalidate received facts, there
would be no history at all. So we accept the ascription of fiqh to Imam
Ahmad as a valid fact and will examine the controversy concerning it.
When we study Hanbali fi qh we find a mature strong living fi qh in which
two elements can be seen, both of which were strengthened and their scope
extended in the area of behaviour more than other areas of fiqh: tradition and
latitude.
. Ahmad's fi qh is one in which tradition is manifested in its strongest and
clearest form. He preferred the opinions of the Companions. When there were
two opinions among the Companions he chose between them. Sometimes he
opted for one, but sometimes he had two opinions on the same question,
when he did not consider that he had the right to choose between the opinions
of those noble people without a justifying text since that would involve
contradicting one of them. When there was no text or tradition on a matter
from the Companions, he exercised ijtihad.
. In the area of social transactions, when there was no text or tradition or
possible analogy, he let the matter rest on its basic permissibility. That is why
in the field of contracts and preconditions, his is the Islamic fiqh with the

widest and most extensive scope because it considers contracts and
preconditions to be basically sound unless there is clear evidence that they
are invalid. No evidence of validity is necessary. Evidence is only required to
demonstrate invalidity.
Studying this great school, two main subjects must be dealt with: the basis of
legal reasoning in this school and how its subbranches and secondary rulings
are deduced from its main premises, and the precise rules for the branches of
investigation of diverse problems on which its ijtihad is based. The rules and
fundamentals are not all from Imam Ahmad, nor are they transmitted in detail
from him. The details were developed after him, being deduced from
secondary rulings and extrapolation.
Chapter One The Life of Ahmad ibn Hanbal 164-241
AH
Birth and lineage
Ahmad was born in Rabi' al-Awwal 164 AH, according to his sons Salih and
'Abdullah. There is no disagreement about the date of his birth as there is
about those of Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik. The date of his death also
known: sources agree that he died on the 12th of Rabi' al-Awwal 241 AH.
His funeral took place on a Friday and his bier was brought out after the
people left the Jumu ' aprayer. There were no fewer than 300,000
present at his funeral in Baghdad. He was very famous at the time of his
death.
It was in Baghdad, too, that Ahmad was born. His mother was pregnant when
she arrived from Marw where his father had been stationed. It is also said that
she gave birth to him in Marw, but the sound version is that he was born in
Baghdad. He was a Shaybani Arab on both his mother's and father's side. He
was not Persian or non-Arab, but of pure Arab descent.
Shayban was a clan of an Arab tribe known for its pride and z e a lo tr y. Al-
Muthanna ibn Haritha, who led the Muslim armies against Persia in the time
of Abu Bakr, was a Shaybani. The tribe was renowned for zeal and
steadfastness. Their dwellings were at Basra and in the surrounding desert. In
Jahiliyy a times they had been located elsewhere in Iraq but when 'Umar

ibn al-Khattab built Basra as a settlement for the Arabs who needed the desert
air, Shayban settled there. That was where Ahmad's family settled. His g r a
ndfather, 'Abdul-Malik ibn Sawda, was one of their notable men.
His father was Muhammad ibn Hanbal and his grandfather was Hanbal ibn
Hilal. Ahmad's grandfather travelled to Khurasan and he was governor of
Sarakhs in the Umayyad period. When the Abbasid uprising came, he
assisted them and joined their ranks and was injured in the fighting. Ahmad's
father Muhammad was also a soldier. Ibn al-Jawzi described him as a
general. Whether he was a general, as Ibn al-Jawzi said, or merely one of the
ranks, he was definitely a soldier as was the custom of Arabs of that time.
They were rarely farmers or artisans: they were warriors and fighters.
It appears that after the move to Baghdad the family worked for the Abbasids
and maintained their connection with them, even if they were not governors.
It is known that Ahmad's uncles used to send information about Baghdad to
one of the governors when he was absent. From an early age, Ahmad was too
scrupulous to involve himself in that activity. It is reported that one of the
governors said, "On one occasion news of Baghdad was slow in arriving and
so I sent to Ahmad's uncle saying, 'You have not conveyed today's news. I
wanted to review it and send it to the khalif.' He said, 'I sent it with Ahmad.'
Ahmad, who was then a boy, was summoned and asked, 'Were you not sent
with news?' 'Yes,' he said. He asked, 'Why did you not convey it?' He said,
'Would I be likely to forward such information? I threw in it in the river.'
The governor said 'We belong to Allah and to Him we return! This lad is
scrupulous, so what about us?"" (Ibn al-Jawzi, a 1 - M a n a q i b, p. 22)
Ahmad's father died while he was still a child. It has been said that he never
saw him or his grandfather but it is known that his father died after he was
born, so he probably saw him as an infant but did not remember him. It is
mentioned that he died a young man in his thirties. Ahmad's mother
continued to bring him up in his father's family. His father did not leave them
totally bereft: they had some property in Baghdad to live in and another estate
with a small income which was more or less sufficient to cover their
necessities.
Ahmad possessed five qualities which endow the person who possesses them
all with distinction and innate nobility. They are: noble lineage, orphanhood

from an early age, self-reliance, selfcontrol and experience of adversity. In
addition, he was also in a state of continual, although not overwhelming,
poverty which prevented him from becoming arrogant through indulgence or
being abased by indigence. He was also endowed with contentment and had a
natural bent for intellectual advancement inspired by his fear of Allah and his
awareness that nothing else in existence has any real power.
His lineage and poverty combined had their effect. When this world was
placed before him, he cast it aside and avoided it with abstemiousness and a
fearful heart. Al-Mutawakkil offered him wealth and he returned it with
humility. He was aware of people's feelings and his biography reports that
"No poor person has been given such honour in an mighty assembly as was
Ahmad."
Upbringing and education
Imam Ahmad grew up in Baghdad and received his preliminary education
there. He used to mix with all sorts of people of different backgrounds and all
types of backgrounds and sciences. There were reciters, h a d i t h scholars,
Sufis, linguists, philosophers and doctors. Baghdad was the capital of the
Muslim world and contained what every capital city contains: many schools,
cultural activities, educational resources and varied forms of knowledge.
Ahmad's family had chosen for him from his youth that he would be a man
of the de e n and he devoted himself to it, studying all those subjects which
were preparation for it: Arabic language, Qur'an, ha dith, traditions of the
Companions and Followers, the life of the Prophet, and the fiqh of the deen.
This education, coupled with his innate capacity, bore great fruit. He
memorised the Q u r'an at an early age and from his earliest childhood
showed himself to be trustworthy and godfearing, qualities which remained
with him throughout his life.
When he finished his early studies of the Qur'an and Arabic language, he
went to the government offices to study editing and writing. He said about
that period, "When I was a lad, I frequented the scribes and then I went to the
government offices when I was fourteen."
His trustworthiness as a youth was recognised by both men and women. It is

related that while ar-Rashid was at Raqqa with his army, men in the army
used to write to their wives, and the women did not trust anyone but Ahmad
to read what had been written to them and to write their replies for them. He
never wrote anything which he considered objectionable. His qualities were
known and remarked on so that fathers saw him as a model for their sons.
One father said, "I have spent a great deal employing tutors to teach my son
but I find that they do not succeed in doing so. Yet Ahmad ibn Hanbal is a
poor orphan and see how he is! His learning and his excellent conduct are
both admired." The child is the secret of the man and that was true of the
orphan, Ahmad ibn Hanbal. His scrupulousness was in order to please Allah,
not to please his uncle or the ruler. Al-Haytham ibn Jamil remarked about
him, "If this lad lives, he will be evidence against the people of his time."
From an early age, Imam Ahmad directed himself to learning, with his
family's backing. Such knowledge was abundant in Baghdad: the sciences of
the deen, language, mathematics, philosophy, Sufism. Every field of
knowledge was available. He opted for the sciences of the Shari'a, from
which he could choose either the path of the fuqaha' or that of the
transmitters of hadith. The two sciences had begun to be distinct in his time,
one being devoted to fi q h and the derivation of f a t w a s, and the other to
all the branches of transmission and producing the sources on which the
deductions of the fuqaha' were based. He was in Baghdad where the fiqh of
Iraq had been recorded by Abu Yusuf, ash-Shaybani, alHasan ibn Ziyad al-
Lu'lu'i and others; but there were also many hadith scholars in Baghdad.
Ahmad chose the men of hadith and their method at the beginning of his life,
and devoted himself to it. It appeared that he had accepted the path of hadith
scholars, not that of the fuqaha' who combined fi q h and h a d i t h. It is
related that the first teacher he studied with was Qadi Abu Yusuf, a colleague
of Abu Hanifa, but then he inclined to h a d i t h scholars. He said, "The first
thing I wrote was the hadiths of Abu Yusuf." He continued to study with him
at the same time that he was going to the hadith scholars.
We can say that he devoted himself to hadiths, but not in such a way as to cut
himself off from examining the findings of the Iraqi fuqaha' in respect of
fatwas, questions and extrapolation. He was knowledgeable on the subject,
but it was not his prime interest. His concern with it was a by-product of the
science of ha dith s. AlKhallal said, "Ahmad used to write books of

opinion and memorise them, and then pay no attention to them." One can
accept this, for it would be odd for him not to have had this information or to
have rejected it without first examining it.
Hence the position of Ahmad regarding the fiqh of opinion was that he
rejected this course at the beginning of his life. We can infer this from the
fact that he first learned h a d i t h s from Abu Yusuf who was one of the
principal f u q a h a ' of opinion but who nonetheless supported his legal
opinion with hadiths. But when he completed his basic scholarly education,
Ahmad turned to hadiths. So he studied the figh of opinion in a penetrating
manner, weighing all the science of hadiths which had reached him against
the legal decisions which the f u q a h a ' of opinion had arrived at, and then
chose the path of the Companions and Tabi'un or Followers. That is why he
memorised the books of the people of opinion.
Once Ahmad resolved to seek h a d i t h s, he had to go to the hadith scholars
in Iraq, Syria, and the Hijaz. He may have been the first m u h a d d i t h to
collect the h a d i t h s of every region of the Muslim world and record them.
His Mus n a d is testimony to the fact that he collected hadiths in many
places.
Logic demands that he must first have learned and memorised the hadiths of
Baghdad. He took up the study of hadiths from the year 179 and continued to
reside in Baghdad taking from the shaykhs of hadith there and writing down
what he heard until 186. In that year he went to Basra and in the following
year to the Hijaz. Then he continued travelling, visiting Basra, the Hijaz,
Yemen and elsewhere in his quest for hadiths. Since he started his search for
hadiths in 179 and did not travel before 186, he must have continued to
collect the hadiths of Baghdad for seven years or more, during which he
made no journeys of any great distance. So for those seven years he devoted
himself to the study of the h a d i t h s of the scholars of Baghdad and their
transmission of the fatwas as well as the decisions of the Companions and
Followers in all areas of fiqh.
It is normal that beginners do not pick and choose but rather devote
themselves to one scholar for a longer or shorter period until they have drunk
deeply from the reservoir of their knowledge. That was the case with Ahmad.
He started studying hadith and the fiqh of Traditions at the age of sixteen in

179 AH, but did not try to negotiate the scholarly minefield without a guide.
He devoted himself to an Imam of hadith and the science of Traditions in
Baghdad and remained with him constantly for four years until he was 20.
That man was Imam Hushaym ibn Bashir ibn Abi Khazim al-Wasiti (d. 182).
According to Imam Ahmad: "We wrote from Hushaym in 179 and remained
with him until 182 when he died. We wrote from him about a thousand
hadiths on hajj, some tafsir, and the chapter on judgement, and some other
small chapters."
He also studied with others at times and attended some of the gatherings of
other shaykhs. It is related that he listened to 'Umayr ibn 'Abdullah in 182
before Hushaym died. He also listened to 'Abdullah ibn Mahdi and it is
related that he said, ""Abdu'rRahman ibn Mahdi came to us in 180 when he
was middle-aged and I used to go and see him in the General Mosque." He
also listened to Abu Bakr ibn 'Abbas and related from him.
After Hushaym's death, Ahmad began to take hadiths wherever he found
them. He stayed in Baghdad for a further three years, diligently taking from
its shaykhs without singling out any of them more than another in the way he
had with Hushaym. He was about 20 when Hushaym died. He became very
serious about seeking hadiths and his mother encouraged him in it.
In 186 he began his journeys to learn hadiths from men in other lands, in
which he travelled to Basra, Hijaz, Yemen and Kufa. He wanted to go to
Rayy to listen to Jarir ibn 'Abdu'l-Hamid, as he had not seen him before in
Baghdad, but he could not do so because of the great expense involved, so he
took his h a d i t h s directly from the mouths of those who knew them.
Ahmad went to Basra five times, sometimes staying there for as long as six
months at a time. He also travelled to the Hijaz five times, the first time in
187 when he met ash-Shafi'i. As well as taking hadiths from Ibn 'Uyayna
whom he visited, he also learned the fi q h of ash-Shafi'i, his principles and
his explanation of the abrogating and abrogated ayats of the Qur'an. He met
ash-Shafi'i later in Baghdad, when he came there and his fiqh and proofs
were being refined, even though they were to reach their full maturity in
Egypt. Ash-Shafi'i relied on Ahmad to ascertain the validity of some hadiths.
Ash-Shafi'i used to say to him, "If you consider the hadith sound, then tell
me and I will take it, be it Hijazi, Syrian, Iraqi or Yemeni."

Ibn Kathir gives us the details of these journeys to the Hijaz: he first made
hajj in 187 and then in 191, then in 196. He was also there in 197, then went
on hajj again in 198 and stayed until 199. Imam Ahmad said, "I performed
five hajjs, three of them on foot. I spent 30 dirhams on one of them. I got lost
on the way on one of them while I was on foot. I began to say, 'O slaves of
Allah, show me the way,' until I found it." He expected a reward for walking
to h a j j because the greater the hardship which can be borne, the greater the
reward. Lack of money was another reason why he went on hajj on foot. He
stayed near the Ka'ba to seek the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah and to
discover the fatwas of his Companions and their Followers.
Ahmad travelled to Kufa and encountered hardships on that journey even
though it was not far from Baghdad. He slept in a house with a brick for a
pillow. He said, "If I had had 70 dirhams, I would have travelled to Jarir ibn
'Abdu'l-Hamid in Rayy. Some of my companions went but I was unable to
go because I did not have the means." It is clear that he welcomed hardship in
his quest of hadiths because that which comes easily may soon be forgotten.
After completing his hajj in 198, he had the intention to visit ' A b d u ' r-
Razzaq ibn Himam in San'a. He mentioned this to his companion on hajj,
Yahya ibn Ma'in. While they were performing tawaf, 'Abdu'r-Razzaq also
came to do tawaf and Ibn Ma'in saw and recognised him. He greeted him and
said, "This is Ahmad ibn Hanbal." 'Abdu'r-Razzaq said, "May Allah give
him life and make him thrive. I have heard good things about him." Yahya
said, "Tomorrow, Allah willing, we will come to listen to you and record
your ha dith s." When he left, Ahmad said, "Why did you make an
appointment with the shaykh?" "So that we could listen to him," he replied,
"Allah has spared you a month's journey each way and the expense
involved." Ahmad said, "Allah would not show me him when I have made an
intention, making me invalidate my original intention. We will go and listen
to him." But he also went to San'a to listen to him after hajj.
His journey to San'a proved to be a difficult and arduous one. His money ran
out on the way and he had to hire himself out as a porter until he reached
San'a. His companions tried to help him but he refused, praising Allah that he
had the strength to earn his livelihood. When he reached San'a, 'Abdu'r-
Razzaq tried to help him, saying to him, "Abu 'Abdullah, take this and use it.
We are not in a land where trade or earning are easy," and he offered him

some dinars. Ahmad said, "I am all right." He remained in that state of
hardship for two years, listening from az-Zuhri and Ibn alMusayyab to
hadiths which he already knew.
Ahmad continued to travel in search of knowledge. In his last meeting with
ash-Shafi'i, he promised to visit him in Egypt, but he did not succeed in
doing that. Harmala reported that ash-Shafi'i said, "Ahmad ibn Hanbal
promised to come and visit me in Egypt, but he did to come."
He continued in this way until he became an Imam and was seen as such by
his contemporaries who wrote from him and listened to him. He was told,
"Abu 'Abdullah, you have obtained this level and you are an Imam of the
Muslims." He said, "I will need my inkwell until the grave," and "I will seek
knowledge until I enter the grave." He based himself on the saying, "A man
is a scholar as long as he seeks knowledge. When he thinks that he knows, he
is ignorant." This is how he behaved.
Before we move from his constant travel in search of knowledge, we will
mention two matters which are connected to his scholarly life and later
position. One is that Ahmad was concerned with writing down all the hadiths
of the Messenger of Allah and the traditions of his Companions that he heard
and did not rely on memory alone. That is because it was a time of recording
knowledge: fiqh, grammar, and hadiths. When he related a hadith, he did so
from a book out of the fear that his memory might err. There are many
reports about the prodigious memory of Ahmad and sometimes he did not
record an isnad because he had memorised it. So he only read the h a d i th s
out of scrupulousness and in order to check them.
The second question concerns the sort of knowledge Ahmad sought. There is
no doubt that he was concerned with hadiths of the Prophet and the f a t w a s
and Traditions of the Companions. Does that mean that his knowledge was
restricted to Tradition , meaning that he did not look any further than it
and used that and nothing else in his fi q h? His early association with Abu
Yu s u f must have called his attention to the derivation of rulings from texts,
and, as we have seen, in Makka he learned the principles and method of legal
deduction adopted by ash-Shafi'i.
Yaqut reports in the Collection that al-Aburri said, "Ishaq ibn Rahawayh said

'We were with Sufyan ibn 'Uyayna writing the hadiths of 'Amr ibn Dinar.
Ahmad ibn Hanbal came up to me and told me, "Get up, Abu Ya'qub, and I
will show you a man whose like you have never seen." I got up and he took
me to the courtyard of Zamzam, where there was a man (ash-Shafi'i) wearing
a white garment, with a radiant face, good comportment and manifest
intelligence. He made me sit beside him. He said, "Abu 'Abdullah, this is
Ishaq ibn Rahawayh al-Hanzali." Ash-Shafi'i greeted me and welcomed me
and we discussed many things. His knowledge was amazing. After some time
I said, "Let us return to the shaykh." He replied, "This is the shaykh." I said,
"Glory be to Allah! You left a man who says, 'Az-Zuhri related to me.' I
could only imagine that we were going to a man like az-Zuhri or close to him
and you bring us to this youth!" He said to me, "Abu Ya'qub, learn from this
man. My eyes have not seen anyone to compare with him."""
This indicates Ahmad's esteem for the knowledge of ashShafi'i. He said, "It
is related that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said,
"Every hundred years Allah Almighty will send to his Community a man
who will put the deen to rights. 'Umar ibn 'Abdi'l-'Aziz came at the end of
the first hundred and I hope that ash-Shafi'i is the one at the end of this
hundred." What then was it that Ahmad so admired about ash-Shafi'i? It was
not his transmission, since he was not in the same league as Sufyan ibn
'Uyayna or himself in that respect. What he learned from him was legal
reasoning, the principles of deduction, and the method of deduction; that was
what he so admired. One must acknowledge, therefore, that Ahmad learnt the
science of fiqh and deduction as well as transmission, since that is what he
valued in ash-Shafi'i and in ash-Shaybani and others before them. He was
concerned with the study of fiqh, opinion, analogy and deduction, even if he
was not satisfied with what he found in the books of the Iraqi fuqaha' of
opinion.
So although he was primarily concerned with hadiths and the transmission of
Traditions Ahmad also studied fiqh. His study of h a d i t h s involved
investigating their aims, ends and legal significance, and he used to seek out
the fatwas of the Companions. In his Musnad a large section on each
Companion is devoted to his fiqh and fatwas. The section on 'Umar contains
the fatwas which he gave and he also reports those given by 'Ali, 'Uthman,
and 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud. The transmission of those collections shows a
concern for the fiqh which they contain.

From all this we see that Ahmad knew both fi qh and h a di th s and so was
both a h a d i t h scholar and a fa q i h. Abu Hanifa said, "One who learns
hadiths but does not have fiqh can be likened to a chemist who makes up
remedies but does not know what they can cure until the doctor comes and
tells him. Anyone who learns hadiths but does not know the import of the
hadith until the faqih comes is just like that." So in respect of having both
hadiths and figh, Ahmad was like Imam Malik, although Malik is better
known for fiqh.
Did Ahmad study anything other than fi qh, h a d i t h s and the Arabic
language? It seems likely that he did not. He did not study kalam or
philosophy, as was common in his time, because he did not consider them
worthy of consideration. We must not imagine, however, that Ahmad was
unaware of the opinions of the various factions, like the Kharijites, Shi'ites,
Jahmites, Mu'tazilites and others. He was familiar with them because they
were so prevalent at that time. He went five times to Basra, spending long
periods there and Basra was the home of the Mu'tazilites, the Kharijites
raided from its deserts, and the Jahmites and Murji'ites had groups there and
in Kufa. He must have had some experience of them because of their
proximity. We also know that he used to accuse the people who held those
opinions of innovation and stated that they were far from the path of the
Salaf, which he could not have done if he had not known their various
positions.
Ahmad also forbade the men to whom he related to delve into those positions
which he saw as innovations in the deen, and so he must have been aware of
them. The presumption that he was aware of the views of the sects is further
strengthened by the fact that Ahmad knew Persian and sometimes spoke it
when the person he was speaking to did not speak Arabic well. This is known
by sound reports. Ash-Shaybani mentioned that Ahmad knew Persian and
when visitors came from Khurasan, he spoke Persian with them.
Imam Ahmad's sitting to teach hadiths and give fatwa
Ahmad learnt hadiths from those who knew them by listening to them,
writing down what he heard and memorising it, and visiting all possible
locations where he might learn more of them. He regretted not meeting those

great scholars who came before him but Allah compensated him for this. He
used to say, "I missed Malik and so Allah gave me Sufyan ibn 'Uyayna in his
stead. I missed Hammad ibn Yazid and Allah gave me Isma'il ibn 'Ulayya
instead." He sought out h a d i t h s from all possible sources and learned the
various areas of knowledge connected to the deen.
Finally he sat to pass on his knowledge. Ibn al-Jawzi said, "Ahmad did not
set himself up to transmit hadiths and give fatwa until he was forty years old.
It is reported that some people came to seek hadiths from him in 203 but he
refused to relate to them. Then he went to 'Abdu'r-Razzaq ibn Himam in
Yemen and returned to Baghdad. Not until 204 was Ahmad found giving h a
di th s and people sitting with him. Until then he did not allow himself to
hold assemblies. Why was that? Other f u q a h a ' h a d gatherings before
that age: Malik, for instance, sat for teaching and fatwa before that. The
reason was that Ahmad did not consider his knowledge of h a d i t h s
exhaustive and also because some of his shaykhs were still alive. One of his
contemporaries mentioned that Ahmad was asked to dictate a h a d i t h
which he had learnt from ' A b d u ' r-Razzaq, but refused because 'Abdu'r-
Razzaq was still alive.
I believe that Ahmad acted as he did out of his scrupulousness in following
the Sunna, from which he tried never to deviate. He attempted to do what the
Prophet did in every instance and tried not do what the Prophet, may Allah
bless him and grant him peace, had not done. So when he was cupped, he
gave the cupper a dinar because it is related that the Messenger of Allah was
cupped and gave Abu Tayyiba a dinar, and he travelled by night because that
was what the Prophet used to do.
As Ahmad was assiduous about following the S u n n a in these small actions,
he was even more diligent in doing so where major actions were concerned,
and there was no action more important in the view of Ahmad than teaching
others, one of the core actions of all the Prophets, may Allah bless them and
grant them peace. The Prophet was appointed by Allah at the age of forty,
first received the Qur'an at that age, and was only sent as a teacher to
mankind at that age. So Ahmad felt that he should follow him in that and was
too modest to sit to give fatwa and hadiths before he reached the age of forty.
We cannot claim that Ahmad was never asked for a fatwa about something

regarding which he knew a tradition and refused to give it before that age, or
was asked about a h a d i t h and refused to recount it. In fact the opposite is
probably true, since to have refused would have meant withholding
knowledge and the d e e n requires that the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah
be disseminated. Indeed there are reports which testify that he was seen
giving fatwa in the Khayf Mosque in 198 when he was 34.
Since Ahmad was quite renowned in the Islamic world before he sat to teach
and give f a t w a, his classes were very crowded. Some transmitters mention
that the number of those who attended them was 5000 of whom about 500
wrote down what he related. The place must have been very large to have
been able to accommodate that number, and since only the Great Mosque in
Baghdad was big enough that is where he must have taught. It also indicates
that the standing of Ahmad among the people of Baghdad must have been
very high. The magnitude of the number attending also means that there were
a great many people who transmitted his figh and hadiths.
Not everyone who attended was necessarily seeking knowledge. Some were
seeking blessing, some desired admonition, and some came to learn about the
man and observe his character and a d a b. Ibn al-Jawzi mentions in al-
Manaqib that one of his contemporaries said, "I went to Abu 'Abdullah
Ahmad ibn Hanbal twelve times. He was reading the M u s n a d to his sons. I
did not write a single h a d i t h. I was just interested in his character and a d a
b." (p. 210)
It appears that Imam Ahmad had two assemblies for study and h a d i t h s.
One was at his home where he taught his students and children privately and
the second was in the mosque which the public and large numbers of students
attended. But only 500 wrote
- in other words, about a tenth of those present.
In the mosque he taught after 'Asr, as is stated in the History of adh-Dhahabi.
Perhaps he chose that time because it was before nightfall and after the heat
of the day and a time of inactivity for most people so it was easy for them to
attend. To hear hadiths or fatwas at that time coincided with a time of natural
receptivity of the soul. Three characteristics could be observed in Ahmad's
classes which had a profound effect on the souls of those present.