Indexed OCR Text

is without any moaning, complainting, or lamentation. That is was the kind of
patience Ahmad had. He did not complain but endured, as was amply
demonstrated during the Inquisition.
The reader may wonder about the secret of this strength which gave Imam
Ahmad the capacity to endure and overcome hardship. I believe that the
secret lay in the fact that great men are supported by Allah alone and rely on
Allah alone: they do not feel the power of anything but Him, their hearts
being filled with an overwhelming awareness of the Divine presence before
which everything else fades into insignificance. It is reported that a man
slandered him in the most appalling way and then said to him, "Abu
'Abdullah, I have slandered you. Return me to a lawful state." He said, "You
are in the lawful provided you do not repeat it."
The third quality for which he was distinguished was integrity in every sense
of the word, and integrity takes many forms and has many manifestations. He
was honourable and did not take either a little or a lot from other people's
property. He was scrupulous in his beliefs and said only what he believed, not
flattering or dissimulating, even when facing the sword. He was honest in his
intelligence and never delved into any topic which the S a l a f had not delved
into. Such was his approach in f i q h. He used to say that asceticism made
hearts yielding and souls tender.
At - Tartusi reported on the same subject, "I went to Abu 'Abdullah and
asked him, 'What makes the heart tender?' He looked at his companions and
was silent for a time. Then he lifted his head and said, 'My son, consumption
of the lawful.' I went to Bishr ibn al-Harith and asked him, 'Abu Nasr, what
makes the heart tender?' He replied, 'Is it not by remembrance of Allah that
the hearts are made tranquil?' I said, 'I have come from Abu 'Abdullah.' He
asked, 'What did Abu 'Abdullah say to you?' 'Consumption of the lawful,' I
replied. He said, 'He came up with the heart of the matter.' I went to 'Abdu'l-
Wahhab ibn Abi'lHasan and asked him the same question. He said, 'Is it not
by remembrance of Allah that the hearts are made tranquil?' I stated, 'I have
come from Abu 'Abdullah.' His cheeks were rosy with joy and he asked,
'What did Abu 'Abdullah say?' 'Consumption of the lawful,' I replied. He
said, 'He has come up with the essence of the matter. The basic truth is as he
said. The basic truth is as he said.""

Imam Ahmad loved friendship and friends and knew that a life without
friends was a harsh, abased life. He used to say, "When friends die, a man is
brought low." He was generous with the little lawful wealth he obtained, and
used to say about it, "If a Muslim man has only a little of this world, even if
the amount be no more than a morsel, and then takes it and puts it in the
mouth of his brother Muslim, he is not being prodigal. This is the furthest
extent of generosity."
The integrity of his intellect and faith are clearly illustrated by what is
reported about the Inquisition and how he was steadfast in the face of it,
refusing to consider a matter that had not been considered by the Salaf and to
become involved in questions which might lead to misguidance. This same
integrity kept him from arguing with the people of sects and innovations
because the clash of ideas between debaters made things confused for others.
So he forbade his companions to debate with such people in order to preserve
their faith from doubt.
One of Ahmad's companions asked him what he thought about those who
debated with the Jahmites, explaining their errors and showing them and
others where they went wrong. He replied, "I do not think that the ideas of
any of these sects should be discussed and I do not think that anyone should
debate with them. Did not Mu'awiya ibn Qurra say, 'Disputes wipe out good
deeds and corrupt words cannot call people to good. Avoid the people of a
rgumentation and k a l a m and hold to the s u n a n and what was done by the
people of knowledge before you. They used to dislike theological discussion
and becoming involved with the people of innovation. Safety lies in avoiding
this. We do not command debate and disputation.' He also said, 'When you
see that someone likes kalam, admonish him."" (Tarikh adh-Dhahabi, p. 22)
Someone wrote to Ahmad to ask him about debating with the people of
kalam and sitting with them, and he dictated this letter in reply to the
question: "May Allah grant you a good end. What we used to hear and
receive from those we met is that they disliked kalam and sitting with the
people of deviation. We are commanded to submit to and stop at what is in
the Book of Allah and not to exceed that. People continue to dislike any
innovator who writes a book, or sitting with an innovator, since that might
being about something which will cause confusion in a person's deen."

The line Imam Ahmad took was also the line of Imam Malik ibn Anas, may
Allah be pleased with him. He too disliked argumentation and considered that
argumentation was far from the core and reality of the deen, and that the
people who were involved in disputation were those who corrupted matters of
the deen for other people. This was the course followed by Ahmad ibn
Hanbal.
Abu Hanifa and ash-Shafi'i followed a different course. Abu Hanifa debated
with the Jahmites and others and argued with them and confounded them.
Ash-Shafi'i debated forcefully with his opponents, but in order to arrive at
the truth, not win an argument. His books all take the form of excellent direct
debate, using all manner of methods and techniques to make their points.
As regards the integrity of his figh, Ahmad was keen to deduce directly from
the S u n n a and to follow the Messenger and Companions in all his fiqh and
opinions. The basis of his fiqh was what was related from the Prophet, the
Companions and the Tabi'un. He was very eager in his fiqh not to reject a
hadith of the Messenger of Allah unless it was countered by something
stronger. He used to say, "Anyone who rejects the hadith of the Messenger of
Allah is on the verge of destruction." He also used to say, "I have never
written down a hadith of the Prophet without acting by it."
Where there was no sunna from the Companions, he exercised i j t i h a d to
resolve the question following the method of those before without inventing a
method other than the one they had followed. He forbade i j tih a d
concerning any question about which there was no previous discussion or
method. He told his students, "Beware of speaking about a question in which
you have no imam." Thus we see that he was eager to ensure that his fiqh did
not digress from the Sunna.
The fourth of the qualities for which Ahmad was known was sincerity.
Sincerity in the quest of the truth purifies the soul of base desires, illuminates
insight, makes perception correct, and illuminates the heart with the light of
gnosis and true guidance. We find that the three Imams who preceded Ahmad
in legal ijtihad all had this quality and were distinguished by it. For guidance
can only be possessed by someone into whose heart Allah has cast the light
of s i n c e r i t y, since sincerity towards Allah is to love something for A l l a
h 's sake alone. He does not seek knowledge for the sake of debate or dispute,

or in order to have a following, or to gain the esteem of the ruler. Whoever
rises to this rank with his knowledge is not attached to argumentation and
sects, but to the reality which is straight with no crookedness. He reaches that
by the light of Allah and speaking wisdom by the guidance of Allah.
Allah gave Ahmad a large portion of sincerity in seeking knowledge of the
Book and Sunna, and his quest was not made out of any desire for position or
fame. Indeed, he was averse to that and hoped to go unnoticed by people. He
was so keen on avoiding reputation that he kept his inkwell hidden so that
people would not think that he was eager to write. He said, "Displaying an
inkwell is part of showing off." He preferred no one to listen to him and said,
"I would like to settle in Makka where I could lose myself in one of the
ravines and so escape being recognised."
The fifth quality he possessed - the one which enabled his lessons and words
to have an effect on the souls of his listeners - was natural authority. He was
awe-inspiring without causing fear and greatly venerated and esteemed. His
students had great reverence for him and would not jest in his presence. The
police were in awe of him, even when they passed by his house. It is related
that a policeman was appointed to call him at night for prayer, but was too in
awe of him to knock on his door, preferring to knock on his u n c 1 e 's door.
The respect his students had for him was even g r e a t e r. One of his
contemporaries who was his student said, "I visited Ishaq ibn Ibrahim and
other rulers, but I did not see anyone who inspired more awe than Ahmad ibn
Hanbal. I went to speak to him about something and I began to tremble from
awe when I saw him." Al-Qasim ibn Sallam said something similar. What
was the secret of the awe that this great man inspired? It is a gift of Allah
Almighty which He bestows on whomever He wishes among His slaves.
There are people to whom Allah gives strength of soul, strength of will and
spiritual radiance which has an effect on others. Ahmad possessed this.
In spite of this majestic presence he was good company. He was not harsh
and rude. He had a cheerful disposition and expression as well as noble
character. He was very modest with true selfeffacement before Allah. He
was also modest before people and not averse to them or arrogant towards
them. Someone who described him said, "I did not see anyone in the time of
Ahmad who more combined religiousness, chastity, self-control, good
manners and noble character, a firm heart, generous and noble

companionship, and lack of laziness." Another said, "Ahmad was the most
modest and the noblest of people. He had the best manners. He often bowed
his head and lowered his eyes. He avoided ugliness and levity. Only
discussion of hadith was heard from him. He mentioned the righteous and
ascetics with gravity, tranquillity and fine words. When he met anyone he
smiled at him and welcomed him. He was very humble towards shaykhs and
honoured and respected them." (al-Manaqib, p. 214)
Such was the character of Ahmad. It was based on the guidance of the
Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and taking him as a
model as commanded by Allah in His Noble Book.
Imam Ahmad's shaykhs
The shaykhs of Ahmad all taught him figh or a sunna or related a hadith to
him, whether that had been transmitted to them elsewhere or they had learned
it in Baghdad. The number of his shaykhs, as enumerated by Ibn al-Jawzi in
the Virtues of Ahmad, exceeds a hundred, so his shaykhs were very
numerous indeed; and all of them had some effect on him, even if some of
them only reported one or two h a d i t h s to him or he only met them a few
times. We will concentrate on the most notable ones, confining ourselves to
one or two in the life of the Imam. We recognise in studying Ahmad two
kinds of shaykhs: those who increased his inclination towards the Sunna and
those who directed him to fiqh as well as the S u n n a. There are two
important personalities who stand out in this respect, both of whom had a
profound effect on him.
The first person who influenced him and caused him to seek the S u n n a
constantly was Hushaym ibn Bashir ibn Abi Khazim. We know that when
Ahmad turned to the study of hadiths at the age of sixteen, he went to
Hushaym and stayed with him for four or five years. He directed himself
completely towards the S u n n a a n d related from Hushaym and all the
hadith scholars of Baghdad, but it was Hushaym who had the greatest effect
on him.
Hushaym was born in 104 AH and died in 183 AH. He met Tabi'un such as
'Amr ibn Dinar, az-Zuhri and others. He was concerned with learning the

traditions of Ibn 'Amr and Ibn 'Abbas. He had a h a d i t h circle in Baghdad,
and when Ahmad turned to hadith he found that he was the shaykh of this
circle. He had great renown in Islam and had a great effect on Ahmad so that
he hardly questioned him because of his awe of him and his esteem for his
knowledge. Throughout the entire time he was with Hushaym, he only asked
him one or two questions. He used to praise and glorify Allah between the
transmission of h a d i t h s. Hushaym's life was entirely devoted to
knowledge and he strove for it and made things difficult for himself.
His roots were in Bukhara but his father lived in Wasit. It is related that he
was the baker of al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. When the family moved to Baghdad, he
practised that profession and he was famous for preparing certain types of
fish dishes. When his son inclined to knowledge, that was not customary in
his family and it seemed odd to them. He used to forbid his son to study and
criticise him for it, but he endured the criticism and continued to learn
hadiths. He used to attend the gatherings of Qadi Abu Shayba and debate
with him about fi q h. Once he was ill and Abu Shayba missed him. He was
told he was ill and he said, "Let us go and visit him." So the people of the
gathering all went to visit him, following the Q a d i. They went to the house
of Bashir the Baker. When the Q a d i and his companions left, Bashir said to
his son, "My son, I used to forbid you to seek knowledge. Today I do not.
Fancy the Qadi coming to my door! How could I ever have imagined that!"
(Tarikh Baghdad, pt. 14, p. 92)
So Imam Ahmad continued to seek h a d i t h and made various journeys to
Makka, where he met az-Zuhri and learnt a large number of hadiths. He also
travelled to Basra, Kufa, and elsewhere. He took from the scholars in all
these places and continued to do so until he was a leading light in the
knowledge of ha dith s in Baghdad and had his own circle, although there
were rival circles, like that of Waki'. Enough proof of his position is that men
like Malik ibn Anas were among those who transmitted from him. His
position and knowledge had a great effect on Ahmad. He said, "I memorised
everything from Hushaym while he was alive, before his death."
It appears that Ahmad learnt many h a d i t h s from Hushaym, but little fiqh.
This other aspect was satisfied by another personality - Imam ash-Shafi'i, to
whom Ahmad attached himself after Hushaym's death. When he went on
hajj, Ahmad met ash-Shafi'i and admired his legal intellect and effective

deduction and the rules and criteria which he made the basis of deduction.
That was while ash-Shafi'i was teaching in the Masjid al-Haram and
reflecting about the rules of deduction, after he had returned to Makka having
studied the fiqh of opinion in Baghdad with ash-Shaybani. Ahmad listened to
him for his figh, not his transmission of hadiths, as he told Ishaq ibn
Rahawayh, "Abu Ya'qub, learn from this man. I have never seen anyone
comparable to him!"
Since it was legal thought, logical deduction and the setting out of the
principles of deduction which Ahmad admired in ashShafi'i, it is clear that
this formed a second aspect of Ahmad's knowledge, the first being the
direction he took at the beginning of his life with Hushaym in studying h a d i
th s and the Sun na and deducing fi q h from that source. Thus Ahmad
had two sources, even though that of the Sunna predominated over the other.
As we said earlier, he had many other shaykhs whom we have not mentioned
and we have selected these two in order to point out the two main sides of his
development - his hadiths and his fiqh.
Ahmad's private studies
Ahmad also studied a great deal on his own according to his own
inclinations. He sought out hadiths with great eagerness like someone who
tastes and enjoys food and finds it delectable. He never had his fill of them
and hence constantly travelled in search of them. He said, "I will continue to
seek knowledge until the grave."
One question which arises is: in this scholarly effort and these qualities did
Ahmad not have a prior model to follow? There is no doubt that the desire of
Ahmad at the beginning of his life and with the direction of his shaykhs
Hushaym and ash-Shafi'i was like that of Sufyan ibn 'Uyayna, the Imam of
hadith in Makka, and 'Abdu'r-Razzaq, the Imam of hadith in Yemen. There
is no doubt that all of this, coupled with his taste for the Sunna and its figh,
was the strongest of his motivations. But there must have been a model for
him to have based himself on in this great effort. It is not difficult to discover
some of these Muslim personalities in whose footsteps Ahmad followed.
'Abdu'r-Rahman ibn Mahdi said about Ahmad, "He is the most

knowledgeable of people of the h a d i t h s of Sufyan ath-Thawri." Ibrahim
ibn Ishaq al-Harbi mentioned those who preserved the Sunna and said, "Sa'id
ibn al-Musayyab in his time; Sufyan athThawri in his time; and Ahmad ibn
Hanbal in his time." Sufyan was in the middle of the chain and Ahmad at the
end of it. Even if Ahmad did not meet Sufyan himself, he took from him via
his students and knew his transmissions.
There are other personalities who resemble Ahmad, such as 'Abdullah ibn al-
Mubarak. Ahmad at-Tirmidhi said, "Ahmad resembles no one more than
'Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak in both method and presence." The contemporaries
of these three men observed the link between Ahmad and these two Imams.
When Ahmad began to study he wanted to meet the second of them, but he
died before that could happen. Ahmad said, "I sought knowledge when I was
sixteen and the first person I listened to was Hushaym, in 179. Ibn al-
Mubarak came in that year, which was the last time he came. I went to his
gathering and was told that he had left for Tarsus. He died in 181." (al-
Manaqib, p. 25)
Sufyan ibn Sa'id ath-Thawri was a faqih and hadith scholar in Kufa
contemporary with Abu Hanifa. Abu Hanifa's fiqh was dominated by
analogy and istihsan, while hadiths and Sunna were predominant in Sufyan's
so that he was reluctant to go beyond what was transmitted. Both of them
avoided the ruler and refused to accept appointment as q a d i s. Sufyan had
absolutely no Shi'ite leanings, while Abu Hanifa did. When Sufyan was in
Syria he extolled the virtues of 'Ali, since he had no partisans there; and
when he was in Iraq he extolled the virtues of 'Uthman because he had no
supporters there. He mentioned the virtues of Abu Bakr and 'Umar in Kufa,
where support for 'Ali was strong, and mentioned the virtues of 'Ali when he
was with those who attacked him.
Sufyan lived off the income of his inheritance from his family and refused to
humble himself by asking for money or accepting gifts from the Khalifs.
Ahmad did the same, although his income was less. Sufyan frequently
angered the khalif of the time by his forthright statements and several times
he was forced to flee. Sufyan also travelled a great deal in search of hadiths.
He too, like Ahmad, was very serious.
The second personality is 'Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, whom Ahmad tried to

meet but who died in 181 before he was able to do so. He also followed the
way of Sufyan ath-Thawri in his method and was one of the strongest men
and most scrupulous to do that. He also kept himself far from the ruler and
official positions. However, Ibn al-Mubarak was very rich and had enough
means to prevent him having to work. He gave a great deal away. As well as
having abundant knowledge, Ibn al-Mubarak was a warrior and m u j a h i d.
Thus he combined fi qh, ha dith, jihad, and spreading Islam. He often
went on hajj.
He was very concerned with the knowledge of Traditions and sunan and used
to spend the night studying them. He was asked, "When you have prayed,
why do you not sit with us?" He replied, "I go and spend time with the
Companions and Tabi'un." He was asked, "How do you spend time with the
Companions and Tabi'un?" He replied, "I go and look into my knowledge
and learn their traditions and actions. Why should I sit with you? You slander
people."
These men were models for Ahmad's behaviour and his course of action in
scrupulousness, asceticism and concern for the Sunna and steering well clear
of innovations.
Chapter Three Ahmad's Time and its Effect on Him
Ahmad lived at the time when all the elements of the Abbasid era reached
their high point. Everything brought its fruits in his time, be they sweet or
bitter, pleasant or unpleasant. On the political front, the Abbasid state was
established and stabilised and there was no powerful contender against it. The
Kharijites were broken and played no further role. After ar-Rashid, the
'Alawites had no power with which to launch an attack. So there was no
rebellion against the Abbasids.
The government was severe with those who came out against them, whether
they were relatives or others, and conflict and rivalry between its members
occurred. A civil war broke out between al-Amin and al-Ma'mun which
ended in the killing of al-Amin and the victory of al-Ma'mun. But the end
was not praiseworthy because victory was only achieved with the help of
Persian arms, the battle of between al-Amin and al-Ma'mun being basically

between the Persian and Arab armies.
Then al-Ma'mun turned to j i h a d as did al-Mu'tasim and alWathiq after
him, and the state became a feared power. But, at the same time, the factors
were already present which were to bring about its eventual downfall. There
was the fact that the khalifs relied on non-Arabs for their power. Al-Ma'mun
based his on the Persians and al-Mu'tasim based his on the Turks. They drew
their strength and their armies from them. Later these forces were to kill the
khalifs and appropriate power for themselves, and on this account the
Abbasid state eventually broke up into smaller states.
Such were the political circumstances of the time and the end that they would
lead to, some of which Ahmad lived to see. He was a Shaybani Arab and his
grandfather had been one of those who fought to establish the Abbasid state
but did not live to see the abasement of the Arabs. That situation did not
please Ahmad. It angered him. But he was not a man of the sword and did not
form a party and would not encourage sedition. He did not criticise the rulers:
what he did was to devote himself to knowledge and turn away from politics.
Ahmad proceeded on a middle path, between those of the two Imams before
him, Malik and Abu Hanifa. Abu Hanifa criticised the Abbasids in his
lessons and encouraged people against them by some expressions he used in
his fat was , openly encouraging the 'Alawites. Malik did not think that it
was permitted to rebel. He discouraged people from doing so, and involved
himself with rulers with the aim of rectifying them and encouraging them to
remove injustices and behave correctly. Ahmad was between the two. He
neither called for sedition nor encouraged it; he did not direct himself against
the rulers but neither did he befriend them or accept their stipends or gifts.
That Persian domination or, to be more precise, the reign of alMa'mun, was
accompanied by the influence of a group of Mu'tazilites in respect of both
knowledge and governance. Ahmad considered their method of deduction of
dogma to be deviation from the path of the Salaf and the Sunna. That
increased his desire to avoid rulers, because he could not remain silent in the
face of what he saw as Mu'tazilite innovations. He forbade people to sit or
debate with them, and thereby open the gate to innovations. At this point we
need to speak briefly about the Mu'tazilites.

The existence of the Mu'tazilites was needed in the Abbasid era because at
that time there were zindiqs who proclaimed views which corrupted the
Muslim community, concocted plots to destroy Islam and schemed against
the Muslims. There were those who wanted to destroy Islamic rule and revive
Persian rule, as was the case with al-Muqanna' in Khurasan, who rebelled in
the time of al-Mahdi. Therefore the Khalifs drew the sword against the
zindiqs and encouraged scholars to counter them on the intellectual front. The
Mu'tazilites were at the forefront of this offensive and so the khalifs brought
them close to them and opened their palaces to them in the time of al-Mansur,
al-Mahdi, al-Ma'mun, alMu'tasim and al-Wathiq.
The Mu'tazilites effectively refuted the z i n d i q s, Magians and others who
engaged in debate with them and fought hard in the defence of Islam. They
used deduction as their means of deriving dogma, using new techniques
different from those used by the Companions and Followers. They used the
same means as their opponents in attack and defence, and dealt with the same
issues they dealt with. Hence they dealt with philosophical questions which
the Salaf had never been concerned with. They spoke about m a n 's will and
actions and Allah's power in them, and the Attributes of Allah and whether
they are other than the Essence or part of the Essence.
The fuqaha' and hadith scholars saw all this, and that it was a d i fferent
course from that followed by the Companions and Followers in the deduction
of dogma. They deduced their doctrines from the texts of the Book and the
Sunna, exercising ijtihad when there was no text, whereas the Mu'tazilites
sought to affirm creeds by logical criteria and employed the method of
philosophical analysis for the deen as a whole.
Both groups continued along these separate tracks. But from the reign of al-
Ma'mun until the time when al-Mutawakkil came to power, the khalifs tried
to force scholars to embrace some of the Mu'tazilites' views, particularly that
of the createdness of the Qur'an. There was strong antagonism between the
two groups, so that the Mu'tazilites became the opponents of the f u q a h a '
a n d hadith scholars. That is why Ahmad was averse to them.
Leaving kalam aside for the moment, we will turn to the science of fiqh and
hadith in that time. As we said, it was an era in which things came to fruition,
fi q h reached its maturity, and its methods were established. Scholars met

and travelled to different regions and knowledge from each locality spread
throughout other regions. The books of ash-Shafi'i display an amalgamation
of the efforts of scholars of various regions. Each juristic school was
recorded by a group of mujtahids. Malik wrote the Muwatta' and his students
after him set out Maliki figh. Abu Yusuf wrote books containing some of
Abu Hanifa's fi q h and Muhammad ashShaybani wrote a comprehensive
collection of Iraqi f i q h. Then ash-Shafi'i produced al-Mabsut which
reflected all the fiqh of the time and became known as al-Umm.
Ahmad inherited that immense legal legacy, read much of it, and studied with
some of those scholars. He studied with ashShafi'i during his second stay in
Baghdad and wrote down his Risala and Mabsut as related by az-Za'farani.
He had already met the f u q a h a ' of Iraq and the sources state that he
departed from their f i q h after having studied it because he decided to follow
a different course. Nonetheless his intellect and thinking were nourished by
these legal fruits, of which he was aware, in addition to his knowledge of the
Sunna.
The study of hadiths also became mature in Ahmad's time. The study of S u
n n a and Traditions was not yet complete. Much was transmitted as coming
from the Messenger of Allah, but there were no rules for distinguishing what
was sound or weak, what was truthful and what was not. 'Umar ibn
'Abdi'l-'Aziz had wanted to collect the sound h a d i t h s but died before that
could be accomplished. Scholars recorded the S u n n a, Malik compiled his
Muwatta ', ash-Shafi'i his M u s n a d, and Abu Yusuf and ashShaybani
also had their collections of Traditions. These collections, however, were
regionally based.
The Muwatta' contains the Traditions in Madina which Malik considered to
be sound and the same applies analogously other collections of the time. In
Ahmad's time, the hadiths of different regions were brought together, which
led to a more comprehensive collection, and hadiths began to be arranged
under legal headings. This was accompanied by comparison of isnads,
weighing the relative strengths of the transmissions, and a comprehensive
knowledge of abrogated and abrogating texts.
Not only was the collection of h a d i t h s well-developed at that point: their
study was as well. Malik began to examine the men from whom he related as

one might examine a coin to see if it was genuine, then he analysed h a d i t h
s in the light of the Book and well-known Sunna texts. Ash-Shafi'i came and
studied m u t t a s i 1, mursal and muntaqi' hadiths, and the weight of each in
terms of legal deduction, how they were ranked, and which should be
accepted when there was a contradiction. Then the study of isnads was
perfected, going through each chain of transmitters back to the Messenger of
Allah, upon whom be Allah's blessings and peace. In the time of Abu Hanifa
and Malik, who were near to the Tabi'un, people were only concerned with
those from whom they took and transmitted, because there were still many
Tabi'un who had had close contact with the Companions. They accepted
mursal hadiths because they trusted those who transmitted to them and the
time was close to that of the Ta b i ' u n. By ash-Shafi'i's time and thereafter
the i s n a d s had already become much longer, and thus became an object of
concern and study.
It was a time of frequent debates, sometimes verbal and sometimes in letters,
like Malik's letter to al-Layth ibn Sa'd about not judging according to the
normative practice of Madina and alL a y t h 's reply to him. These debates
took place everywhere - in Makka during the h a j j and in other Muslim
cities, as well as at gatherings held by the khalifs and governors for the
purpose. Such debates were held not between fu q a h a ' alone but also
between them and the scholars of kalam among the Mu'tazilites, Jahmites,
Murji'ites and others. Likewise the scholars of kalam also debated among
themselves, as happened between the Mu'tazilites and Jabarites; and there
were debates between the scholars of k a l a m and others who attacked
Islam, or between them and non-Muslim philosophers who lived in Muslim
lands, such as the Socratics, Cynics, free-thinkers, Manichaeans and others.
All in all, this was a time of intellectual intercourse between d i fferent
religions, different theological opinions and diff e r e n t legal schools. Part of
the nature of intellectual differences is that they produce debates and
arguments, of which some are aimed at reaching the truth and some arise out
of a desire for intellectual domination. There were both types in this time.
Perhaps the clearest illustration of the spirit of knowledge in that age, and the
intellectual ferment and its fruits, was Imam ashShafi'i. He embodied the
spirit of the age in relating its intellectual conclusions about fiqh and the
Sunna. There were those among the Basran scholars who refused to accept

the evidence of the Sunna, and those who would not use single hadiths as
evidence or accept the Sunna unless it was mutawatir, i.e. reported by the
Community as a whole. His reply to them was strong and severe and he
refuted their approach. There were also those who put analogy before single
Traditions. In general, there is no book which deals with the legal forms of
the age of ij ti ha d, which was the time in which Ahmad ibn Hanbal grew
up, like Kitab al-Umm by ash-Shafi'i. It records all the various opinions,
distinguishing those supported by strong evidence from those that are weak.
It is probably the most representative example of the spirit of the time in
these fields.
But what was the effect on Ahmad of this time of argument and intellectual
ferment and maturing of the Islamic sciences? The time and environment in
which they live inevitably affect thinkers according to their different
orientations and their exposure to these factors. An intellectual milieu like
that of the Abbasids in which Ahmad lived might have had many different
effects since there were various streams of thought. There were scholars who
accepted isolated Traditions, those who rejected them and preferred analogy,
those who considered the fatwas of the Companions part of the Sunna, and
those who insisted on considering only the Sunna of the Prophet himself.
Ahmad took from this mixed provender those elments which accorded with
his own inclination and nature. From the outset, his method consisted of
turning to the Sunna and learning the fatwas of the Companions and great
Followers and transmitting them, so that he was always keenly concerned
with the narrations of the Companions and Followers. In spite of the great
amount of debate at that time, there were also those who were averse to it
because of its inbuilt tendency to generate uncertainty and corrupt thought.
Malik, Sufyan ath-Thawri, Ibn al-Mubarak and others hated debate
concerning matters of the de e n and Ahmad preferred to follow their course
and avoid debate.
Islamic Sects
Ahmad himself mentions the names of various Islamic groups and proceeds
to refute them, and so we should briefly mention them in order that the reader
will know what the names mean in this context. At that time there were

people who joined these sects and spread them among the Muslims, using a
different method from that employed by the hadith scholars and fuqaha'. In
some instances they even used the power of the state, as we saw with the
Mu'tazilites in connection with their view about the createdness of the
Qur'an and their denial of the vision of Allah on the Day of Rising which
they attempted to impose on scholars by force. The other prominent sects
were the Shi'ites, Kharijites, Qadarites, Jahmites and Murji'ites.
Shi'ites
The Shi'ites were the oldest of the Islamic sects. They appeared with their
political position at the end of the reign of 'Uthman and grew and flourished
in the time of 'Ali, when the injustices perpetrated against members of the
Hashimite family increased the number of their supporters.
Shi'ites held that 'Ali had been the man most entitled to the khalifate, but
they formed into various groups. Some were excessive in their esteem for
'Ali and his descendants and some were more balanced. The moderate ones
were content to prefer 'Ali to the other Companions without declaring any of
them unbelievers.
The most moderate group were the Zaydites, who followed Zayd ibn 'Ali,
Zayd al-'Abidin. They believed that the leadership of Abu Bakr and 'Umar
was valid, even if they were not the best, and that it was permitted to have
two leaders at the same time. They thought that anyone who commits a major
wrong action would be forever in the Fire because he is between belief and
unbelief: a view similar to that of the Mu'tazilites. Zayd was killed during the
reign of Hisham, in 122 A.H.
Some Shi'ites held extreme views, including the Kaysaniyya, followers of al-
Mukhtar ibn 'Ubayd ath-Thaqafi who rebelled in Marwanid times. They
believed that the khalif must be from the sons of 'Ali: al-Hasan, al-Husayn
and then Muhammad ibn alHanafiyya. They also believed in
metempsychosis; that everything has an inward and outward truth; and that
the Imam alone has inward knowledge.
There are also the Twelver Shi'ites who believe that the twelfth Imam went
into occultation and are still waiting for him to return. They believe that the

Imam is designated by name without description, which is the same as the
Zaydites say. There is a branch of the Imamites who take their name from
Isma'il ibn Ja ' far. They are also called the Batiniyya because of their view
about the "Concealed Imam". This group believe that Ja'far's son Isma'il was
designated as Imam by him.
They were other extreme Shi'ite groups who ceased to have any link with
Islam, such as the Saba'ites, who deified 'Ali, and the Ghurabiyya who
claimed that 'Ali should have been the Prophet and Jibril made a mistake.
Kharijites
Another political sect was the Kharijites. They arose in 'Ali's army after he
agreed to arbitration when they had forced him to do so, but after he accepted
they began to shout, "Judgement belongs to Allah alone", and claimed that
'Ali had committed disbelief by accepting arbitration. Then they attacked
him, saying that he had to repent, and so he was forced to fight them. They
continued to cause trouble in the Umayyad era. One of their views was that
anyone could be khalif if he was a free man, and that he could be deposed.
Anyone who committed a major sin was an unbeliever.
They had numerous splinter groups, each with its own views and leadership.
Some left Islam because of certain views which they held, like the Yazidites
who claimed that Allah would send a Persian Prophet who would abrogate
the Shari' a, and the Maymunites who allowed certain forbidden
marriages and claimed that Surat Yusuf (12) was not part of the Qur'an.
These two were the main political groups. The other sects were largely
concerned with matters of dogma.
Murji'ites
The Murji'ites' view was counter to that of the Kharijites concerning the
question of the status of those who commit a major sin and whether they are
forever in the Fire or not. The Murji'ites held that disobedience does not
harm belief, just as obedience does not benefit disbelief. The Mu'tazilites
used this term for those who did not hold that those who committed major
sins would be in the Fire forever. That is why Abu Hanifa was accused of
being a Murji'ite. Ash-Shahrastani counted him among the Murji'ites of the

Sunna who hoped that Allah would forgive sinners.
Jabarites or Jahmites
There were also the Jabarites or Jahmites who contended that man has no will
in anything he does; that Allah is the Doer of all that takes place by his hands,
good or evil; and that his actions are like a feather moving in the wind. The
Jabarite position was wellknown in Umayyad times. It is said that the first to
articulate it was al-Jahm ibn Safwan, which is why they are sometimes called
Jahmites. Al-Jahm was also the first to state that the Qur'an was created. That
is why Ahmad sometimes called those who espouse that position "Jahmites",
even though the Mu'tazilites, who were its main exponents, disagreed with
the Jahmites about man's actions.
Qadarites
There were also the Qadarites, who took the opposite view to that of the
Jabarites, saying that man creates his own actions himself by choice. They
became indistinguishable from the Mu'tazilites. The Mu'tazilites had great
importance in Islamic thought in the Abbasid era since they refuted the
zindiqs. They had five tenets: t a w h i d - that Allah is One in His Essence
and His Attributes and does not have the same attributes as any of His
creatures (and so they denied the Vision of Allah); Allah's justice in
repayment of actions; the threat of Hell and promise of Paradise; that
someone who commits a major sin is between two positions, being neither a
believer or unbeliever; and commanding the right and objecting to the wrong,
even by the sword if necessary.
Chapter Four Ibn Hanbal's Views
Ahmad ibn Hanbal was not one of those who devoted themselves to the study
of different religions and sects and their arguments, nor was he was one of
those who devoted themselves to the rational sciences without basing
themselves on the principle of the Book or Sunna. He did not permit himself
to debate any of its precepts, for the truth is not revealed by argument or
exposition. True knowledge consists in seeking out the truths of Revelation
and studying what is commanded. It is not a matter of victory or defeat in

debate or a contest of words. Furthermore anyone who seeks religious
knowledge by argumentation makes his deen a target for disputes - and this
is not something which the Imam of the Sunna would descend to.
While Ahmad devoted himself to studying only the Sunna and the knowledge
of the deen and its figh through transmission from the Messenger of Allah,
may Allah bless him and grant him peace, the battles of kalam were raging
nearby and heated debates concerning the khalifate and the previous khalifs
and the disparity between the Companions were being carried on incessantly.
Ahmad did not involve himself any of that. But the time he lived in and his
contacts did not allow Ahmad's religious knowledge to remain completely
aloof from dispute and the conflict between sects and ideas. Various factors
moved him to make certain statements, particularly when al-Ma'mun
attempted to force the fuga ha' and hadith scholars to accept his position,
willingly or unwillingly. Ahmad refused to accede to this demand of the
khalifs.
Certain statements regarding dogma have been transmitted from him which
are as true to the true Salafi position as his fiqh was. He did not seek to
interpret but took the position of the
Qur'an and Sunna, as the Qur'an says, "We believe in it. All of it is from our
Lord." (3:7) Ahmad respected all the Companions and did not attack any of
them. He avoided saying anything negative about any Companion. He
preferred to follow the course of the Salaf in that respect. He did not get
involved in politics or openly disdain authority or encourage rebellion. He
devoted himself to knowledge while others were debating the relative value
of the Companions. He did, however, express some opinions on politics and
dogma which we will mention briefly.
Imam Ahmad's views on certain doctrines
At this time there were questions connected to Islamic dogma which were
raised by the Muslim sects and were disseminated among the majority of
Muslims. The latter relied on the knowledge of fuqaha' and hadith scholars
and did not ask anyone else about them, because they were the only ones who
were able to remove the uncertainty these questions provoked. As we have

already seen, these questions included the following: the reality of faith, the
question of Qadar and man's actions and his will in relation to the Will of
Allah, sins and their effect on faith, the position of Muslims who commit
major sins and whether or not they will be forever in the Fire, the issue of the
Divine Attributes, and other matters of controversy, like the createdness of
the Qur'an and the possibility of seeing Allah.
Faith
The reality of faith is one of the issues about which there was dispute and
different groups provoked discussion. The Jahmites thought that faith was
affirmation, even if not accompanied by action, and did not state that it was
obligatory to proclaim it out loud. The Mu'tazilites held that actions were
integral to faith. To them, a person who committed major sins was not a
believer, even if he believed in Allah's unity and testified that Muhammad
was the Messenger of Allah, but he was not an unbeliever either: he was
between the two. The Kharijites said that action is integral to faith and that
anyone who commits major sins is not a believer, but an unbeliever.
The fuqaha' andha dith scholars discussed these ideas using their
method, which was to rely on the Book and the Sunna and not the faculty of
reason. They had various views about these matters which were not far apart.
Abu Hanifa thought that faith was definite belief and its verbal affirmation.
The physical token of it was the articulation of the two shahadas. No other
action was necessary for it. Faith is a reality which does not increase or
decrease. So in his view the faith of Abu Bakr was exactly the same as that of
other people, but he was better in respect of his actions and because the
Prophet testified that he would enter the Garden.
According to Malik, faith is affirmation and confirmation, but it increases
through right action because the Noble Qur'an clearly states that some of
those who believe are increased in faith. He also said that faith decreases, but
noted that the Qur'an only mentions increase and not decrease.
Ahmad affirmed in a number of places that faith is both articulation and
action and that it increases and decreases. Ibn al-Jawzi reports that Ahmad
used to say, "Faith is word and action. It increases and decreases. All piety is
from faith and acts of disobedience decrease faith." He said, "The description

of the believer among the people of the Sunna and the Community is that he
is someone who testifies that there is no god but Allah alone with no partner
and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, and who a ffirms all that the
Prophets and Messengers brought, and who binds his heart to what appears
on his tongue and does not doubt his faith." (al-Manaqib, p. 165)
In another place he said, "Faith is word and deed. It increases and decreases.
It increases when you do good, and decreases when you do evil. A man can
leave faith but remain within the fold of Islam. If he repents, he returns to
faith. He is only removed from Islam by associating things with Allah or by
rejecting one of the obligations imposed by Allah. If he abandons them
through neglect and laziness, he is subject to His will and He may punish or
may pardon him." (Ibn al-Jawzi, p. 168)
This indicates that someone who disobeys Allah is a Muslim but should not
be called a believer. That is close to the view of the Mu'tazilites, but he was
swift to distance himself from them because they thought that whoever died
disobedient would be in the Fire forever. He left their fate to their Lord. In
this Ahmad only relied on texts for his position.
The judgement on those who commit a major sin
This was a disputed question among the scholars. The Kharijites considered
such a person an unbeliever and al-Hasan alBasri considered him a hypocrite.
The Mu'tazilites put him between the two positions and called him a Muslim
although he would be forever in the Fire. Abu Hanifa, Malik and ash-Shafi'i
considered him a believer and left him to the judgement of Allah.
Ahmad was like the earlier fuqaha' in this respect, and did not deviate from
their path. There are many texts transmitted from him on the subject. He said
about the believer that he left his destiny to Allah, as everything was subject
to Allah's decision and decree. He said, "We do not testify that the people of
the qibla can perform any action which necessarily incurs the Garden or the
Fire. We are optimistic in the case of the righteous and pessimistic in the case
of the sinner and evildoer, although we hope for Allah's mercy for him. If
anyone meets Allah with a sin which he repented of and did not persist in,
Allah will turn to him. He accepts the repentance of His servants and pardons
evil deeds. Whoever meets Him having had a hadd carried out on him in this