AHMED IBN HANBAL

AND

THE M I HN A.
AHMED IBN HANBAL
AND

THE MIHNA.
A BIOGRAPHY OF THE IMAM INCLUDING
AN ACCOUNT OF THE MOHAM
MEDAN INQUISITION CALLED THE MIHNA,
218234 A. H.

BY

WALTER M. PATTON, B. D., PH. D.

Professor in the Wesleyan Theological College, Montreal, Canads

7y y ~~~*
c

7. r i .3

LIBRAIRIE ET IMPRIMERIE
E. J.
LEIDE 1897. SEEN BY
, t .,,.,<. l

DAT . fr*
1 RINTED BY E. J. BRILL, AT LEYDEN.
TO MY WIFE.
 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

Thefollowing pages contain the record of the Imam

Ahmed ibn Hanbal and of a struggle ) with which he stood l

connected, whose issues were so great as to warrant a close

study of that is involved in the movement. The
all
history of
Dogma Islam as written by Western writers has given us
in
an idea of the questions which were being disputed at this
time and the outward history of events has recorded in very
,

meagre outline the most important public occurrences of our

narrative; but there has been, so far, no use made of the.
rich opportunity presented in the biography of Ahmed ibn
Hanbal to see the theological controversies of Islam in their
connection with the outward history of the State. This kind
of historical study is the more interesting, because from it
we are enabled to understand the relation of the State to
religion at that time, and the place occupied by religion
and its teachers in the State.

i) TThe Mihna. This term, meaning in general usage a testing or trial

,

whether by the accidents of fortune or the actions of

men, is often used,
(together with the vm Form of the verb
Q^-*) with reference to a religious
test with a view to obtaining assent to some particular belief or^sysiem of
beliefs. We find this special usage
largely illustrated in the records of the
Mu c
tazilite the account of which is to
inquisition, appear in the sequel. It
is also found in
the accounts of the Orthodox
inquisition under the Khalif
Kahir 200 years later.
Most^ commonly, the whole persecution extending from
the year 218 A. II. to A. H. is called~tEe~MIHna:
234
 Wehave referred above to the issues of the Mihna, as
the persecution inaugurated^ by al-Ma mun is calIecI7~The
3
>

irriportance of them lies In the fact that- they settled the

orthodox character of Islam following ages; and in
for all
-the preservation of orthodoxy lLes_ the preservation oi-Jslam
-itself, in our judgment. Had Rationalism succeeded in bring

ing about by persecution a general abandonment of ortho

doxy, it is
probable that the principle of free thought,
without recognition of authority would have had a disin
,

tegrating effect within Islam itself, and would have made

-it much moresusceptible to modifying and reforming in
fluences from without; so that, in time, we should have
seen standards of faith and life which contravene our ,

reason as the Koran and Tradition do, given up for some

thing more satisfying to reason and moral judgment. We
need not enter into the question whether any good came
from the preservation of orthodoxy, further than to say
that if was to continue to be Islam to preserve
Islam ,

orthodoxy was the best way to accomplish such a result.

We ought to give Rationalism credit for having asserted
the principle, un-Islamic though it be, that thought must
be free in the search for truth. The abuse of free-thinking,
however, in a love of speculation for speculation s sake, and
in an inordinate desire of controversial victory is, in the

history of this period, abundantly exemplified.

Ahmed ibn Hanbal jiuring his whole career subsequent to
c
the death of the Imam al-Shafi i (204 A. H.) was the mosLxejoiark-
able figure in the camp o- Mohammed an orthodoxy, arid

during __the_ course of the Mihna did more than any other
individual to strengthen the resistance of his party to the
repressive efforts of the Khalifs and their officers. He stood
for the standing or falling of orthodoxy in its time of trial ;

and there is little

exaggeration in the statement, made more
than once concerning him, that all men were looking to
him foran example, that as he decided on the test as to
the Koran being applied to him, so they might follow .

We have some interesting circumstantial evidence of

 Ahmed s position and influence among the people from the
way in which he was treated by the Khalifs. Al-Ma mun
had made up his mind to cite him to appear with the first
seven men whom he put the test, but even
to the violent
bigot Ahmed ibn Abu Dowad the Chief-Kadi advised his
master not to summon him, doubtless recognizing that suc
cess with the seven men would be much more difficult should
Ahmed be with them and feeling that the result of their
,

trialwould better determine whether or not it would be

D
wise to attack one greater than
they. Al-Ma mun s letter to
his governorBaghdad after the latter had examined the
in
doctors with gentleness Ahmed ibn Hanbal, when
treats
one reads what he had to say about most of the other
c
doctors there alluded to. In
Jbhe_case of al-Mu tasiro- r WP
must bear in mind that he did not scourge Ahmed until.. he
had exhausted every means to save him, by threats,
* argu-
ments and entreaties. He declared that had al-MaD mun not
ordered him to deal with him and such as he, he would
have had nothing to do with the infliction of the
punishment.
FuFfhermore, the scourging took place in the court-yard of
the palace unknown to the mass of the
people, who stood
outside waiting for the announcement as to how the trial
had ended. As soon as they suspected that their Imam was
being tortured, there was a tremendous excitement; and it
seemed as if the Khalifs palace would become an
object
of assault, when al-Mu c tasim had Ahmed s uncle D Ishak

brought out, and had this man falsely intimate to them

that he had not harmed his
nephew in the least. To make
himself still more secure against the danger of a
c
popular
uprising, al-Mu tasim kept Ahmed
within the precincts of
the the
palace evening, and then dressed him up in
until

gala costume and sent him under cover of dusk to his

dwelling. We may consider it as significant of Ahmed s
standing among the people that there were no further at
tempts to coerce him during the remaining fifteen years of
the Mihna, though we are assured that he was active
in
teaching and as popular as he ever had been, or even more
so. Al-Wathik s treatment furnishes some evidence to shew
how he regarded Ahmed s influence. We are told that,

despite urging of Ibn

the Abu Dowad, he would not cite

Ahmed for examination before him, but sent word to the

Imam to remove from his country; a good proof that Ahmed
had great power with the people. The biographer adds that
he does not know whether the Khalif refrained from dealing
with Ahmed because of admiration for his steadfastness, or
because of fear that evil consequences might come upon
him should he lay violent hands upon so holy a man. For
al-Mutawakkil we need say little here. His attention to
Ahmed and the messages which he sent him point clearly
to his popularity and influence.
The religious sentiment in the Muslim populace had not
much sympathy with the loose views and free living of the
-liberal teachers. Hence it was that they idolized as they did
a man like Ahmed ibn Hanbal. His intense devotion to the
things most venerated and cherished by the people God
:
,

the Prophet, the Koran, the Tradition, the Sunna of the

Prophet, and the Communion of the Faithful, endeared
him
to the mass of the common folk. He was also, a remarkable ,

example of an effort which always excited reverence in the

breast of the Muslim, namely, the effort to bring himself
near to God and thus secure a good reward from him Those .

who are familiar with the stock expressions of Mohammedan

piety will understand what this means in the

case of a sin
cere and earnest religionist. Judging by the record of a host
of extravagant visions of blessedness in Paradise which men
had of the Imam Ahmed after his departure from the world ,

one cannot doubt that all good Muslims believed him to

have obtained even more than the good reward for which
he had hoped.
That Ahmed ibn Hanbal has come to be regarded as the
founder of the Hanbalite Madhhab, or School, is not to be
wondered at though it is not because of any intention on his
,

part, as far as I can see. He was a great saint and

defender
of orthodoxy, and it is due to this fact that his pupils and
 5

admirers, after his death, sought to give form to their

master s teachings and compacted themselves into a sect
or school of theology. I do not believe that Ahmed him
self had the idea that such would occur. That a
school
was formed spontaneously is a to the testimony powerful
impression of the man s personality upon his own age and
that following. The things which the Muslims reckon to
Ahmed praise are his personal life, his intensely orthodox
s

teaching, and his maintenance of his teaching in the face

of persecution. He was learned in
only one direction, that
is, in the Koran, Tradition, the Consensus of
usage and
opinion among the Faithful. These things he knew
thoroughly;
of worldly learning he does not
appear to have had any
great store. The kind of knowledge he had ,
supplementing
great courage and firmness and much
natural shrewdness,
was his effective
weapon in the controversial warfare which
he had to wage. Ahmed book the Musnad is the
s great
best monument to that
knowledge in which he especially
excelled. It exercised such an influence in itself and in the ,

works derived from it, for the maintenance of Tradition in

its worthy place as a basis of theology, that its author s
career ought to be known. We will then see the real life
which was so steadying in its effect
upon Mohammedan re
ligious thought and which was but followed up in its effect
,

by the book which it produced.

Some native biographers and historians have noticed the
man and the persecution in which he suffered for his faith
with too of Ahmed worth and ser
flattering recognition s
vices. Others whose interest is more secular and who record ,

for the most part, only the outward events of civil

history
have often passed over the
religious movement of Ahmed s
time with little or no notice. But there is a
significance
about the man and the movement which the
greatest of the
chroniclers, such as Tabari, have not been slow to
recognize.
Abu l-Mahasin who professes to be
,
writing the annals of
Egypt, but whose interest in religious persons and events
is evident on almost
every page of his work has done full ,
 justice the general course of events in connection with
to
the Mihna and to the public career of Ahmed ibn Hanbal.
In the narrative which follows, I have sought to give the
connected story of my subject s life from its beginning to
its close. The account expands however at that point where
, ,

his life becomes a factor in the public history of the time ,

in order that we may have a fair impression of the whole

course of religious events then transpiring, and may, also,
see more clearly Ahmed ibn Hanbal in the arena where he ,

more than elsewhere won for himself that great fame which
,

has placed him among the chief heroes and saints of his faith.
It should be remarked that European writers have
too

often written their accounts in a spirit of antipathy toward

the orthodox theology of Mohammedanism, and have given
more than a due share of commendation to the Mu tazilites
c

-
(Rationalists). They were, it is true, advocates of the freedom
of thought, but were, none the less, in many cases, too
-
self-indulgent and pleasure-loving to be credited with the
-
highest moral aims or earnestness. It is doubtful whether,
in most instances, their championship of free thinking was
from any lofty conception of what constitutes true freedom.
It would appear to be rather the motive of convenience that

moved them to take the course they took. They preached

the of Freedom because they felt the Law and the
gospel
Commandment impose an inconvenience upon them, so
to
that they could not do as they wished. All praise is due
to the sincere men who loved freedom and sought it as the

right of every man, but the sequel will shew not many of
such men in that field of history which it covers.
c
The characters of the four Khalifs al-Ma mun, al-Mu tasim,
al-Wathik and al-Mutawakkil will receive some additional
light from the narrative
which follows; as a result, probably
that first and last named will receive a different
of the

judgment from that which has been passed hitherto. Al-

Ma mun the
,
scholar and patron of scholars the first free- ,

- thinking Khalif who took a real interest in religion will be ,

- more fully discovered as a man intolerant toward those who

 differed from him, even to the degree of
becoming an intense
persecutor. As to his liberal tendencies, it is not likely we
shall find any reason to
change our judgment. He had a
quick and very capable mind, and hated to be fettered. He
believed he had the right to think to the full extent of his
opportunity, and to make opportunity for mental ranging
where he had none. Had he stopped at this
point, he would
have presented to us a record of great service to his fellow-
men accomplished by moral means; but when he
rejected
what he deemed a spiritual tyranny,
only to turn spiritual
and physical tyrant himself, the
pure quality of his early
aspirations is for us sadly spoiled.
Al-Mutawakkil is a Khalif whose character cannot
possibly
be what European historians have made it out to be
darker than the plague of darkness itself. He was
orthodox,
but his treatment of liberals will
easily bear comparison with
his predecessors treatment of the orthodox
theologians; while
the attitude he assumed toward Ahmed ibn Hanbal does
not present to us a man without
redeeming qualities. It is
not to be understood that we condone his terrible treatment
of individuals, and the
gloating satisfaction with which he
sometimes related his own barbarities. Nor would we soften
terms over his treatment of Jews and Christians. But the
man was a fanatical religionist and many of his deeds must
,

be viewed from the religious

standpoint to a greater extent
than they have been heretofore.
It will be seen that, in
regard to some other points, I
have indicated in a footnote here and there a difference of
opinion from some of the modern authorities whose works
have been consulted. But, none the less, I avail
myself of
the present
opportunity to say that the books of scholars
like Steiner, von Kremer, Houtsma and Goldziher
have been
of great service to me and that I am
,
fully appreciative of
the service their contributions have rendered to our
know
ledge of that period of Mohammedan history with which my
sketch professes also to deal.
In my work I have derived most of the material used
from three manuscripts in the Library of the University of
Leiden; i) Cod. 311 tf, which, with its companion Cod. 31 b,
1

and 4^ vols, respectively, of a five vol

represents the $th c
ume Ms. of the sLJ^t xJb* or of Abu Nu aim
XjJb>
j>\

Ahmed ibn Abdallah al- Ispahani (d. 450). 2) Cod. 73 a,

which was not in the University collection of Mss. at the
time that Dozy prepared his Catalogue, and is, therefore,
not described. companion volume, Cod. 73
Its Gol., is

however described. The two volumes form together one

D

transcript of the work

of TajuM-Din Abdu l-Wahhab ibnu l-

771), entitled JUUJ oUxL: 3) 1917, which

Subki Cod.
(d.
is not described in the University Catalogue, but
likewise
willbe found in the Catalogue of Landberg, "Catalogue de
Manuscrits arabes provenant d une Bibliotheque privee a el-
Medina et appartenant a la Maison E. J. Brill, Leide", p.

53, Cod. 188, Ahmed el-Maqrizi (f 845) ^=> ^ J&\ ^.sLu

Autograph* de Vauteur. c
The biography of Ahmed ibn Hanbal in Abu Nu aim is
found pp. 138 161 and in al-Subki pp. 132 143. I have
made most extensive use of the former of these two, as
being the most detailed and circumstantial
account of my
s life. It is the oldest account of the three, and shews
subject
that fact in the amount of gossip and personal detail which
it records, and which the later accounts have omitted. The
narrative in al-Subki affords a great deal of matter touching
Ahmed s part in the Mihna, but not so much for the
s contribu
biography before and after that time. Al-Makrizi
tion is almost sure to be a portion of his Mokaffa, and is
a good piece of biographical writing, well-arranged, concise
in expression, and covering fully the life and relations of
Ahmed. Considered as a literary production, it is a better
c
account than that of Abu Nu aim, because of its compact
ness and system but for one who is gathering materials to
; ,

compose a sketch having itself a similar purpose to Makrizi s, c

as might be expected, the more diffuse narrative of AbuNu aim,
with its accumulation of traditional accounts bearing on many
minor points in Ahmed s career, has much more to offer.
 As is pointed out in a footnote Tabari s Annales have
been followed for the letters of the Khalif al-Ma mun. The
same source, also, has afforded some useful information
touching matters of more public interest during the progress
of the Mihna.
My endeavor has been to use the materials
gathered from
these and other sources in such a
way as to make many
witnesses contribute each something
complementary to the
testimony of his fellows, and
yet have the whole convey
the impression of a continuous narration.
To my greatly esteemed Professor, Doctor M. J. De Goeje,
Professor of Arabic in the
University of Leiden, I am in
debted for direction, advice, and
encouragement without
which it would have been impossible to have
accomplished
the result that is here
presented. I am very thankful to him
for this, as also for his
great courtesy as Interpres Legati
Warneriani in placing at my
disposal the three manuscripts
which have been used in the
preparation of the work.

Leiden, Feby 4th, 1897.

WALTER M. PATTON.
AHMED IBN HANBAL AND THE MIHNA.
I.

Ahmed s Ahmed ibn Hanbal was born in the month of

164 A. H. ). The home of his parents
c
Birth and Rabi* the first,

Family Con- Khorasan 2 ). His father Mohammed ibn Han

was in
in the
bal was one of the descendants of a captain
Khorasan which fought to overthrow the
Abbaside army in
Khorasan to take residence
Omayyads ). The family up
3 left

in Baghdad, however, and Ahmed

was born a few days or
months after their arrival in the latter city ).
4
We are not
informed what family his parents had beside himself, and

in none of the sources of information

to which I have had
D
of his father s, Ishak
access there, excepting of a brother
is
D
ibn Ishak ibn
ibn Hanbal ) and a son of this man Hanbal
5
,

Hanbal 6
mention of a relative of his father s or his
) , any 7
own generation. His lineage was of pure Arabic_stock )
from the family of Shaiban of the great tribe of Bekr ibn
Mohammed the name
Wa il. Ahmed is rarely called <ibn ,

Ibn Chall. N. 19, Dhahabi, Liber

Class. 8, N. 18, Abu l-Mahasin
1)
ff-
I, 735
2) Jacut II, 777-

3)
c
Abu Nu aim, Leiden Ms. 311 a, 150^, ^ f
^^ O*

N. 19, Dhahabi, Liber

Class. 8, N. 18 Al-Nawawl Biog.
4) Ibn Chall.
, ,

Dicty. p. If !.
5) Abu 1-Mah. I, 771.

6) Abu D l-Mah. cf. p. 26,

II, 76;
1.
5 infra.

7) Al-Makrizi, Leiden Ms, 1917, P- I, ^ Lf**** * ^ * 5

 II

of his
of his grandfather taking the place of that
paternal
father probably from the fact that the
,
latter died at thirty
in infancy. On the death
years of age while his son was still
of the father, the responsibility for Ahmed s care and training
devolved upon his mother, whose name and history we do
not know J
).

Years of We are without any details of his early years

Study and and know merely that he continued to reside in

year 179 A. H. In this year, when

Teachers. until the
Baghdad 2
fifteen years of age he began the study of the Tradition ).
,

He first went to the lecture-room of Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak,

who came to Baghdad for the last time in 179 A. H. He
was too late in going, however, as Ibn al-Mubarak had left
3
the to take part in an expedition to Tarsus ). Malik ibn
city
Anas, too, died in the very year in which Ahmed began to
3

study; and the latter used to say that he had been deprived
of Malik ibn Anas and Hammad ibn Zaid but that God
D
,

c D c
had given him in their place Sofyan ibn Uyaina and Isma il
c
ibn Ulayya
4
).
His first teacher was Hushaim ibn Bashir al-

i) That Ahmed s father did not die before his boy was born will appear
IM 3

from the following:

w
Abu Nu aim, c
p. 138^, J*-->
^ <-X.*-<
s^

2) Dhahabi, Lib. Class. 8, N. 18.

c
3) Abu Nu aim, 138 a,

Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak d. 181 A. H., al-Nawawi Biog. Dicty

4) Al-Maknzi, p. 2, j.lo%
 12

Sulami, to whom he went in the year 179. With Hushaim

he studied in this year and then to receive more particular
, ,

instructions in difficult traditions, he continued to study with

him three years longer and part of a fourth year up to the
time of Hushaim s death, which occurred in the year 183
A. H. From Hushaim s dictation he wrote the v^>
gji.
containing about 1000 traditions, a part of the A^RJ, the

and some minor writings. He is said to have learned

this teacher in all more than three thousand traditions ).
!
from
For the study of tradition he visited Kufa and Basra, Mecca,
2
Medina, Yemen, Syria and Mesopotamia ) and among the
other teachers under whom he studied were Sofyan ibn
c c c
Uyaina (f 198), "Ibrahim ibn Sa d (f 183), Yahya ibn Sa id
c
al-Kattan (fiQS), Wakf (fiQo"),
Ibn Ulayya (f 193), Ibn
Mahdi (fiQS), Abd al-Razzak (f2ii), Jarir ibn Abd al-
c
Hamid (f 188), al-Walid ibn Muslim (f 194), Ali ibn Hisham
ibn al-Barid, Mu tamar ibn Suleiman
c
(f 187), Ghundar (f 193),
D
Bishr ibn (fi86), Ziyad al-Baka i, Yahya ibn
al-Mufaddal
Abu Za ida (f 182), Abu Yusuf the Kadi (f 182), Ibn Numair
(1234), Yazid ibn Harun (f 206) al-Hasan ibn Musa al- ,

Ashyab (f 209), Ishak ibn Rahawaih ^238), Ali ibn al-

Madini (1234), and Yahya ibn Ma in c
(f 233)
3
).

i) Abu Nu c aim, 139 a, ^ ^.*ti j ^ JlS

[gJLo J^AiaftJI ^J jlj]

2) On the subject of travelling about to acquire a knowledge of traditions

cf. Goldziher, Moh. Studien II, p. 176.
3) Cf. al-Nawaw! Biog. Diet. If F f.; al-Subki, p. 133; Dhahabi, Lib. Class.
8, N. 1 8. Dhahabi adds Bahr ibn 3 Asad. Abu J l-Mah. I, 638, makes Kubaisa
 13

c 3
He studied with al-Shan i the Fikh and the Usul al-

Fikh *).
We
do not know much of the history of Ahmed
until the year 218 A. H. is reached. In that year the Mihna
was begun by the Khalif al-Ma mun and Ahmed comes at
D

once into prominence. He must have been studying with

Abu Yusuf the Kadi before 182 A. H. when Abu Yusuf died.
c
His personal intercourse with al-Shafi i began in 195 A. H.,
when the latter came to Baghdad, and lasted till 197 A. H.,
when al-Shafi c i went to Mecca. After a break it was renewed
in Mecca, and after that, probably, for a brief space of time
c
in Baghdad, when al-Shafi i returned there for a month in
c 2
198 A. H. before finally taking his departure from lrak ).

We know that Ahmed was in Baghdad in this year. Wakf

ibn al-Jarrah he knew very intimately before his death in
1
97 A. H. Ahmed had such familiarity with this man s tra
ditions that he gave his son liberty to take any of Wakf s
books that he pleased and told him that if he would give
, ,

him any tradition whatever from it, he would give him the
D D
Isnad for it, or, if he would give him the Isnad, he would
give him the tradition. Wakf had his tradition from Sofyan
from Salama, but Ahmed seems to have been able to add
to his own teacher knowledge in respect to the traditions
s

of Salama 3
).
With Sofyan ibn c Uyaina he studied in Mecca

c
ibn Okba one of Ahmed s teachers; I, 68 1, Khalaf ibn Hisham al-Bazzar;
I,715, ^Isma !! ibn Ibrahim ibn Bistam I.
734, Kutaiba ibn Sa^d ibn Jamil.
;

By Shahrastani Wakf and Yazid ibn Harun are classed as Shyites, Haarbr.
Trans. I. 218.

i) al-Makrizi, p. 2,

2) De Goeje, Z. D. M. G. XLVII, p. 115; Ibn Chall. N. 569.

3) al-Subki, p. 132, x^JCatJi ^^ tjl

Lilj Jl5 Jf
before 198 A. H., in which year Sofyan died. have no We
means of fixing the exact date when he studied with Sofyan.
It was, no doubt, on the occasion of a pilgrimage for Ahmed ,

performed the Hajj five times in all ).

It was also during
c
the residence of al-Shafi Mecca, in all likelihood, for
i in
D
we have it recorded that Ishak ibn Rahawaih on two occas
c
ions disputed there with al-Shafi i during Ahmed s residence
there , and it would seem also in his presence 2 ).
The following incident is characteristic of the man. While
in Mecca, Ahmed s clothes and effects were stolen during his
absence from his lodgings hours when he was engaged
in the

in study with his teacher (Sofyan). On his return the woman ,

of the house told him of the theft, but his only enquiry
was as whether the writing-tablets had been preserved.
to
On learning that they had, he asked for nothing more.
Still , owing to the torn state of his clothes he was forced ,

J15 aJU

(marg.

1) al-Nawawi Biog. Diet., p. Iff, 1. 16.

2) al-Subki, pp. 157, 158,

^5^ U^i^
i^; UT JlS
Ju^J; ? OJ
 15

to remain away for several days from the lecture-room until ,

the anxiety of his fellow-students led them to seek him out

and put him in the way of earning a little money to procure
a change of garments. Their preferred gifts or loans he would
not on any account accept ). !

Abd al-Razzak Ahmed first met in Mecca. On one of his

i) Abu Nu c aim,

(^

,3 ^-^ J oJ^ -.y^i oJLs U JLw dc.aUj

i\?\ ^j O UJU LxA>

(142 a) iPjxc ^ Q.C JU Lo
3 JlS

^ JB Jo l ^ ^ US J^L>
a j

L> LJLJ

^ y> l^xs y? ^Jl yjJ! j^-^l LiJ

Lxlai LaJL
 i6

pilgrimages Yahya ibn Ma inc

accompanied Ahmed l

), and they
made up their minds that, after the completion of the pilgrimage,
c
they would go to San a in Yemen and study Tradition with Abd
al-Razzak. On Mecca they met with the teacher
arriving at , j

who had, themselves, come to perform the Hajj. Yahya

like
ibn Ma in introduced Ahmed to him, and, after making known
c

their wish to study with him, an appointment was made by Ibn

j

Ma in
c
in accordance with which they should receive his instruc
c
tions in Mecca instead of going to San a. Ibn Ma c in told Ahmed i

of this and the latter asked him why he had made such an
arrangement. His reply was that it would save a month s
journey each way and all the expenses of the trip. Ahmed ,

however, declared that he could not allow such considera-

tions to overcome his pious resolutions, and, in the
c
end,]
they did go to San a and received there the traditions. He
suffered great hardships on the way thither, for, though \

offered money sufficient to enable him to travel in compar- j

ative comfort he refused to take it and hired himself to

,

one of the camel drivers of a caravan going to the place.

At San c a, likewise, he lived in penury and suffering,
though help was tendered him such as would have secured ;

him against anything of the kind. Abd al-Razzak himseh

said that Ahmed remained with him almost two years, and
that when he came he offered him money, saying that the

country was one where trading was difficult and to gain his
livelihood would be impossible. Ahmed was inflexible how ,

ever, saying that he had a sufficiency for his needs. The

traditions which he had from this teacher were those of al-
Zuhri from Salim ibn Abdallah from his father and the tra
c
ditions of al-Zuhri from Sa id ibn al-Musayyib from Abu
Huraira. Ahmed was fortunate in having studied with Abd
al-Razzak before the year 200 A. H., for his reputation as
a sound traditionist was impaired after that date. It is in
keeping with Ahmed s character that he should, as we are
informed, have put into practice every tradition which he

i) Ahu 1-Feda, Annales ,

Reiskc cd, II. 186.
learned Abd al-Razzak, even to one in which the
from
Prophet represented as giving to Abu Taiba, a surgeon, a
is

dinar for cupping him. Following this example Ahmed too , ,

asked to be cupped and gave the surgeon a dinar ).

1

al-Makrizi, p. 7,

UL5

b ^A Ijajt LJLs

J L4J

...i

L!

c
Abu Nu aim, 141

Uxi

Abu Nu caim, 144 a, A*>t vAi L-l

 i8

With Ishak ibn Rahawaih, who is called in the Kitab

al-Fihrist (I. 230) leading Hanbalite, he corresponded
a
for a length of time, until Ishak took a letter of recom
mendation which Yahya ibn Yahya had written for him to
Abdallah ibn Tahir, and received from the latter because
of it both money and high position ). l

Ahmed s When still a youth Ahmed ibn Hanbal was held

Period of in reverence as an authority on the Tradition ,

Teaching. anc n th e assemblies of the sheikhs was looked

i j

respect ). We do not know when his most

2
up to with great

\L [5

L*^ to [*W V^AC t

^5^] 3^ Jl5 .... auto j

JL>o lit

JlS [*U5 Juc #\ ^] ^ ^J jCxSJ^ Lo !J

Juw tMA.J (5 Xi*w O -4.3W

Oj

) al-Nawawi Biog. Diet. If f f. cf. al-Subki, p. 156,

 19

activeperiod of teaching and literary work occurred but ,

he was established as the greatest traditionist of his time

when al-MaD mun introduced the Mihna, and continued to
teach until shortly after al-Wathik came to the Khalifate
when he was forced to give up teaching. He may have
resumed teaching for a year or so after al-Mutawakkil came
to power, but in 237 A. H. when he went to the camp he
took an oath never to tell a tradition in its integrity as long
as he lived, a vow which he appears to have kept ).
1

His Works. In regard to his books we know on the whole

very little. He left at his death twelve loads and a half of

books all of which he had memorized 2 ). The names which
have come down to us are the following: JJlxJ! <*Jj
- ^Jj^

r -
wy^i vbtf
-
JJUJLI V L^ - JoLaaJI

UT-^JI Xelb vU^l*^ c>

V V^-^-W V^ 3
)-

77^ Musnad. Of one book ,

his great work ,
the Musnad ,
we
have more definite particulars. It comprised the testimonies of
more than 700 Companions of the Prophet, and was selected
and compiled from 700,000 traditions (or according to another
account from 750,000) and contained 30,000 (in some ac
counts 40,000) traditions. Ahmed boasted that whatever was
in it was a argument, and that what was
reliable basis for
not contained was not to be regarded as a sound
in it

basis. He looked upon this book as an imam which was to

settle all differences of opinion about any Sunna of the

Prophet ). It has always had the greatest reputation in Mo-

4

1) Cf. Chapter II near the end; Chapter III near the beginning
1

2) al-Nawawi, Biog. Diet. Ift* .

3) Kitab al-Fihrist I, FH.

4) al-Subki, p. 133, 1.
20, &c3! SL\ jjot Q
27 cr CT

L^s Lai I
 20

hammedan theological circles, and has been used as a basis

of many smaller works and as a source of information by
many authors. Its immense size and the very inconvenient
method of its arrangement have, however, done a great deal

to prevent its becoming much more used than it actually

has been. In fact, it has been rarely mastered by any one
individual and perhaps as rarely transcribed by one person.
,

Hence that, whereas there are a number of partial

it is

copies of the work, only one complete manuscript is known

]

to-day ).

The Musnad as compiled by Ahmed ibn Hanbal is no

2
longer extant ) ,
nor does it seem to have survived his own
age; for Abu Abd al-Rahman Abdallah Ahmeds son, who

edited, with some additions of his own, the work of his

Q^ O3 *3iA*o AAC c>.xi

Q+C ^J
&X3ljJ>3
^
ii 8jLuw,lj /3 >J*
jailol ^ [Cod. has these points. Read

JLs iAJL**if OicXc Loli JS &s -2

l
viAjpL>^
jtf^.y j--^

xijt

The sum 40000 for the traditions is that given in the Kitab al-Fihrist I,
l, 1. 22.

1) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 466 f.

2) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 473.
 21

father his death a ), speaks of what he heard from his

after

father, what he read to his father from his own copy of

the original page, and what he had gathered from books
and papers belonging to his father, as being embodied in
the edition which he had made 2 ). In some cases he says
that he thinks he had a tradition from his father in such
and such a form in such and such a manner of communi
,

cation, or under such and such a heading. These evidences

seem to point to the absence of any book which could have
been used to verify what he had in mind. The Musnad as
now preserved to us is in the revised form given it by the
editorial labours of Abdallah ibn Ahmed. It is mentioned ,

further, that an edition of theMusnad with certain supple

G
mentary traditions by the editor was made by Abu Omar
Mohammed ibn Abd al-Wahid (f 345). A commentary in
.eighty sections making together ten volumes was prepared
by Abu 1-Hasan ibn Abd al-Hadi al-Sindi (f 1139); an epi
tome called al-Durr al-Muntacad min Musnad Ahmed was
c
compiled by Zain ad-Din Omar ibn Ahmed al-Sharrima al-
Halabi 3 ) and, finally, an edition of the Musnad ordered
alphabetically according to the names of the Companions of
the Prophet from whom the traditions take their origin was
made by the Jerusalem scholar Abu Bekr Mohammed ibn
Abdallah al-Makdisi: u3 5;
4
A
>

<j^ J^>
^ O&\ JOU*x>
v-Ajuy
j*.^\i! printed edition of the work, based chiefly on a
).
c
manuscript in the Library of the Sadat Wafa iya at Cairo
5
was issued in 1896 ).
The great work according to the boast of Ahmed himself
was intended to be encyclopaedic aim, as far as tra in its
ditions related to the Sunna of the Prophet were concerned.
It apparently attempts to comprehend everything which in

1) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 472, 504.

2) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 497.
3) Haj. Hal. V, 534 f.

4) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 470.

5) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 468.
 22

the s judgment could possibly contribute to a com

author
plete notion of what the Sunna was. All the reliable mater
ials coming down from the Companions were meant to be

included within the book. Hence, only the very broadest

tests were applied to the traditions which were accepted by
the author. The main criterion was that the Isnad must be
sound; that is, no man whose reputation for truthfulness or
could be allowed
religious character was deemed unsatisfactory
to validate a tradition
1
).
The
test of conflict with clear teaching

of the Prophet elsewhere found was also applied, but not with
the most thorough consistency ) and finally, the duplicate
2
; ,

traditions were excluded, though here, also, Ahmed s practice

was not uniform 3 ). In a work of such an aim we expect to
find and in this work do find all kinds of traditions : those

relating to legal precedents, moral maxims, fables,

ritual,
4
legends, historical incidents and biographical anecdotes ).
Furthermore, we cannot find the same order which is ob
served in the great collections of al-Bokhari and Muslim.
Their material was much less in quantity than Ahmed ibn
Hanbal s and much narrower in its scope. They had a pur
pose much more which permitted of a real
special in view,
system being observed. But Ahmed s aim was simply to
5
store up genuine traditions and nothing more ).
In such a collection, too, as that found in the Musnad
any one acquainted with the genesis of Mohammedan tra
dition can understand that there would appear all sorts of
inconsistencies and contradictions. Such, in fact, are found
in the book. Sayings are attributed to the Prophet which
never could have been uttered by him. He is represented
as having prescience of events occurring long after his time,
and as lending his countenance to views whose later origin

1) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 478 & note i); v. note 4, p. 19.

2) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 480; v. note 4, p. 19.

3) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 481.

4) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 474.
5) v. note 4, p. 19.
 23

is clearly known; opposite opinions and parties alike find

their support in distinct traditions of the Musnad *). It might
seem that there was room to question the honesty of the
author who would thus leave all kinds of discrepancies in his
work; but reflection will shew that a dishonest man would hardly
admit or allow to remain in his compilation such things and ,

that the aim of Ahmed comprehensive and unscientific as it

,

was, sufficiently accounts for whatever of miscellaneous or con

tradictory character there appears. It is quite likely, too,
that the Musnad was a collection brought together during

many years, and one to which labor was not continuously

devoted by the compiler. In the use of the work, also, after
its completion there probably was no continuity observed.
He would read a portion now and a portion again a portion ,

to this one and a portion to that one (only three persons

are said to have heard it complete from Ahmed himself).
These facts would make it difficult for him to have in mind
and eye the whole work at one time, so as to perceive the
mutual harmony or discrepancy of the parts of which it
was composed. He, thus, might easily admit and with dif
ficulty correct such inconsistencies as those of which we have
spoken. With his aim, as we conceive it, however, incon
sistencies made very little difference. He was but collecting
sound traditions, and not supporting particular opinions or
movements. It was not his idea to constitute himself a har
monist. Dishonesty in connection with any of the contents
of the Musnad lies properly with other and earlier author
ities than Ahmed. We have no record of his having been
charged with fabricating traditions during his lifetime *).
His
great fault was the uncritical aim and method. Even in the

Isnads, where he was supposed to be an excellent critic,

Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 478, 489 f.

1)
c
2) trial before al-Mu tasim it was not objected that any of his
During the
traditional arguments were unsound. When he was charged with plagiarizing
a tradition (which he had not there cited), he was angry and took pains to put
his adversaries to confusion. Cf. a passage in the long Arabic note in Chapter II.
he appears to have been rather liberal. There are found
lists of authorities with anonymous individuals even as the

first sources of the traditions cited a few names are given ;

credit, also, who do not stand as reputable authorities in

the opinion of theologians. In the cases of most of
many
the latter Ahmed however makes a special note to the
, ,

effect that he sees no reason to refuse the traditions furnished

by them. And ,
he favours at times the Kussas who
lastly, , ,

ivhile not altogether discountenanced as authorities, were

lot held in great repute *).

Abdallah, Ahmed s son, did his part as editor with great

:onscientiousness, noting carefully his own additions to the
naterials gathered by his father, and inserting corrections
md glosses with explicit statement of his own authorship of
:hem. The traditions which he added to the Musnad appear
:o have been afterwards brought together by him in a se-
Darate book which bore the title ^.j *lo^t JOU^ Js.4.>i
^j^j
AJJI uX-A-c
BLXJ^J J.A^.
In some cases where Abdallah
\$>fjjf

lad heard a tradition found in the Musnad from another

:eacher as well as his father, he wrote a note to that effect
^vhen putting in the tradition concerned 2 ).

During his lifetime Ahmed read the Musnad to his sons

and Abdallah and to his uncle Ishak ibn Hanbal, and
;>alih

:hey alone formed the favoured circle who heard the com-
Dlete work from the lips of its author 3 ).
As may be inferred from what has been already said,

1) Goldzihev, Z. D. M. G., L, 471 f, 478 f; Cf. De Goeje, Gloss. Beladhori

ind Gloss. Fragm. Hist. Ar. (j&. The Kussas having as storytellers no very
.erious aim were naturally enough in discredit with serious traditionists but ,

t
may well have been that such men actually furnished some sound tradi-
ions. According to the critical method then in
vogue the soundness of such ,

raditions would depend upon their contents to some

extent, but more upon
he Isnads.
2) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 501 ff. Abdallah is said to have made ad-

litions, likewise, to his father s v_jLxT.

bX0>jJI

3) v. note 4, p. 19.
 25

the great work of Ahmed is not arranged with any reference

whatever to the subjects of the traditions it includes. Such
an arrangement is found rather in that kind of tradition-
collections called Musannafs, a class of works which properly

belongs to a later development of Arabic literature than

these Musnads. The latter class, of which Ahmed s book is

representative ,
is ordered according to the earliest authorities
or first sources of the traditions cited and according to ,

the where the author obtained his materials. In

localities
such an arrangement we would expect to find traditions
bearing a particular colour and evincing a similar tendency
brought together, according to the predilection or bias of the
original authorities or of the localities made responsible for
the traditions. This feature, which is almost inevitable in
employing such a method is a mere accident of the classi
,

fication, and forms no part of the author s intention. Such

a miscellaneous arrangement and the mass of the materials
brought together made these Musnads of little general value
as works of reference on account of their inconvenience and ,

led to such an undertaking as that of al-Makdisi to

bring
a more convenient order into the book of Ahmed ibn Hanbal.
It does not diminish the awkwardness of his
work, either,
that the traditions same primitive authority should
of the
be found, some in a section classified
according to the names
of the men, and others in one or more sections classi
fied according to the places in which the materials were

gathered *).
The order of the Musnad of Ahmed ibn Hanbal ,
as found
in the recently published Cairo edition, is as follows;
Vol. I, 2 Traditions of ten
pp. 195, Companions of the
Prophet, including the first four Khalifs.
Vol. I, pp. 195 199, Four other Companions (principle of
separate classification not given).
Vol. I, pp. 199206, The Ahlu D l-Bait.

i) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 469 ff.

 26

Vol. 206 to the end, Vol.

I, p.
II and Vol. Ill to p. 400,
The well-known Companions.
Vol. Ill, pp. 400 503, Traditions of Meccans.
Vol. IV, pp. 2 88 Traditions of Medinans. ,

Vol. IV, pp. 88 239, Traditions of Syrians.

Vol. IV, pp. 239 419, Traditions of Kufans.
Vol. IV, p. 419 Vol. V, p. 113, Traditions of Basrans.
Vol. V, p. 113 Vol. VI, p. 29, The Ansar.
Vol. VI, pp. 29 467, The Women. (In pp. 383 403 of this
section are put in some traditions JJLaJl AJL*wo O^) i).
should be carefully borne in mind that each one of the
It

sections enumerated as well as the whole work is called a

, ,

Musnad, e. g. The Musnad of the Meccans, the Musnad of

2
the Ansar etc. ).
Such is a general description of the long
famous Musnad of the Imam Ahmed.
Ahmed sPupils. We have the names of some of those who heard
the Tradition from him, among whom were his teachers Abd
al-Razzak, Ibn Mahdi and Yazid ibn Harun. Other pupils were
Ali ibn al-Madini, al-Bokhari, Muslim, Abu
D c
Abu l-Walid,
c c
Daud, al-Dhuhli, Abu Zur a al-Razi, Abu Zur a al-Dimashki,
Ibrahim al-Harbi, Abu Bekr Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Hani
al-Baghawi, Obaidallah ibn Mohammed Abu
D
al-Ta i al-Athram,

D
l-Kasim (his last pupil
3
), Ibn Abi Dunya,
Mohammed
^:>t

ibn Ishak al-Saghani, Abu Hatim al-Razi, Ahmed ibn Abi

l-Hawari, Musa ibn Harun, Hanbal ibn Ishak, Othman ibn
D

Sa id al-Darimi, Hajjaj ibn al-Sha ir, Abd al-Malik ibn Abd

c c

c
al-Hamid al-Maimun, Baki ibn Makhlad al-Andalusi, Ya kub
ibn Shaiba, Duhaim al-Shami and his own sons Abdallah
and Salih 4 ). His method of teaching was to read the tra-

1) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 470.

2) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 472. On the Musnad cf., also, Goldziher,
Moh. Studien II, 228, 230, 266, 270.
3) Dhahabi, Liber Class. 8, N. 18.

4) al-Nawawi , Biog. Diet, tf t**. The name L\i^ in al-Nawawi s list should

- o -
be lAJl^U; v. de Jong s ed. of Dhahabi s Muschtabih 74, Kamus, and Abu l-
 27

ditions from a book rather than recite them *).

He is not
known to have taught in any other way except in the case
of about one hundred traditions 2 ). He adopted this method
notwithstanding the fact that he had everything committed
to memory and was generally regarded as being almost the
first hafiz of his time. On one occasion when he was deliv

ering the tradition to some of his pupils, after they had

learned it by heart, and were preparing to write it, Ahmed
exclaimed, the book is the best hafiz and with that he
up and brought a book
3
started ).
His wish probably was to
verify his memoriter recitation.
Ahmed does not appear to have taken money from his
disciples, eitherfor his services as a teacher or for the
4
writing materials etc. which he furnished ).
c
Relations For al-Shafi i he always entertained the most
with ai- affectionate regard. His testimony to him was that
Sh&jtt. none j n hi s day carried an ink-bottle or touched a
pen but there was resting upon him an obligation to al-
c
Shafi i 5 ). For thirty years he declared he had never prayed
a prayer without offering in it a petition for his friend and ,

c
on his son s asking him what kind of a man al-Shafi i was
that he should pray for him so regularly, he replied that
c
al-Shafi i was like the sun to the world and like good health
6 c
to mankind ). Al-Shafi i, too, seems to have had a great

Mahasin II. l*T\. -> I have added from al-Subki, p. 133, 1.

^^oLSJI (**>

18, cf. Dhahabi Liber Class. 8, N. 69.

1

1) al-Nawawi, Biog. Diet. If I* .

c
2) Abu Nu aim, 139 a, Lo

xSLo Q^ ilj ^1 v^ ytf- CT

3) al-Nawawi, Biog. Diet. Iff, cf.
Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II, 196, 197.

4) al-Nawawi, Biog. Diet, tfd, cf. Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II, 181.

5) al-Nawawi, Biog. Diet. T.

6) al-Nawawi, Biog. Diet. vl. al-Makrizi, p. 2, Lo t-X*:>i *
respect and affection for Ahmed. He is said to have declared .

O Abu Abdallah whenever a tradition from the Messenger

.

of God is sound in your judgment, tell it to us that we may

conform to Ahmed is reported as saying that al-Shafi c
it". i

told him that he (Ahmed) was more learned in the sound

traditions than himself, and that his (al-ShafiYs) desire was to
know from him what he regarded as sound that he might
adopt it. Ahmed s son Abdallah declared that, wherever al-
ShafTi says in his book a trustworthy person told me that or a ,

trustworthy person related that to me he refers to his father.

1
,

c
Abdallah said, further, that the book which al-Shafi i com
posed in Baghdad was more correct than the book which he
composed in Egypt because when he was in Baghdad he
, , ,

asked Ahmed and the latter suggested corrections to him ,

but when he was in Egypt and was inclined to adopt a

weak tradition there was no one to correct him ). Al-Shafi c !
i

ull **9LjJ^3 LoJOi

XJiiJi
 29

went to Egypt in the year 198, stayed probably two or

three months and then returned to Mecca, whence he took
his final journey to Egypt in the end of 199 or the begin
c
ning of 200. In lrak he composed the Book of the Hajj.
His first visit to Baghdad was in the year 195; he left there
for Mecca in 197 and returned for a month to Baghdad in
c
Al-Shan Baghdad and did not leave
1
198 ). said,i I left

behind in it any one greater as a fakih, or one more pious,

self-denying, or learned than Ahmed ).

2

Other Al-Haitham ibn Jamil, one of Ahmed s teachers

Contem- inBaghdad, thought highly of his pupil s authority.
poraries. Qn one occasion he was told that Ahmed ibn Hanbal
differed from him in regard to a certain tradition and his
reply was, My wish is that it may shorten my life and
may prolong Ahmed ibn Hanbal s life 3
).
It is worthy of note
Yazld ibn that Ahmed gave apparently unreserved credit to
Harim. as a traditionist. At one time
Yazid ibn Harun
Musa Hizam al-Tirmidhi was on his way to Abu Suleiman
ibn
al-Juzajani to ask him some question about the books of
Mohammed ibn al-Hasan when Ahmed met him and enquired
whither he was going. On learning his object , Ahmed remarked

De Goeje, Z. D. M. G. XLVII. 115; Ibn N.

Chall. 569.
1)

2) al-Subki, p. 132, 1.
9, c^>y> iLcp. 8^ U* ^
cf. Ibn Chall. N. 19.

3) Abu Nvraim, 141 ,

f*

JS L^ J15 I
 30

that was a very strange thing that Ibn Hizam should be

it

ready to accept the testimony of three persons leading up

to Abu Hanifa and yet refuse that of three authorities form
,

ing a chain of tradition to the Prophet. Ibn Hizam did not

grasp Ahmed s meaning and asked an explanation. Ahmed

for

answering said, "You will not receive the Isnad Yazid ibn
Harun Wasit said, Homaid told me from Anas, saying,
in
the Messenger of God said and yet you receive the Isnad ; , ,

Such an one said, Mohammed ibn al-Hasan told us from

Yac kub from Abu Hanifa". Musa adds that he was so im
pressed by the force of what Ahmed said that he engaged
a boat at once and went to Wasit to receive the Tradition
from Yazid ibn Harun ). When Ahmed himself went to
1

c
study with Yazid, on the other hand, Yazid ibn Sa id al-
Kattan enquired for him and on learning where he had, ,

gone exclaimed
,
What need has he of Yazid ? This was
,

interpreted to mean that Ahmed was more fit to be the teacher

than the scholar of Yazid ibn Harun 2 ).

Abu Nu c aim, 144

A [Cod.
 c
Att ibn Ali ibn al-Madini not only shewed great respect
at-Madini.tor Ahmed, but received it, likewise, from him. It
is said that when c Ali came
Baghdad he took a leading to

place among and at such times as men

the traditionists,
like Ahmed and Yahya ibn Ma in and Khalaf and al-Mu aiti
c c

were in difference of opinion on any point the voice of c Ali

was regarded as decisive. Ahmed out of respect never called
c 3
by his proper name but always by his kunya Abu
Ali , 1-

Hasan ). While Ahmed was regarded as the best fakih of

his time, Ibn al-Madini was said to have superior knowledge
of the different views held as to traditions 2 ), and to be the
most learned of the doctors of his day, as Yahya ibn Ma in
c

was the one who wrote the most, and Abu Bekr ibn Abu
Shaiba was the greatest hafiz 3 ).
Yahya ibn Of Yahya ibn Ma c
in Ahmed said, that the hearing
Mam. of Tradition from Yahya was healing for troubled
breasts. He said , also ,
that Yahya ibn Ma c
in was a man
whom God created for the express purpose of exposing the
lies of liars; and any tradition which Yahya did not know
was no tradition. When he died Yahya left behind him one
hundred and fourteen cases and four casks of books. This
is in
harmony with what has just been said as to his having
written more traditions than any of his contemporaries 4 ).

JI5

1) al-Nawawi, Biog. Diet, ffl**, cf. Goldziher Moh. Stud. I. 267

2) al-Subki, p. 185, 1.
i, Jl$ J^c ( f*-L.ci
A+>!

3) al-Nawawi, Biog. Diet. !^f.

4) ^A; the word oL*..> should probably be read
6-
i J ar s i ( s g- V* -5
1
")
v ^- De Goeje, Gloss. Bibl. Geog.
 32

One of the contemporaries of Ahmed ibn Hanbal

c
was al-Husain ibn Ali ibn Yazid Abu Ali al-Ka-
G
ibn*-All al-

r abisi (f 245 A. H.) This man was well known both

Karainsi.

as a fakih and as a traditionist. At

he was a disciple first,

of the Ra y school, but, later, inclined to the views of al-

c
Shafi i became a student of his teachings and received author
,

ization )
to teach what he had learned. The Khatib al-

Baghdadi tells that he was much disesteemed (lit. was very

rare) as a traditionist because he had acquired a bad name
with Ahmed
ibn Hanbal. This was owing to his strong
2
toward dialectical theology (&&\ in general,
leaning jJU) ),
and, more particularly, to his application of dialectics in

order to come to his conclusions touching the Koran. He

was a professed believer in the uncreated existence of the
Koran, but could not satisfy Ahmed ibn Hanbal by his
profession of this doctrine, and much less by his
utterances
on the symbolic expression of the Koran in articulate human
sounds -baJ) ). He appears
3
to have trifled somewhat
(0^1
in his treatment of subjects that were to minds such as that
of Ahmed in the highest degree sacred and serious. For
example, his declared faith in the created nature of the
Lafz al-Koran was on one occasion told to Ahmed, who,
though the profession was in full accord with his own con
viction, declaredit heresy, because the process by which it

had been reached was that of reasoning and not that of

submission to traditional authority. Ahmed s judgment on
him was made known to al-Karabisi who changed his decla ,

ration of faith and professed that the Lafz al-Koran was

uncreated as well as the Koran itself. Naturally enough,

i)
&L>t cf. Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II. 189.

2) For origin and use of the term *j-J vid. Houtsma, De Strijd over het

Dogma, 87 f.; Shahrastani, Haarbr. transl n II. 388 f.

cf.

3) The Lafz al-Koran is used here

with reference to the enunciation of the
Koran in human speaking; in the following paragraph we have taken it to

have a wider scope.

 33

this pleased Ahmed no better and he vigorously declared

that this, too, was heresy. The whole quarrel, as one can
readily see, was with the method of al-Karabisi, far more
l
than with his theological conclusions ).

I) al-Subki, p. 172,

Joo Jwc ^ wiaj viojJLj *aaji t-ft-J

UxL> ^Ub> Ulol

aJfcj Jf
^j-sUJJ <j;Tjt

U
* 1

(J

LAJSJ

JlS

uJi w!

Us JJuJl *J jUj ^^U? ^ *kjl

r
bir Jte
^i j ^ss Lo

i J^SUJl ,^2^ ^jU? au ^^MJ ^Liii LftJL,

^iiaj J

i
JoftJJl XJ

Lo

*\

JJLJ! >

;
WSL\J AP JS Li
 34

Al-Bokharl. We have interesting evidence of the doctrinal

sympathy between al-Bokhari and Ahmed ibn Hanbal. A
jealous rival of al-Bokhari in Nisabur charged the latter with

heresy on the point of the Lafz al-Koran and the imputation ,

was taken up by many. But it is clear that al-Bokhari s silence

on the question from reluctance to be drawn into any reasoning
,

on a point for which there was so little evidence pro or

con in Tradition, was the only ground for suspecting his
orthodoxy. His belief, as well as that of Ahmed ibn Hanbal ,

was that the Koran itself was not created, but the Lafz
al-Koran, by which he understood the human acts of writing,

Jl5j

Uis U ^sls \xaj^ ^(^5-^

oLil

Jls U^ (^JLxj
*

U IJj
LJ Lo

JLs?
O l

JaaJ] idU^Mwo ,.,i j.lj

^ .^.^o
-AC ,3

fij Lo
 35

reading, reciting and all other acts connected with the use
or preservation of the revelation was created ). ,
]

LJ
al-Subki, P .
214, Li J.SOJ) JlS jjL> O J

S aJl*
^x^ gJUaJI Jo^Jl
tAP ^1

* UvJi x Lst *jt

r
l5
^UJ! yi2>
LJls s^A^-xils ^U 1

O tj5j|j
JoaJJt

JI5
^u-J^x

JLaisf LI

!
5

^ .sili ...I
^XA2J
J! JS %^ oU^J jL*i! \

Jlxit LI3 Xs
^JUJ
xJLJt l_T
r _>-$-9
vj^l
5
l
JL\J
5
uX;o ^ oUxj oU ^^ Jo iLj xl]i J15

U/
 36

Mohammed Another of Ahmed s companions, whose highest

compliment was that he resembled the great Imam
ibn Aslam. ,

was Mohammed ibn Aslam Abu Husain al-Kindi al-Tusi

>>

Jls,

b>y!i

jl
us ~& JJU L^ujl **9

LxJI u - .^ ^. cr

*XJu
js
aJ JS ^yl ^.x-J Lo

o 1

r J
Asii Ls? J!
O l

*.-_aJL>

[dittography AA] AAC o^ut 3 V

 37

(f 242 A. H.). This

man was an earnest opponent of the Jahmi
and Murji sects, of the former because they professed that
)

JS *jl

[dittography

UfcUJfc

aJ [dittography Jl5] JB JLjiJ

^-^ax-J

,05 x^Ii JJb

l) For the doctrines of Jahm ibn Safwan. the founder of the Jahmia sect ,
v.
 38

the Koran was created, of the latter because

they held that
faith was mere profession without the inward trust and
exper
ience of the heart.The argument which he adopted toward
the Jahmia was that of the Koran verses in which God
speaks
in his own person to Mohammed
announcing his Mission,
and to Moses declaring himself to be his Lord and the Lord
of the worlds. In the former case
implied that if the it is

ivord of the speaker be not that of God, Mohammed s Mission

is called in question. If it be the word of
God, then it is
in him and
eternally potential inseparable from any true
conception of him, and, therefore, it must be uncreated.
In the case of Moses, if the
speaker to him be a creature,
then Moses himself and the worlds also, have a second
lord,
-
one Lord is admitted without question, -- and the
for

professors of such a doctrine are at once convicted of

Shirk (dyi); but, supposing God to have really spoken,
then we have
again the proceeding forth of a word which
we must not regard as created with its utterance but rather ,

as an inseparable
adjunct of the Divine Knowledge, for
how otherwise could the Divine Knowledge become efficient
or communicative? The sin of the Jahmia is their Shirk;
this the result of the
reasoning, and without reasoning,
is

from the standpoint of the orthodox

apologist, they are
guilty, as well, of forging a lie against God
(sLjCjf) by
declaring that God did not speak to Moses though the Koran
says he did.
Against the Karramiya MurjPa Ibn Aslam maintained the

Shahrastani Haarbriicker n
s transl I, 895 Houtsma, De Strijd over het
Dogma &c. pp. 102, 123 f. On the Murji a v. Houtsma, De Strijd &c. pp.
34 ff., 40; Shahrastani, Haarbrucker s transl n I, I56ff. The Murjite belief as
presented in Houtsma, p. 36, differs from that set forth by Mohammed ibn
Aslam, but agrees with the second class of the Karramite sects (Houtsma,
39) and with the
p. Karramiya (Shahrastani, Haarbr. transl n I,
Sifatlya
iigff., especially p. 127). Ahmed ibn Hanbal, it will be remembered, com

posed two works bearing the titles, respectively, X

and
QU^I v^i vid -
P- J
9-
 39

doctrine that faith is a gift of Gocl to the heart, a gift of

illumination and of spiritual adornment, by means of which
it is disposed to believe in God, his angels, his books, his

messengers, the resurrection, the day of judgment, the final

account, in foreordination to good and evil, in paradise and
This faith is given only to those upon whom God is
in hell-fire.

pleased to bestow it, and is not complete without both the

testimony of the lips as, at once, its expression and its
confirmation, and the acts of the bodily members as the
evidence that the confession of the lips and the antecedent
faith of the heart are genuine. The testimony of the lips has
on by the heart. These
for its subjects the things believed
it declares be true; and, more specifically, it gives the
to
formal confession that there is no God but Allah and that
Mohammed is his Prophet and his Messenger. The acts of
the members the performance of such things as God
lie in

prescribes and in the abstention from such things as he

forbids. These points are supported by arguments from
the Koran and Tradition; but by this man, as by others
of the strict orthodox party, there is stress laid, as well, on
arguments outside of either of these sources. For example,
it is said by Mohammed ibn Aslam that, should the
Murjite view be proved correct, then the Prophet and
the first Khalifswho had not spent their whole lives in the
,

confession of Islam, but who had had true faith, notwith

standing, might be held inferior to any mere babbler of the
sacred formulas who had been occupied long enough with
D
his task. Those (also called Murji a who held that works l
)

were the measure and substance of faith are opposed, too,

and the argument of disparagement to the early worthies
is applied here, likewise.
Mohammed ibn Aslam was a believer in the eternal
existence of the Divine attributes, but we have no record

i) Called especially JU/iJj v. De Goeje, Gloss. Bibl. Geog.

 40

of his method of proving his position in this respect, nor

have we any exposition of what it involved ).
!

Abu Nu caim, 162 a ff, <

Jl5

Li *^15

Jl5j
*LJt A^: ^i L^Jt ILXP J,*>
JJto JsLXxcb Ijl
cljjf

^- > >
,
xJLJ! ,.c -^ --a*
/jA

Ai \<\J> ^ .k^c .^i Ls *!!!

13!
Mystics and
Ahmed ibn Hanbal had a predilection in favor
Ascetics, of mystics and ascetics, but toward one of these,
Al-Harith al-Harith ibn Asad al-Muhasibi, he conceived a
al-Muliasibi.
s ^ ron g antipathy because this man was said to use

reasoning in theological matters. The reconciliation between

repetition Lo X*li (3 ^(AaAJ sjLxc ^p f ^J CT* cJ^ ^ O 1

^-
^/C
2

s L\A3 A.J X*.ls iu .M.J [of preceding matter

N
_^^Xjj

&Ulj A.-A-JI (Codex XAM

XJ.J15 Q^l

^ -sill Mt\3

j .1 Li l5
 42

them does not seem have ever been openly effected; but
to
there is a story to the effect that Ahmed took the oppor
tunity of secretly hearing al-Harith, when the latter with

all I iV^ww, IcX*.^ ,M^ all

s> ail! JLfiS

CT ;y c^ ^
xJLii
j, U."^
sJJ -J L\AC

cyJJ

131 ^b ^JLSJI ^ ^JJ! U^t Q l

JLsJ
 43

his companions had been invited to a feast, and that he

was then convinced that his earlier impressions of the man ,

however just when formed, did al-Harith some injustice at

f
5U

J
cr

l^ Li

^i .siJi LX..A.J sAiaftJ! Uj! jL^^lj -JLtoLaXj (j*LjJI Q

]!
Q^ UU-j

L^JuO (^^^Lj ^ j;^ 5

*-**-)> U-/ s-LA v^AA^ jL*-C

V.AS>| 131 Jc.*wo .j AJili L\XC _i .XI j* "^1 fL^i Lo

-sill ^ i

O 1

J!
Q t _j vj! iL^Xj U/
 44

that time. The change in Ahmed s opinion does not seem to

have been complete or to have saved al-Muhasibi from loss
of credit in Baghdad, for, at his death in 243 A. H. only ,

.fourpeople attended his funeral. It is possible that this may,

however, be explained as the consequence of some pious
wish which he had expressed ). 1

J^Jl

J blj \5l
Jj.3

JLJ ^^-^-^ L\_=>^ XJ, uJ^-c *-3^ CT V

cr"

_xi
^ (

i^uXXiJt
^-0(3 (jLxX^I
ill
^
i) v. Shahrastani Haarbriicker s transl n I, 97, II, 389. A different view
is given of Ahmed s quarrel with this man in von Kremer, Herrsch. Ideen
des Islams, 68, note I. For his biography v. Ibn Chall. N. 151. Al-Subki,
p. 230, 1.9. js

J S r blJj

^-ww

O
 With Bishr al-Hafi (-pz^b/ atra wmi al-S ari al-Sak v -, _
Ahmed stood on terms of intimate friendship. He counted it
his high privilege, indeed, to have seen some of the most holy
men of his time in possession of little else than their piety
and poverty. Those whose names are recorded beside the

J Jii O

<jjL

L\=>13 xJ

J, c

x^ !L\S>
cr. ^ j
yG!

Jo
 Cloned are Abdallah ibnT~I3ris (f 192) Abu Baud
1
al-Hafarilmd Ayub al-Najjar ).
Daitd ibn Daud ibn Ali, the founder of the Zahirite school,
C

(| 270) was one of Ahmed

A/L s pupils. There was made

to Ahmed a very unlikely report against him to the effect

that he had been teaching in Khorasan that the Koran was
created (by fashioning that which already existed cxX.^) ,

and that his Lafz al-Koran was created (by being made from

nothing ^Jl^ ). This influenced Ahmed so that he refused

8

to receive him, and we have no knowledge that he after

wards changed his decision; but the Zahirites are known to
have been even more strict than Ahmed on the uncreated
nature of the Koran, and it may be assumed that Daud did
not long continue to be suspected by him. It is to be
remarked that the informant of Ahmed was Mohammed ibn
Yahya al-Dhuhli, the same man who in jealousy accused
al-Bokhari of heretical views on the Lafz al-Koran. Further,
it should be noted that the incident is said to have oc
curred during the lifetime of Ishak ibn Rahawaih (f 238 A.
H.) when Daud must have been a comparatively young
man. If the account be true his views must have undergone

) al-Makrizi, p. I, plc^t jlij olpjl i^-LaJI ^ \^S LftJl:>

5L-i;
^ ^^^^J [Cod. l&j]
 47

change during the remaining years of his life. He was

born
in 202 A. H. and died in 270 A. H. ).
J

Ibrahim In the year 218 A. H. there died in Egypt

c
ibn Ismail Ibrahim ibn Isma il Abu Ishak al-Basri al-Asadi
c
al-Mu talizL a l-Mu
Ulayya. He was a
c
talizi, known as Ibn

professor of the doctrine that the Koran was created and

c
had discussions about Fikh with al-Shafi i in Egypt, and
with Ahmed ibn Hanbal in Baghdad about the Koran.
Ahmed regarded him as a dangerous heretic 2 ). The Ibn
Ulayya al-Akbar whose name figures in the history of the
c

Mihna under al-Ma mun, appears to have been a different

hitherto. Taken
person, who was of orthodox reputation
the seeming
together with the similarity of the names,
readiness with which Ibn Ulayya al-Akbar complied with
the test as to the Koran s creation might suggest, however,
that he was in some way related to the party here men
tioned. But this is only hypothetical.

II.

MIHNA 1 ^e beginning of the second century of Islam

Historical al-Jad ibn Dirham, teacher of the Khalif Marwan II,
Develop- held the doctrine that the Koran was created and , ,

mcnt.
k a t time, imaginative adversaries of the belief
at t

declared themselves to be able to trace the steps of Tradition

c

by which the heresy was to be carried back from Ja d to Lebid,

a Jew, whom the Prophet had declared to have bewitched
him and thereby produced in him a sickness ). However the
3

c
doctrine came to him, Ja d was put to death by Khalid ibn
c
Abdallah, Governor of lrak, at the command of the Khalif
Hisham. After this we hear no more of the doctrine until the
time of the Abbaside Harun al-Rashid ). The account of the
4

Goldziher Zahiriten p. 134. The incident is also found in al-Subki, p. 232.

1) , ,

D
2) Abu l-Mahasin I, 647.
3) Weil, Mohammed, 94, note 121.
4) Houtsma, De Strijd over het Dogma, 101 f.
 48

of the creation of the

historical development (of the doctrine
under al-Ma mun
Koran) )
1
which led up to the inquisition
and his successors is given by Abu l-Faraj ibn al-Jauzi ,

A did not cease to follow Men 1

(tSQS H) as follows:
of Islam and their confession that
good rule of the fathers
Word of God, until the Mu ta-
the Koran was the uncreated
2 the creation of
zilites (freethinkers) ) appeared, professing
until the time of al-Ra-
the Koran. This they did secretly
to teach their view more openly,
shid Then, they ventured
-

I have heard that Bishr al-

until al-Rashid said one day,
is created; now, verily, ifGoc
Marisi ) says that the Koran
3

will kill him in such a way

as
.ive him into my hand, I
On learning this Bishr
I have never yet killed anyone
.
-

the days of
remained hidden for about twenty years during
al-Rashid (This would carry
back his public profession c
- the doctrine in question to about 173
A. H.) When al-Rashid

died the matter remained in the same position during

t

time of his son al-Amin; but

when al-Ma>un succeed
and made the doctrine
some of the Mu tazilites led him astray
c

V
to appear plausible to
-
of the creation of the Koran

note 1 von Kremer, Herrsch.

1 On Weil, Chalifen II, 262,
this subject cf.
5

note 20 127, in.the.same work

Ideen des Islams, 233 ff. and chronological
p.
the rise of the sect, vid. Sterner,
E
2 ^On the name Mu tazila and
het Dogma, 51. On the history
Mu taziliten, 2 5Houtsma, De Strijd over
f.
,

183, 184. On
then- doe-
Het Islamisme
of the sect, Steiner, 48 ff.; Dozy,
,

20 ff.; Steiner, 3 * Houtsma, 55, o, 89 i

trines, Magoudi VI,

,

of the On their doctrine

s transl n of Shahrastani I, 40. Koran,
Haarbrttcker
Steiner , 7^ ff. ; Houtsma ,
1 04 f.

Geschichte 205; Abu 1-Mah. I, 647 and note 9;

3) Von Hanger, Lit. III,
MuWliten, He is called by Houtsma,
Ibn Chall. N. 1.4; Steiner, Die 78.

het note one of the leading Murjites of h, s

De Strijd over Dogma, 79 (cf. I),
result of false
he is called, as the
time. By Shahrastani, Haarbr. I, 94,
Bishr ibn Attab, instead of B.shr ibn Ghiyat.i al-
pointing of the letters,
Haarbr. I, 161 162, cf. I, 243.
Marisi. For his views vid. Shahrastani,
,

4 ) al-Makrizi, p. 3 , ^&
 49
c
A Pre- It is reported that the Imam al-Shafi i, before
diction by his death in 204, had a dream, in which he was
al-Sh&jfL forewarned by the Prophet of the trial in years to
,

come ,
of Ahmed ibn Hanbal for the sake of the Koran. He
is alleged to have sent word to Ahmed informing him of the
communication he had received, and report says that Ahmed,
on reading the letter, exclaimed, I hope that God will verify
that which al~Shafi i says ). We may probably infer from
c !
, ,
 m
this incident that the doctrine of the creation of the Koran
had already begun to make some stir when al-Shafi c i was in
Baghdad, and that Ahmed was at this early stage a vigorous
opponent of the tenet.
D
Al-Mcimiin. The interest of al-Ma mun in theology is empha

sized by all the historians *). He had been thoroughly trained

in the knowledge of Tradition, of the Koran sciences, and
of the Koran itself from early childhood, and had had
among his teachers Malik ibn Anas Hushaim ibn Bashir and ,

2
his own father ). His ability as a pupil soon brought him

s Lo

Ux>

J jUi l

1) Abu l-Mahasin I, 644; Hammer-Purgstall , Lit. Gesch. Ill, 26; al-

Cf.

Suyuti, Tarikh al-Kholafa, Calcutta, 1857, p. 310; Dozy, Het Islamisme,

1880, p. 152. The notices of al-Ma mftn s character found in al-Subki,p. 144,
and al-Makrizi, p. 3, are in accordance with the accounts found in the works
just mentioned.
J
2) Houtsma, De Strijd over het Dogma, 13, says that al-Ma mun first
 5i
A
to foremost place as a theologian but a mind 1L jKl^s
a , ,
-

eager for much wider ranging than was afforded within the
narrow bounds of the orthodoxy of Islam, soon shewed its
sympathy with the revived philosophy which had begun to
-
be popular under the dominion of the Khalifs and with ,

the different branches of Arabic letters and sciences. Following -

his bent of mind ), he gathered to his court from different

of his empire philosophers and men of more liberal
-

parts ,

tendency of thought than had been found among the com

D

panions of his predecessors ). Al-Ma mun however is not

2
, ,

looked upon as a man naturally impious nor was his interest

in sacred subjects one merely controversial in its character. It
is him that he used to complete 33 recitations of the
related of
Koran in the month of Ramadan 3 ). He also gave special gifts of
money to relieve the needs of the teachers of Tradition, and
all accepted of his beneficence except Ahmed ibn Hanbal ).
4

D
The letters written by al-Ma mun in connection with the
Mihna, however, do not give us a favorable impression of
his character. The orthodox historians say that his com
D
panions at Court were wholly responsible for al-Ma mun s

attended the lectures of the Mutakallims and later took an interest in ortho
doxy. He does not cite his authority for the remark, and it does not har
monize with what I have been able to gather from the authorities I have
consulted. They invert the order, and I have followed them in my narrative.

1) Steiner (Die Mu c
taziliten , p. 16) expresses the opinion that the tendency
toward liberal views, which was so strongly advanced by the-
theological
influence of theGreek Philosophy had already set in before the Arabs became
,

acquainted with Greek philosophical thought.

2) For the patronage of letters and philosophy by the Abbaside sovereigns
with its direct effect in the rise of the men of the Kalam and ,
its indirect or

reactionary effect in increasing the zeal in study of the men of the Tra

dition, vid. Houtsma, De Strijd over het Dogma, 86 f.

3) Goldziher, Moh. Studien II, 58, 59; Von Kremer, Herrsch. Ideen d.

Isl. 301, note 155 Steiner, Die Mu c

taziliten , 6, note 55 Al-Subki, p. 144,

4) Abu Nu aim c
, 143 ,
vj^Uo ,^ &*.**.it as ^L/o
...yoUf
tJ

Ai Lj
 tti 52

JX Y m theology, and for the consequent persecution

of n ie on which he entered. It would
stricter theologians
appear toaccordance
be more
with the facts, to say
in
D
that al-Ma mun himself found the atmosphere of orthodoxy
*

oppressive and sought relief by surrounding himself with

men whose minds were of his own liberal cast 1 ). That
these men should then put forth this or that doctrine is

not so much to be considered as that the Khalif himself

found heterodoxy a more congenial environment than ortho
doxy. That Ahmed ibn Abi Dowad, the Chief- Kadi, was
responsible for the inquisition known as the Mihna may be
said but it should not be forgotten that before Ibn Abi
2
);
D
Dowad obtained his ascendency over the mind of al-Ma mun,
the latter would himself have set on foot the Mihna for the
creation of the Koran had he not been afraid to do so. The
Khalif s public adoption of the doctrine of the Koran s creation

dates from Rabf I, 212 A. H. (827 A. D.) 3 ).

D
The following incident shews clearly the state of al-Ma mun s
mind previous to this date. Yazid ibn Harun, who is mentioned
in connection with the incident, died in 206 A. H., six
D
years before al-Ma mun publicly professed the doctrine that
the Koran was created, and twelve years before the beginning
D
of the Mihna. Yahya ibn Aktham related; "Al-Ma mun said
to us ,
If it were not for Yazid ibn Harun I would assuredly
make public declaration of the doctrine that the Koran is
created On this one of his courtiers said Nay but who
. ,
!

is Yazid ibn Harun that the Commander of the Faithful

1) Cf. Houtsma, De Strijd over het Dogma, 108.

2) Cf. AbuD l-Mah. I, 733; De Goeje, Fragm. Hist. Arab., 547; Al-Subki,

p. 136,

3) Tab. Ill, 1.11.

 53

should fear him ? His reply was ,

I am afraid , \

e
it publicly, upon me, and me.
that he will retort i ,

at discord in their opinions, and thus there will come u

to which I am averse One of those who were present then .

D
said to al-Ma mun ,
I will make trial of the matter with
Yazid ibn Harun So this man went down to Wasit and
.
,

coming upon Yazid in the Mosque, said to him, O Abu

Khalid the Commander of the Faithful greets thee and

,

would inform thee that he wishes to make public declaration

that the Koran is created Yazid answered You lie against .
,

the Commander you speak the truth

of the Faithful ! If ,

wait here until the people come together to me So next .

day when the people came to him the Khalif s messenger ,

repeated what he had said the day before, and asked, What
have you to say about the matter ? Yazid retorted, You have
lied against the Commander of the Faithful. The Commander
of the Faithful will not force men which they
to profess that
have not hitherto known ,
and which none of them has ever
professed . After this passage the man returned to. the
Commander Faithful, him of the result, and
of the told
D
acknowledged that al-Ma mun had been more accurate in
his forecast than he himself had been. Al-Ma^mun replied ,

He has made jest of you" ).

I) al-Makrizi, p. 3, LxJ jlS

^5
I

^ ^xS? Jfe [(f 45*) ^fc

JLSS UU

LL JLai L\

}^b\ O t

iX^t J>!
^j J^Jijj
^L^Ji
r

JLJS
 54
jjr

* nc
public adoption of the doctrine that the Koran was
k
crc; cLcd . was conjoined with the public declaration of the
G
^superiority of Ali over Abu Bekr and Omar. Al-Ma mun
D c

G
^was a pro- Alyite Khalif *), even as al-Mutawakkil who ,

- revoked announcing the Koran s creation

the royal edict ,

G
- was an anti- Alyite Khalif. The Shyites were in fact , ,

c
-"Mu tazilites in theological opinion and it is not surprising ,

-
that the ruler who gave
out their tenet touching the Koran
should, at the same time, prefer their great leader before
-"theorthodox Abu Bekr and his successor, even as it is not
-
surprising that the ruler who revoked their tenet should
^restore to the orthodox Khalifs their primacy. Political capital
- was made out of both events by partisans, but in both cases
- itseems to us that the intention of the Khalifs was primarily
- to effect a 2
religious reform ).
D
-"
For six years al-Ma
as to whether or not mun was undecided
he should make the tenet that the Koran was created obligatory
"

-upon his subjects; finally, when he had deposed Yahya ibn

\ !
iXJL^> L-jt LJ

cf. von Hammer, Lit. Gesch. Ill, p. 159, Yazid ibn Harun.
Houtsma, De
1) Strijd etc. 97. Al-MaD mun, who had hoped to effect some
G
thing by political alliance with the Alyites, found in time that there was
nothing to be gained and much to be lost by such an alliance and gave it

up, though still friendly to the Alyite party and favorable to many of
its views.
Houtsma, 99.
Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 99 f. On
2) this subject cf. Weil, Chalifen II,
258 ff. von Kremer, Herrsch. Ideen, 333
5
ff.
 55

Aktham, the year 217 A. H., from the Chief- Kadi s office )
in
J

and appointed Ahmed ibn Abi Dowad as his successor, he

was encouraged to take the step by his new favorite until ,

in the last year of his life 218 A. H., he ordered the ap

2
plication of the Mihna, or test ).
Ibn Abl Ahmed ibn Abi Dowad who held a position of ,

D
Dowad.
great power under the three Khalifs, al-Ma mun,
c
al-Mu tasim and al-Wathik, and was the most vigorous ad
vocate of the Mihna during their reigns 3 ) is pictured in the ,

accounts given by the orthodox biographers of Ahmed ibn

Hanbal in much too unfavorable a light. He was a learned
man, gifted in the Kalam, --he studied the Kalam with
c c 4
Hayyaj ibn al- Ala al-Sulami, a pupil of Wagil ibn Ata ),
and was the first who publicly employed it in speaking
before the Khalifs, though he refrained from employing it
in the presence of Ibn al-Zayyat the Vizier. The Khalif al-
Mu c
tasim was completely under the power of Ibn Abi Dowad.

1) De Goeje, Fragm. Hist. Arab. 376.

2) p. 52, note 2.
3) Steiner, Die Mu c
taziliten , 78.

4) for Wagil ibn

G
Ata cf. Dozy, Het Islamisme, 133 f.
; Steiner, Die Mu c
ta-
c
ziliten, pp. 25, 50. Houtsma (De Strijd etc. 103) says that Wagil ibn Ata
does not appear to have taught the creation of the Koran.

al-Subki, p. 136, l*aJj jjjl L&j l ^^ ,3!

[Cod. no points; cf. Abu l-Mahasin, I 475^ 733"

XJL*

[Cod. U^JLd ^ Abu 1-Feda Ann. II, 678, corrects as in text]

 56
D
He entered the service of al-Ma mun in the year 204 A. H., on
the recommendation of Yahya and at this ibn Aktham ,

Khalif s death was warmly recommended by him to his suc

c
cessor, al-Mu tasim. In the very beginning of al-Mutawak-
kil s reign Ahmed was paralyzed, and his son Mohammed

was made Chief-Kadi in his place but was deposed in the ,

same year, 232 A. H. Ibn Abi Dowad was an eloquent man

and a poet whose praises were loudly celebrated by poets and
others. He was, also, a man of large generosity, and a lover
of good living and entertainment 1 ). In contrast to this estim
ate of the man is the representation of him as an impet
uous, ignorant and narrow bigot, which we find in most
of the orthodox accounts. In 236 or 237 A. H. Ibn Abi
Dowad came into disfavor at the Court, and was imprisoned
and his property confiscated; later, he was sent to reside
in Baghdad, where he lived till his death. Both father and
son died in disgrace in the year 240 A. H., the son twenty
2
days before his father ).
D
First Letter The step taken by al-Ma mun to secure con-
first

of al- formity to the view which he had adopted was to

Mamun to sen(} a letter to his lieutenant at Baghdad Ishak ,

Baghdad. j^ n ib r ahj cousin of Tahir ibn al-Hasan, ordering

m>

him to cite before him the kadis and traditionists, and

to demand of them an answer to the test as to the

1) On the luxurious life of the chief Mu c

tazila cf. Houtsma, De Strijd etc.

Steiner, Die Mu taziliten , 10 infra.

c
81 f.;

2) Weil, Chalifen II, 334; Goldziher, Mori. Stud. II, 58; Macoudi VI,
214; Ibn Chall. N.
31; Abu 1-Mah. I, 733; De Goeje, Fragm. Hist. Arab.
c
547; cf. Abu Nu aim, 1520,

*.AA
 57

creation of the Koran. This letter ran as follows l

)
: That
which God has laid upon the imams of the Muslims, their
Khalifs, is to be zealous in the maintenance of the religion
of God, which he has asked them to conserve; in the herit
age of prophecy, which he has granted them to inherit; in the
tradition of knowledge, which he has asked them to hold
in charge; in the government of their subjects according to
right and justice, and in being diligent to observe obedience
to God in their conduct toward them. Now, the Commander
of the Faithful asks God to assist him to persevere in the

right way and to be energetic in it, to act justly, also, in

those interests of his subjects over which God by his grace
and bounty has appointed him to have rule. The Commander
of the Faithful knows that the great multitude, the mass of
the folk
insignificant and the vulgar public who in all
, , ,

regions and countries, are without insight and deep reflec

tion, and have not a method of reasoning by means of
such proof as God approves under the guidance which he
gives, and no enlightenment by the light of knowledge and
its evidences, are a people ignorant of God and too blind

to see him, too much in error to know the reality of his

religion the confession of his unity and the belief in him

, ;

perverted also so as not to recognize his clear tokens

, , ,

and the obligation of his service; unable to grasp the real

i) The text on which I have based all the translations of the Khalif al-

Ma^miin s letters in relation to the Mihna is that found in the Leiden edition
of Tabari s Annales III (2nd vol.), lift \\P\"- It has the appearance of being

a verbal copy of the letters, while the text in Abu l-Mahasin I, ll^v If i
,

De Goeje, Fragm. Hist. Arab. II, flo, Abu 1-Feda Annales II, I54f., and
in al-Subki, 136 ff. represents the letters in greatly abridged form. The later
writers appear to have used Tabari for their text, for all shew much the
same variations from the extended form of the letters found in his work ;
that is, where they furnish the same portions of the letters (for some of the
authorities mentioned have abridged more than others, and in some there is
but one or, it may be, two letters found). The above mentioned authorities,
beyond the help already gathered from the collation with Abu l-Mahasin, do
not afford any assistance to improve the text found in Tabari.
 53

and to dis
_ measure of God to know him as he really
is ,
,

him and his creation, because of the weak

tinguish between
ness of their views, the deficiency of their understandings,
and their turning aside from reflection and recollection;
for

and the Koran which he has re

^they put on an equality God in ac
vealed. are all agreed and stand unequivocally
They
cord with one another that it is eternal
and primitive, and
- that God did not create it, produce it, or give it being;
- while God himself says in his well-ordered Book which he ,

for what is within the breasts and

appointed as a healing
as a mercy and right guidance for the believers, We have
- made it a Koran in the Arabic tongue and everything ) ,

which God has made he has created. He says, also,

Praise
and made
be to God who created the heavens and the earth

the darkness and the light ). He speaks

2 also thus, We will
3
went before ); he here
tell thee tidings of that which says
account of whose happening he
that it is an things after
it he followed up their lead.
Then he
produced it and with ,

says, JT, A book

whose verses were well-ordered, and,
then "were divided by order of a Wise
and Knowing
,

One 4). Now, for everything that is ordered and divided

and God is the one
there is one who orders and divides;
who orders well his Book and the one who divides it, there

creator and producer. They, also, are those

fore, he is its

who and call men to adopt

dispute with false arguments,
:

of the Sunna,
their view. Further, they claim to be followers
of God s Book is an account which
while in every chapter ,

- that the lie to their position de-

may be read therein
,
gives ,

- clares their invitation [to adopt their opinions]

to be false ,

_and thrusts back upon them their view and their religious
in spite of that, that they
pretentions. But they give out,
:
are the people of the truth and the [real] religion
and the
- communion of believers, all others being the people of false-
of
-hood, unbelief and schism; and they boast themselves

2. Koran, 6. i.
i) Koran, 43- 2)

3) Koran, 20. 99. 4) koran, n. i.

 59

Jhat over their fellows, so deceiving the ignorant, until per- -

ons of the false way, who are devoted to the worship of

nother God than Allah, and who mortify themselves for
nother cause than that of the true religion, incline toward "

greement with them and accordance with their evil opin-

ons, by that means getting to themselves honour with
hem and procuring to themselves a leadership and a re-
,

utation among them for honorable dealing. Thus they give

p the truth for their falsehood and find apart from God )
,
l

supporter for their error. And, so, their testimony is re- -

eived because they -
, [sc. the ignorant or people of the false
~
ay] declare them [sc. those who pretend to be the people
f the truth] to be veracious witnesses; and the ordinances -
~
the Koran are executed by them [sc. those who pretend -

) be the people of the truth] notwithstanding the unsound- -

ess of their religion, the corruption of their honour, and -

le depravation of their purposes and belief. That is the _^

oal unto which they are urging others, and which they -

:ek in their own practice and in [their] lying against their

-

,ord, though the solemn covenant of the Book is upon

aem they should not speak against God except that
that
hich is true, and though they have learned what the
ondition is of those whom God has made deaf and whose
yes he has blinded. Do they not reflect upon the Koran ?
-
r are there locks upon their hearts?
2
)
The Commander of
e Faithful considers, therefore, that those men are the
orst and the chief in error, being deficient in the belief
God s unity, and having an incomplete share in the faith
essels of ignorance ,
banners of falsehood ,
the tongue of
Iblis,who speaks through his friends and is terrible to his
enemies who are of God s religion; the ones of all others to
be mistrusted as to their truthfulness, whose testimony should
be rejected and in whose word and deed one can put no
,

confidence. For one can only do good works after as- -

ured persuasion, and there [really] is assured persuasion -

[) cf.
Koran, 9. 16. 2} Koran, 47. 25 26.
 6o

a real possession of Islam, and i

only after fully obtaining
sincere profession of the faith in God s unity. He, therefore,

who is too blind to perceive his right course and his share
in the belief in God and in his unity, is, in other respects,

as to his conduct and the justness of his testimony, still

more blind and erring. By the life of the Commander of

the Faithful, the most likely of men to lie in speech and

to fabricate a false testimony is the man who lies against
God and and who does not know God as he
his revelation,

really is; and the most deserving of them all to be rejected

when he testifies about what God ordains and about his re
ligion is he who rejects God s testimony to his Book and
slanders the truth of God by
Now, gather together
his lying.

the kadis under thy jurisdiction, read unto them this letter
of the Commander of the Faithful to thee, and begin to
test them to see what they will say, and to discover what
of the Koran by God
they believe concerning the creation
and its production by God. Tell them, also, that the Com
mander of the Faithful will not ask assistance in his govern
ment of one whose religion, whose sincerity of faith in God s
tinity,and whose persuasion are not to be trusted
[religious] ;

nor will he put confidence in such a man in respect to what

God has laid upon him and in the matter of those interests
of his subjects which he has given into his charge. And
when they have confessed that [sc. that the Koran is created]
and accorded with the Commander of the Faithful, and are
in the of right guidance and of salvation, then, bid
way
them to cite the legal witnesses under their jurisdiction,
to ask them in reference to the Koran, and to leave ofl

accepting as valid the testimony of him who

will not confess

that it is created and produced, and refuse thou to let them

[the kadis] countersign it. Write also to the Commander ol

, ,

the Faithful the reports that come to thee from the kadis ol
thy province as to the result of their inquisition
and theii
ordering that these things be done. Get acquainted with
them
and search out their evidences, so that the sentences of Goc
may not be carried out, except on the testimony of suet
 6i

as have insight into real religion and are sincere in the belief
in God s unity, and then, write unto the Commander of the
F"
:
what comes of it all.
thful of
eve was writen in the month of Rabf I, 218 A. H.,
his letter
D
/ore al-Ma mun set out on his last expedition to the fron-
e
rs, and about four months before his death. It must be
/onfessed that the spirit of the document is that of the bigot,
-

/rather than that of a broad and liberal mind. Nor can we

-

suppose that a man of al-Ma mun s character would let a

document of this kind be composed in any spirit but his
own. Its arrogant intellectual self-
indications all point to

sufficiency coupled with a contempt of opinions different from

those held by himself. The contemptuous Khalif would appear
to have been convinced by those about him that he could

now safely terrorize the orthodox, securing assent to his

own
views from such as were weak enough to be frightened by
.is threats or tortures, and blotting out the obstinate ones
rom the when they were found incorrigible.
face of the earth,
This letter was sent to all the provinces.
r The
The Begin-
c Vy f tnat which was addressed to Kaidar, gov-
ingofthe
Mihna ernor of Egypt, is practically the same as that
else-were.
w hose translation has been given, but it did not
E reac h until the month of II. The
jypt Egypt Jumada
Kadi in Egypt at this time was Harun ibn Abdallah al-

Zuhri. He gave in his assent on the test as to the Koran

ing applied to him, as did also the constituted witnesses
except some whose testimony was by their refusal rendered
nvalid. Kaidar had made a beginning with the examination -

c
of the fakihs and ulama, but had evidently adopted no harsh
D
measures ,
when the news of al-Ma mun s death came to him in

the month after the receipt of the order for the Mihna. On
:he receipt of this news the inquisition was suspended ).
1

There is mention of some trials for the sake of the

Koran at Damascus, but there, as well as in other pro
vinces, little appears to have been done, for the notices are

i) Abu l-Mah. I, 636, 637.

 62

D
very slight and from the way in which Abu l-Mahasin s
; ,

record reads, one might infer that the order for the Mihna
c
to places outside of lrak and Egypt came later than to thgse

places. If this inference be just the time of the inquisitju

in these other parts must have been short, at least, in i^
D
Khalifate of al-Ma mun. It is to be concluded, too, that tl|
D
success of the persecution at Baghdad led al-Ma mun to orde
a general introduction of the Mihna throughout his empire.
D
Damascus. In the year 218 A. H., al-Ma mun went in person
to Damascus, probably on his last expedition to Asia Minor,
and personally conducted the testing of the doctors there
o -.

concerning the freedom of the will (Jjsx) and the divine unity,
the second of which in his view involved a test as to the
creation of the Koran !
).
The governor of Damascus under
D c
al-Ma mun ,
as well as under his successors, al-Mu tasim anc

i) al-Ja
c
qubi II, 571, The Mu c
tazila called themselves the Ahlu t-Tauhic
G
wa l- Adl, the men of the Divine Unity and Righteousness, chiefly fo

the reason that they, on the one hand, rejected the orthodox view of thi
Divine attributes and of the Koran as out of harmony with the unitariai

faith of Islam and held, instead, that the so-called attributes were onb
empty names ,
or were not real and distinct existences but particular present ,

ations of the Divine essence itself: that is, God as wise, God as powerfu
etc. They, on the other hand, rejected the orthodox doctrine of the Divine
foreordination of the actions and destinies of men as inconsistent with the
absolute righteousness of God, and held that the human will was free, anc
man thus the determiner of his own destiny. Hence it is that in polemii
c
literature Ahlu t-Tauhid wa l- Adl
meaning has a much more special
than that indicated in the beginning of this note, generally standing for thos<

who believe, i) in the non-existence of the attributes of God or their identity

with his essence ,
and in the creation of the Koran (lAx^XJi J.2 1

). 2) in th<

freedom of the will (JjUtH J^t); cf. Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 55, 92, 133

Steiner, Die Mu taziliten , 30, 50 and note 3); Shahrastani , Haarbriicker

c
:

transl n I, 39, 42.

c D
If Ja qubi be correct, Houtsma s statement (p. 108) "dat
hij [al-Ma mun
niet den vrijen wil ook meteen [with the creation of the
Koran] als staats
dogma vaststelde" must be modified. The probabilities are in favour of th<

Khalifs having done what Ja c qubi says, though in do not

c
we,
general, fin<

Ja qiibl a very satisfactory authority as far as the Mihna is concerned. Hi:

usual accuracy in recording events is seemingly
wanting at this point.
 63

al-Wathik, was Ishak ibn Yahya. During the Khalifatc of

al-Mu tasim, that Khalif wrote him a letter ordering him to
c

urge the Mihna on the people under his authority. He, how
ever, dealt leniently with them in regard to the order he
had received. In 235 A. H., this man was appointed gov
ernor of Egypt by al-Mutawakkil *).
Kufa. When the order came to Kufa there was a great
assembly of the sheikhs in the general mosque of the city,
and, on the Khalif s (the name of the Khalif is not given)
letter being read to them, the feeling was against yielding
c
to the order it contained. Abu Nu aim al-Fadl ibn Dukain,
a. Kufite, who died in 219 A. H., said that he had met over
c
870 teachers, from the aged al-A mash to those who were
young in years, who did not believe the Koran to be created,
and that such teachers as were inclined to the heterodox
view were charged by their fellows with being Zindiks
c
(atheists) ).
2
Abu Nu aim Dukain was present at the
ibn

opening of the Mihna in Kufa. This fact shews us the ap

proximate date of the event there, for this man, as we have
3
said, died in the year 2I9 ).
Citation of The result of the letter of al-MaD mun to Baghdad
the Seven was to produce, as we may justly conjecture, a
Leaders. fee li n g o f resistance, the most zealous inciter of

1) Abu 1-Mah. I. 711 f.

2) On the origin of the name and its use among the orthodox v. Houtsma ,

De Strijd etc. 75.

3) al-Makrizi,p. 13, Joilsl ^ (j>/O ^as.^ jti
jJ Jaslil Lo^

..

Us
 64

D
which would be Ahmed ibn Hanbal
1

). Still, al-Ma mun did

not yet venture to apprehend the latter. His next step was
one which was calculated to shew him just how far he was
safe in in his enforcement of conformity to his views.
going
Second He to Ishak ibn Ibrahim,
wrote a second letter
c
Letter of ordering him to send seven
the governor of lrak ,

al-MJmim.^ t h e leading traditionists of Baghdad that he might

test them himself. For his purpose, this was a sagacious
move. Away from the moral support of their fellow-tradition-
ists, and face to face with the state of the Court
and the
terrors which the Khalif brought to bear upon their minds,
resistance was much more difficult than it would have been
at Baghdad. And
the compliance of these leaders being se
cured, smaller men needed not to be feared. The name of
Ahmed ibn Hanbal was, at first, upon the list bearing the
names of the seven referred to, but was erased at the instance
2
of Ibn Abi Dowad, --at least, so the latter claimed ).
Those now summoned 3 to the Court were Mohammed )

ibn Sa d the secretary of al-Wakidi, Abu Muslim the aman

c

uensis of Yazid ibn Harun, Yahya ibn Ma in, Zuhair ibn

c

c c
Harb Abu Khaithama, Isma il ibn Daud Isma il ibn Abi ,

Mas ud and Ahmed ibn Ibrahim al-Dauraki. These seven

c

D
men all yielded assent under the pressure which al-Ma mun
used with them. Having obtained his desire, the Khalif sent
the men back to Baghdad, where Ishak ibn Ibrahim, acting
D
under al-Ma mun s orders, had them repeat their confession
4
before the fakihs and traditionists ).

Its Effect. The fall of these seven men from orthodoxy was
a source of much grief to Ahmed ibn Hanbal. His judgment

1) The Baghdad people had in the year 215, and even earlier, protested
D
against al-Ma mun s heterodoxy touching the Koran, cf. Abu 1-Mah. I, 631.
2) Vid. p. 82.
3) Tabari till, text of letter not given.

4) Tabari
I Hi f. A biographical notice of Mohammed c
ibn Sa d is found Ibn
Chall. N. 656; of
D
Yahya ibn Ma m, al-Nawawi, Biog. Diet. p. 628; of
Ahmed ibn al-Dauraki Dhahabi Tabakat 8 N. 98 of Zuhair ibn Harb ,
, , ;

id. 8 ,
N. 23. I have not been able to find notices of the other three.
 65

was that if they had stood their ground nothing more would
D
have been heard of the Mihna in Baghdad. Al-Ma mun would
have been afraid to deal harshly with them seeing they were
the leading men of the city; but, when they gave way, he
had little hesitation in dealing with others ). Their assent !

was by themselves excused on the ground of Takia (exemp-

from observance of religious duty when it involved risk
ic) but the real cause of their doing as they did was
,

r of execution if they had not done so. Yahya ibn Ma in

c

2
ith weeping used to confess that this was the case ). It

as unfortunate that the seven leaders proved themselves

-o weak, for it is not unlikely that their firmness might have
D
deterred al-Ma mun from prosecuting further his effort for
uniformity of belief; and after his death, the succeeding
Khalifs were not such as would likely have revived an in

quisition like this when it had once been given up.

Third A third letter from the Khalif was now sent to
Letter.
Baghdad to Ishak ibn Ibrahim the governor. Its
text was as follows
3
That which God has a right to expect
)
:

from his vicegerents (khalifs) on his earth [and] those en

trusted by him with rule over his servants, upon whom he

JS]

&AJ
2) al-Subki, p. 137, a^_j-> ^ }j**}-*

[al-Sujuti, 314, adds A

3) Tabar! Ill, tHvff.

 66

has been pleased to lay the maintenance of his religion ,

the care of his creatures, the carrying out of his ordinance

and his laws, and the imitation of his justice in his world,
is that they should exert themselves earnestly for God,
do him good service in respect to that which he asks them
to guard and lays upon them make him known by that
,

excellency of learning which he has entrusted to them an- h

the knowledge which he has placed within them, guicnight
him the one who has turned aside from him bring t ious ,

him who has turned his back on his command mark cnn- ,

for their subjects the way of their salvation, tell them abotie
the limits of their faith and the way of their deliverance,
and protection and discover to them those things which
,

are hidden from them, and the things which are doubtful to
them [clear up] by means of that which will remove doubt
from them and bring back enlightenment and clear know
ledge unto them all. And [part of that which he claims of
them is]
that they should begin that by making them go
in the right way, and by causing them to see [things] clearly,
because this involves all their actions, and comprehends their
portion of felicity in this world and the next. They [the
Khalifs] ought to reflect how God is one who holds himself
ready to question them about that for which they have been
made responsible and to reward them for that which they have
,

done in advance and that which they have laid up in store

with him. The help of the Commander of the Faithful is

alone in God, and his sufficiency is God, who is enough

for him. Of that which the Commander of the Faithful by
his reflection has made plain and has come to know by
,

his thinking, and the great danger of which is clear, as well

as the seriousness of the corruption and harm which will
"come to
religion thereby are the sayings which the Muslims
,

are passing round among themselves as to the Koran which ,

God made to be an imam and a lasting monument for them

from God s Messenger and elect Servant, Mohammed, and
[another thing is]
the confusedness of the opinion of many of
them about it
[sc. the Koran]
until it has seemed good in their
 67

opinions and right in their minds that it has not been crt,
and thus
, they expose themselves to the risk of denyi.
,

the creating by God of all things, by which [act] he is dis

tinguished from his creation. He in his glory stands apart
in the bringing into being of his wisdom and
all things by
the them by his power, and in his priority in
creation of
time over them by reason of his being Primitive Existence,
whose beginning cannot be attained and whose duration can
not be reached. Everything apart from him is a creature
from his creation - a new thing which he has brought
,
-

into existence.
[This perverted opinion they hold] though
the Koran speaks clearly of God s creating all things, and
proves it to the exclusion of all difference of opinion. They
c
are, thus, like the Christians when they claim that lsa ibn

Maryam was not created because he was the Word of God *).
But God says, Verily we have made it a Koran in the
Arabic language 2 ) and the explanation of that is
; Verily ,

we have created it just as the Koran says, And he made

,

from it his mate that he might dwell with her 3 ). Also it ,

says, We have made the night as a garment and the day

as a means of gain 4 ). We have made every living thing
from water 5 ). God thus puts on equal footing the Koran
and these creatures which he mentions with the indication
of making And he tells that he alone is the One who made
.

it, saying, Verily it is a glorious Koran (something to be

6
read) on a well-guarded table ). Now, he says that on the
supposition that the Koran is limited by the table, and only
that which is created can be limited (by surrounding bounds) 7 ).
He says, likewise, to his Prophet, Do not move in it thy
tongue to make haste in it ). Also
8
That which came to ,

them was a newly created religion (J\5) from their Lord 9

).

1) cf. Sura 112] cf.

Steiner, Die Mutaziliten , p. 90 and note.
2) Koran, 43. 2. 3) Koran, 7. 189.
4) Koran, 78. lo. 5) Koran, 21. 31.
6) cf.
Koran, 85. 21 22.

7) cf. Shahrastani, Haarbrucker s transl n I, 72, 1. 20 ff.

8) Koran, 75. 1 6. 9) Koran, 21. 2.

 68

has ,
And who is a worse liar than the man who inventeth
thiieagainst God
or charges his verses with being false ).
He tells, too, about men whom he blames because of their
lying, in that they say, God has not sent down [by reve
lation] to men anything 2
). Then, by the tongue of his Mes
senger he declares them liars, and says to his Messenger,
Say, who sent down the book which Moses brought? 3 ).
So God calls the Koran something to be read , something
to be kept a faith, a light, a right guidance,
in memory,
a blessed thing, a thing in the Arabic language, and a nar
ration. For he says, We
relate unto thee a most beautiful
narration in that which we reveal unto thee, this Koran 4
).

Furthermore, he says, Say, surely, if men and jinns were

gathered together to bring forth such as this Koran, they
could not bring forth one like it 5 ). Also, Say, bring ten suras
fabricated like it 6 ). Also Falsehood shall not come up to it
,

either from before or after it 7 ). Thus he puts [at least, by ,

possibility] something before and after it, and so indicates that

it is finite and created. But these ignorant people, by their
teaching concerning the Koran, have made large the breach
in their religion and the defect in their trustworthiness;
they
e also levelled the way for the enemy of Islam, and
confess fickleness and heresy against their own hearts, [going

on] even till they make known and describe God s creation
and his by that description which appertains to
action
God alone, and they compare him with it, whilst only
his creation may be the subject of comparison. The Com
mander of the Faithful does not consider that he who pro
fesses view has any share in the real religion, or any
this

part in the real faith and in well-grounded persuasion. Nor

does he consider that he should set any one of them down
as a trustworthy person in regard to his being admitted as

i) Koran, 6. 21. 2) Koran, 6. 91.

3) ibid. 4) Koran, 12. 3.
5) Koran, 17. 90. 6) Koran, u. 16.

7) Koran, 41. 42.

 69

or A0la or as one to be relied upon in speech

or report, or in the exercise of authority over his subjects.
Now, if any of them seem to act with equity, and to be
known by his straightforwardness, still, the branches are to
be carried back to their roots, and the burden of praise or
blame is to be according to these. Thus, whosoever is ignor
ant in the matter of his religion, concerning that which
God has commanded him in reference to his unity, he, as
regards other things, is still more ignorant, and is too blind
and erring to see the right way in other matters. Now, read-
the letter of the Commander of the Faithful unto thee to
c c
Ja far ibn lsa and Abd al-Rahrnan ibn Ishak the kadi,
and them both to answer for their knowledge respecting
cite
the Koran, telling them that the Commander of the Faithful
in the affairs of the Muslims will not ask the assistance of
any but those in whose sincerity of faith and whose belief
in God s unity he has confidence; and that he has no belief
in God s unity who does not confess that the
Koran^s created.
And, if they
profess the view of the Commander of the
Faithful in this particular, then order them to test those who
,
-

are in their courts for the giving of evidence touching rights of

claimants, and [order them] to cite them to answer for their

profession in respect to the Koran. He who does not profess

it them declare his testimony invalid and
to be created, let
refrain from giving sentence on what he says, even if his
integrity be established by the equity and straightforward- -

ness of his conduct. Do this with all the kadis in thy pro
vince, and examine them with such an examination as God
can cause to increase the rightmindedness of the rightminded,
and prevent those who are in doubt from neglecting their
religion. Then, write unto the Commander of the Faithful
of what thou hast done in this matter.
Citation of Following out the instructions of this letter, Ishak
the Doctors Ibrahim summoned to his presence a number
ibn
in Baghdad.
o f fa e fakihs doctors and traditionists ). Among
,

i) Tabari III, HVl ff. is followed throughout the passage.

those summoned were Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Bishr ibn al-Walid
al-Ziyadi, AH ibn Abi Mukatil, al-
C
al-Kindi, Abu Hassan
c G
Fadl ibn Ghanim, Obaidallah ibn Omar al-Kawariri, Ali
ibn al-Ja d, al-Hasan ibn Hammad al-Sajjada *), al-Dhayyal
c

c
who seems to have been
ibn al-Haitham, Kutaiba ibn Sa id,
c c
only temporarily Baghdad Sa dawaih Sa id ibn Sulei
in , ,

c
man Abu Othman al-Wasiti ), Ishak ibn Abi Israel, Ibn
2

c
al-Harsh, Ibn Mohammed ibn Nuh al-
Ulayya al-Akbar,
c c
Madrub ), Yahya
al- ljli Abd
3
al-Rahman al- Omari, Abu
ibn
Nasr al-Tammar, Abu Ma mar al-Kati i, Mohammed ibn Ha-
c c

c
tim ibn Maimun a sheikh , of the descendants of Omar ibn
al-Khattab who was kadi of al-Rakka, Ibn al-Farrukhan ,

al-Nadr ibn Shumail, Abd al-Rahman ibn Ishak, Ibn Bakka

al-Akbar, Ahmed ibn Yazid ibn al-
c
Awwam Abu 1-Awwam
c
al-Bazzaz, Ibn Shuja and Mohammed ibn al-Hasan ibn Ali
c
ibn Asim. Others are mentioned in the account of the in

vestigation which follows.

When these men were brought before Ishak ibn Ibrahim,
he read to them twice al-MaD mun s letter until they grasped
its meaning and then asked them for their assent to the
, ,

doctrine which the Khalif propounded. At first, they tried

subterfuges and would neither affirm nor deny that the Ko-
Bishr ibn ran was created. The first to whom Ishak ibn Ibra-
al-Walld. him
put the test was Bishr ibn al-Walid. What
dost thou say respecting the Koran? he asked; and Bishr
I have more than once made
replied ,
my view known to
the Commander of the Faithful Ishak said, But this letter .

is a new thing from the Commander of the Faithful. What

is your view ? Bishr answered ,
I say the Koran is the Word
of God . Ishak. I did not ask thee for that. Is it created?
Bishr. God is the creator of everything Ishak. Is not the .

Koran a thing? Bishr. It is a thing Ishak. And, there- .

i) Abu 1-Mah. I. 638 and al-Maknzi, p. 4, supply the name of Sajjada

c
2) Abu 1-Mah. I, 665, supplies the name of Sa dawaih.

3) Abu 1-Mah. I, 648; al-Subki, p. 138, adds

fore, created? Bishr. It is not a creator . Ishak. I did not
ask for this. Is it created? Bishr then confessed that he had
yielded as far as he could yield ,
and could give no further
answer; he contended, moreover, that the Khalif had given
him a dispensation from speaking his mind on the subject.
The governor now took up a sheet of paper that lay be
fore him and read and explained it to Bishr. Then, he said,

Testify that there is no God but Allah one and alone before , ,

whom nothing was and nothing shall be and like

after whom
to whom is nothing of his creation in any sense whatsoever ,

or in any wise whatsoever ). Bishr said, I testify that and

1

scourge those who do not testify it Ishak then turned to .

the secretary and said /Write down what he has said

,
.

c
c
All ibn Abl Turning next to Ali ibn Abi Mukatil he asked
Mulcatii. for his confession. He
replied T have told my opin ,

ion about this to the Commander of the Faithful more than

once, and have nothing different to say The written test .

was then read to Ali and he gave the confession it required.

Then the governor said, Is the Koran created? c Ali answered,
The Koran is God s Word Ishak, as in the case of Bishr, .

told him he had not asked for that, and GAli answered, Tt
is the Word of God; if, however, the Commander of the
Faithful command us to do a thing we will yield him obed
ience .
Again, the scribe was bidden to record what had
been said.
The next was al-Dhayyal whose replies were in the same
strain as those of Ali.
In the reply of Abu Hassan there is something
Abu Hassan.
naively submissive. The Koran is the Word of God he said, ,

and God is the creator of everything all things apart from ;

i) Houtsma (De etc. 108 infra) seems to imply that this written
Strijd
credo ,
be subscribed by those to whom it was put , contained
which was to
a confession that the Koran was created. As Tabari presents the case th e
document demanded only a profession of faith in God s unity. Its purpose
was evidently to support the separate oral test as to the Koran. None seem
to have had any scruples about giving assent to the written
test, while all
would have avoided the other, had it been possible.
him Commander of the Faithful is our
are created. But the
imam, and through him we have heard the whole sum of
learning. He has heard what we have not heard, and knows
what we do not know. God also has laid upon him the rule
over us. He maintains our Hajj and our prayers; we bring
to him our Zakat; we fight with him in the Jihad, and we

recognize fully his imamate. Therefore, if he command us

we will perform his behest if he forbid us we will refrain
, ,

and if he call upon us we will respond Ishak said, This .

is the view of the Commander of the Faithful Abu Has .

san rejoined, True! but sometimes the view of the Com

mander of the Faithful is one concerning which he gives no
command to people, and which he does not call upon them
to adopt; if, tell me that the Commander of
however, you
the Faithful has commanded thee that I should say this, I
will say what thou dost command me to say, for thou art
a man to be trusted and one on whom reliance is to be
placed in respect to anything you may tell me from him.
If, then, you order me to do anything, I will do it The .

governor s reply was He has

,
not commanded me to tell

thee anything Abu Hassan said, T mean only to obey;

.

command me and I will perform it Ishak said, He has not .

commanded me to command thee, but only to test thee .

The examination of Abu Hassan ends here.

Ahmed ibn In the case of Ahmed ibn Hanbal Ibn Bakka ,

HanbaL al-Asghar suggested to Ishak ibn Ibrahim that he

should ask him about the expression of the Koran, He is
the Hearing and Seeing One ,
which Ahmed had used in
his confession. Ahmed , harmony with the principles of
in
men of his class, answered only, He is even as he has de
scribed himself. Being further pressed to explain the words,
he said, T do not know; he is even as he has described
himself.He was firm in adhering to the confession that the
Koran was the Word of God and would add nothing to it
,

by way of compromise or admission. Those who were exam

ined subsequently all followed Ahmed s example except ,

Kutaiba, Obaidallah ibn Mohammed ibn al-Hasan, Ibn

 73
c
Ulayya al-Akbar, Ibn al-Bakka, Abd al-Mun im ibn Idris
G

ibn Bint Wahb ibn Munabbih, al-Muzaffir ibn Murajja, an

other man not a fakih who happened to be present, Ibn
c
al-Ahmar and the Omari Kadi of al-Rakka. The answers
of these are not furnished us but the implication seems to
be that they compromised themselves. On this occasion when
Ahmed perceived the assent of his companions as the test
Ibn al- was applied he was intensely angry *). Ibn al-Bakka
Bakka. al-Akbar also
compromised himself, but not fully,
and with better grace than some of his fellows, for he stood
on the ground of the Koran text in making the admissions
which he made. These admissions were that the Koran was,
-
on the one hand, something made (Jyufu) and, on the
G _ O 3

)ther newly produced (cx\.2=u). For the

hand, something
ormer position the text adduced was one cited by the Khalif
530-
n arguing that the Koran was created
(vjjJL^t*)* namely,
Cor.
43 2, Verily we have made
:
(reading) it a Koran
n Arabic language
the For the latter position the text .

vvas, likewise, one cited by the Khalif in his argument,

Kor. 2i:2, What came to them from their Lord was a

icwly produced religion (SS)\ Ishak asked Ibn al-Bakka

f the term Jt^Ui were not the same in meaning as

Abu Nu c aim, 146 <fr all!

cX-^c US

U jl

LJLs
 74

and he answered that it was. Then the Koran is created

? said the governor. Nay ,

that I will not say. I

6 j o -

say it is something made (<J>*sfu)

,
was the answer.
After all the other cases had been disposed of Ibn al-

Bakka al-Asghar remarked that the two kadis whom we ,

c
assume to be Abd al-Rahman ibn Ishak and Ja far ibn
c
lsa, should be examined; but the governor said they held
to the same profession as the Commander of the Faithful.
Ibn al-Bakka suggested that they were ordered to tell their
if

opinion it could be reported to the Khalif for them. The

determined to avoid
governor, however, seems to have been
the examination of the two kadis, probably, to save one
who may have been his own son from exposure and humil
iation. He simply said to the provoking questioner, Tf thou
wilt serve as witness ) before them thou shalt know their
l

opinion .

Fourth Ishak ibnIbrahim then wrote to al-Ma mun a

Letter, detailed account of the answers received, and after
a delay of nine days again summoned the doctors to hear
2 -
the Khalif s reply. The following is a version of the letter );
The Commander of the Faithful has received your answer
to his letter touching that which the ostentatious among the
followers of the Kibla and those who seek among the peo
for which they are not the right
ple of religion a leadership
believe about the doctrine of the Koran, in which
persons,
letter of his the Commander of the Faithful commanded thee
to test their positions and put them in their
them and discover
,

right places. Thou dost

mention thy summoning of Jafar ibn
c
lsa and Abd al-Rahman ibn Ishak on the arrival of the Com
mander of the Faithful s letter, together with those whom
thou didst summon of those classed as fakihs and known as
doctors of Tradition and who set themselves up to give legal

i) Sol^io U&Xie oAfw o i.

2} Tabari
\\Vtott.
III,
 75

decisions in Baghdad, and [thou dost speak of] thy reading unto
them all the letter of the Commander of the Faithful. [Thou

hast mentioned] too thy asking of them as to their faith

, ,

touching the Koran and [thy] pointing out to them their

real interest; also, their agreeing to put away anthropomor

phic conceptions and their difference of view in the matter

of the Koran ;
further , thy ordering of those who did not
confess it to be created to refrain from Tradition and from
giving decisions in private or in public. [Thou hast men

tioned], too, thy giving orders unto al-Sindi and Abbas the
client of the Commander of the Faithful to the same effect ,

as thou didst give orders concerning them unto the two

cadis, even the same which the Commander of the Faith-
iil
prescribed to thee, namely, the testing of the statutory
witnesses who are in their courts. Again, [thou hast men-

ioned] the sending abroad of letters unto the kadis in the

parts of thy province that they should come to thee ,
>everal

that thou mightest proceed to test them according to that

>o

vhich the Commander of the Faithful has defined, whilst

hou hast put down at the end of the letter the names of
hose who were present and their views. Now, the Com-
nander of the Faithful understands what thou hast reported,
and the Commander of the Faithful praises God much,
even as he is the One to whom such belongs; and he asks
lim to bless his Servant and his Messenger Mohammed, and ,

le prays God to help him to obey him [sc. God] and to ,

>-ive him [sc. the Khalif], by

his grace, effectual aid in his good

purpose. The Commander of the Faithful has also thought

over what thou hast written relating to the names of those
whom thou hast asked about the Koran and what each ,

of them answered thee touching it, and what thou hast

explained as his view. As for what the deluded Bishr ibn
al-Walid says about putting away anthropomorphic concep
tions, and that from which he keeps himself back in the
matter of the Koran s being created while he lays claim ,

to leave off speaking on that subject as having had an en

gagement [to that effect] with the Commander of the Faithful,

 76

Bishr has lied about that, and has acted as an unbeliever,

speaking that which is to be refused credit
and false; for
there has not passed a compact or exchange of opinion
in respect to thisor any other matter between the Com
mander of the Faithful and himself, more than that the Com
mander of the Faithful told him of his belief in the doc
trine of the Ikhlas [i. e. the belief in the unity of God]
and in that of the creation of the Koran. Call him before
thee tell him what the Commander of the Faithful has told
;

thee in the matter; cite him to answer about the Koran

and ask him to recant; for the Commander of the Faithful
thinks that thou shouldst ask to recant one who professes
his view, seeing that such a view is unmixed infidelity and
sheer idolatry in the mind of the Commander of the Faithful.
Should he repent, then, publish it and let him alone; but,
should he be obstinate in his idolatry and refuse in his infidelity
and heterodoxy to confess that the Koran is created then ,

behead him and send his head to the Commander of the

Faithful. In the same way, also, deal with Ibrahim ibn al-
Mahdi. Test him as thou hast tested Bishr, for he professes
his view and reports about him have reached the Commander
of the Faithful; and, if he say that the Koran is created,
then publish it and make it known; but, if not, behead him
head to the Commander of the Faithful ). As
1
and send his
for Ali ibn Abi Mukatil, say to him, "Art thou not the man
c

who said to the Commander of the Faithful, Thou art the one
to declare what is lawful and unlawful ? and who told him
what thou didst tell him?" the recollection of which cannot yet
c
have left him [sc. Ali]. And as for al-Dhayyal ibn al-Haitham,
tell him that what should occupy his mind is the corn which

he formerly stole in al-Anbar, when he administered the

government in the city of the Commander of the Faithful,

Abu l- Abbas )
2
and that, if
;
he were a follower in the foot
steps of his forefathers, and went in their ways only, and

1) On death penalty for heresy cf. Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II, 216.

2) cf. Tabari III, A., 1.

18, seq. ;
De Goeje, Bibl. Geog. VII, Vt*v, 5 seq.
 77

path, surely he would not go

off into idol
pushed on in their

atry after having believed. As

for Ahmed ibn Yazid, known
as AbuVAwwam and his saying that he
,
cannot well answer

about the Koran ,

tell him that he is a child in his understand

ing, though not in his years,

an ignoramus; and that, if he
do not see his way clear to answer he shall see his way clear
to answer when he is disciplined, but should he not do it
then, the sword will follow. As for Ahmed ibn Hanbal
and
that which thou hast written about him, tell him that the
Commander of the Faithful understands the import of that
view and the manner of his conduct in it; and, from what
he knows, he infers his ignorance and the weakness of his
intellect. As for al-Fadl ibn Ghanim, tell him that what he

did in Egypt, and the riches which he acquired in less than

a year are not hidden from the Commander of the Faithful,
nor what passed in legal strife between him and al-Muttalib
ibn Abdallah about that; for a man who did as he did, and
who has a greedy desire for dinars and dirhems as he has,
can be believed to barter his faith out of desire for money,
and because he prefers his present advantage to everything
else. [Remind him] that he, besides, is the one who said

to Ali ibn Hisham what he did say, and ooposed him in

c

that in which he did oppose him. And v tat was it that

caused his change of opinion and brought im over to an
other? And as for al-Ziyadi, tell him that he is calling him
self a client of the first false pretender in Islam in whose
case the ordinance of the Messenger of God was infringed.
It is in harmony with his character that he should go in the

way he goes. (But Abu Hassan denied that he was a client

of Ziyad or of anyone else, adding that he had the name
of Ziyad [ibn abihi] for some other reason) ). As for Abu
I

Nasr al-Tammar, the Commander of the Faithful compares

the insignificance of his understanding with the insignificance
of his business [date-merchant]. And as for al-Fadl ibn al-

This parenthesis represents a gloss in Tabari III, H^A, 11. 6 8, (line

i)
, >

1 read .5 jj for
 78

Farrukhan, tell him that by the doctrine which he professes

respecting the Koran he is trying to keep the deposits which

Abd al-Rahman ibn Ishak and others entrusted to him, lying
in wait for such as will ask him to undertake trusts, and

hoping to increase that which has come into his hand; for
which there is no recovery from him because of the long ,

duration of the compact and the length of time of its existence.

But say to Abd al-Rahman ibn Ishak, May God not reward
thee with good for thy giving of power to the like of this
man and thy putting of confidence in him, seeing that he
is devoted to idolatry and disjoined from belief in God s
unity! And as for Mohammed ibn Hatim, and Ibn Nuh,
and him who is known as Abu Ma mar, c
tell them that they
are too much taken up with the devouring of usury to grasp

properly the doctrine of the divine unity, and that, if the

Commander of the Faithful had sought legal justification to
attack them sake of God and make a crusade against
for the ,

them on the sole ground of their practice of usury and that

which the Koran has revealed concerning such as they, he
surely might have found it lawful how will it be then now
; , ,

that they have joined idolatry to their practice of usury,

and have become like the Christians? And as for Ahmed
c
ibn Shuja tell him that not long ago thou wast with him,
,

and thou didst extort from him that which he confiscated

c
of the riches belonging to Ali ibn Hisham; and [tell him]
that his religion is found in dinars and dirhems. And as for
c
Sa dawaih al-Wasiti, say to him, May God make abominable
the man whose ostentatious preparing of himself for a col
loquium doctum on Tradition, while hoping to gain honour
by that and desiring to be a leader in it, carries him so far
that he wishes for the coming of the Mihna, and thinks to
ingratiate himself with me by it; let him be tried; [if he
yield] he may still teach Tradition. And as for him who is
known as Sajjada and his denying that he heard from
those traditionists and fakihs with whom he studied the doc
trine that the Koran is created ,
tell him that in his pre

paring of date-stones and his rubbing in order to improve

 79

his sajjada ),
and likewise in his care for the deposits which
G
Ali ibn Yahya and others left in trust with him lies that
which occupies he forgets the doctrine
his attention so that
of the divine unity and that which makes him unmindful

[of it]. Then ask him about what Yusuf ibn Abi Yusuf and
Mohammed ibn al-Hasan used to say, if he have seen them
and studied with them. As for al-Kawariri, in what has been
made known of his doings, in his receiving of gifts and
bribes, lies that which sets in a clear light his real opin
ions, the evil of his conduct and the weakness of his under
standing and his religion. It has also reached the Command-
. er of the Faithful that he has taken upon himself the
c c
[settlement of] questions for Ja far ibn lsa al-Hasani; so,
c c
order Ja far ibn lsa to give him up and to abandon reliance ,

upon him and acquiescence in what he says. And as for

Yahya ibn Abd al-Rahman

c
al- Omari, if he were of the
G
, descendants of Omar ibn al-Khattab, it is well known what
natu*
, , would answer. And as for Mohammed ibn al-Hasan ibn
1 ibn Asim, if he were an imitator of his ancestors, he

O Houtd not profess that profession which has been related of

him He 2
).
is yet a child and needs to be
taught. Now, the
Commander of the Faithful is sending to thee also, him who
is known as Abu Mushir 3 ), after that the Commander of
the Faithful has cited him to answer in his testing about
v the Koran; but he mumbled about it and stammered over
it, until the Commander of the Faithful ordered the sword
to be brought for him, when he confessed in the manner
of one worthy to be blamed. Now, cite him to answer about
his confession; and, if he stand fast in it, then, make it
known and publish it. But those who will not give up their
idolatry, and profess that the Koran is created, of those whom
thou hast named in thy letter to the Commander of the

1)
Callous patch of skin on the forehead produced, when genuine, by oft-

repeated religious prostrations; when an imposture, by rubbing the skin.

)

2) Tabari, III, lfl** read o*> .

3) d. 218 A. II. Dhahabi Tabakat 7, N. 62.

 8o

Faithful and whom the Commander of the Faithful has

mentioned or refrained from mentioning to thee in this
letter of his, except Bishr ibn al-Walid and Ibrahim ibn

al-Mahdi, send them all in bonds to the camp of the Com

mander of the Faithful in charge of a watch and guards
for their journey, until they bring them to the camp of the
Commander and deliver them up to those
of the Faithful
to whom the delivery has been ordered *) to be made so ,

that the Commander of the Faithful may cite them to an

swer; and, then, they do not give up their view and re
if

cant, he will bring them all to the sword. The Commander

of the Faithful sends this letter by extra post [courier s let-

terbag] instead of waiting till all the letters have been gath
ered for the post, seeking to advance in the favor of God
by the decree he has issued and hoping to attain his pur
pose, and to gain the ample reward of God thereby. So,
give effect to the order of the Commander of the Faithful
that comes to thee, and hasten to answer by extra p- ia ^-

[v. above]
about that which thou hast done, not waiting ^ e
n w
the other letter-bags, so that thou mayest tell the Comma ?_
of the Faithful of what they will do.
Recantation On this letter being read all of those mentioned
of the in it recanted with the exception of Ahmed ibn
,

Sajjada, al-Kawariri and Mohammed ibn

Doctors.
Hanbal,
Nuh al-Madrub. These four were then cast into prison in
chains and next day were again brought before the govern
or and given a chance to recant. Of this chance Sajjada
2
availed himself and was set free ). The following day, also,
they were brought from the prison and given another op
c

portunity to yield, which Obaidallah ibn Omar al-Kawariri

Ahmed and embraced and received his liberty. Thus Ahmed
Mo-hammed and Mohammed ibn Nuh alone of those cited to
ibn Nuh
Refuse to appear remained firm in their faith; the others
Recant. Ahmed always excused on the ground oftheTakia

Variant adopted in the translation.

1) Q$y^
2) Abu 1-Mah. 1 , 738 , says Sajjada stood firm in the Sunna .
 8i

by Koran, 16. 108, Except him who is forced,

as supported

though he have no pleasure in it, while his heart rests in

the faith ).

and are Ishak governor now wrote a letter giving

the
Cited to the results examination of the doctors 2 ).
of his
D
Tarsus.
Shortly after this, al-Ma mun ordered Ishak ibn
Ibrahim to send Ahmed ibn Hanbal and Mohammed ibn
Nuh in chains to him to Tarsus. On their journey when
they were in the neighbourhood of al-Anbar Abu Jafar al-

Anbari crossed the Euphrates to see Ahmed in the khan

where he was lodged and reminded him of his responsibil ,

ity as the leader to whom all men looked for an example-

If he answered favorably, they, too, would assent to the doc

trine; but should he refuse to assent, a great many, if not

all, would be held back from recantation. He told him, be

sides, to remember that death would come to him in the

natural course of things, and exhorted him, in view of what
3
he had said ,
to maintain the integrity of his faith ).

i) Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 69 and note ; al-Makrizi, p. 4, iAxc j J^

O^~"^

jj&j UfyA-C ^ftJ *M

t JS-5
JlS ItXlJj LM*.X>-
gauJl X^ *JLJt

*c_jjt jt3 [Kor. 1 6. 1

08] QU-$L tf+SoA Julldj *\ ^ ^1

ut *?

!.
2) Taban, III, lit*

3) al-Makrizi, p. 4, ^-J!

U JI5
 82

In pursuance of the Khalif s order the two unyielding

theologians were borne on camels from Baghdad, Ahmed s
companion in the mahmal being a man called Ahmed ibn
Ghassan. As they were on the way Ahmed told his com
panion that he had a firm conviction that the messenger of
al-Ma^mun, Raja al-Hidari, would meet them that night; and,
in fact, Raja al-Hidari did meet them and the prisoners were
transferred to his care but he was not allowed to proceed far
,

with his charge before the news of the Khalif s death relieved
him of the obligation to bring the men to Tarsus. When he
had conducted them as far as Adhana, and was just setting out
with them at night, a man met them in the gate of the
town with news that al-MaD mun had just died at the river
Bodhandhun [lla&v&ow] in Asia Minor after leaving as a last
,

charge to his successor to prosecute vigorously the Mihna *).

i) Abu Nucaim, 147 a, 147 #, (al-Subki, p. 139, cf. al-Makrizi, p. 4

infra, a fuller account), ~J

Uls
 83
D
Al-Mc?mun Re- meantime, al-Ma mun had received
In the
jects the Plea word that those who had recanted had done
of Tafta Offered $Q claiming the Takia as a
justification, in ac-
by the Doctors.
cordance with the dispensation granted in the
Koran to such as are forced to confess a false faith, while
their hearts continue to hold fast to the true *). This, of

course,meant that what the Khalif believed and had pro

pounded to them was false, a conclusion with which he was
by no means satisfied, and, therefore, wrote again to Ishak

had previously prayed for a Divine interposition to

^_.A_JL-*j~lf [Ahmed
<

demonstrate that he was in the right way].

LJ j ^J3j X33! Ujo Uli

[147$]
g& J^JJ u3y>
L^JU LxJb>
;5 ^i

J3-b ^ v-iLJI
^ oy^L^ ^ 5 J^ LujOs Ljlb

l
JIS ^ ^

x \j i^

i) Taban HI, \\W f.;

De Goeje, Fragm. Hist. Arab. II, 465 f.;
Abu 1-Feda
Annales II, 155.
 84

ibn Ibrahim to tell Bishr ibn al-Walid and the others who
had pleaded that their case was similar to that of Ammar
c

ibn Yasir contemplated in the Koran s dispensation to recu

sants, that there was no similarity between the cases.
He had openly professed a false religion, while at heart

a Muslim; they had openly professed the truth while in

ami Orders their hearts believing what was false. To settle
Them to be matters they must all be sent to Tarsus, there to
Sent to await such time as the Khalif should leave Asia
Him Minor. The following men were therefore sent
after Ahmed and his company Bishr ibn al-Walid
:
,
al-Fadl
G
ibn Ghanim, Ali ibn Abi Mukatil, al-Dhayyal ibn al-Hai-
c c c
tham, Yahya ibn Abd al-Rahman Omari, Ali ibn al-Ja d,
al-

Abu 3
l-
c
Awwam , Sajjada, al-Kawariri, Ibn al-Hasan ibn Ali
c
ibn Asim, Ishak ibn Abi Israel, al-Nadr ibn Shumail,
c
Abu Nasr al-Tammar, Sa dawaih al-Wasiti, Mohammed ibn
Hatim ibn Maimun, Abu Ma mar, Ibn al-Harsh, Ibn al-
c

Farrukhan Ahmed ibn Shuja and Abu Harun ibn

,
Deatkofal
Mctmun al-Bakka.They received the news of the Khalif s

and its Con- death when they arrived at al-Rakka ,

and ,
on the
order of Anbasa ibn Ishak, the Wall of the place,
sequences,

were detained there until they were sent back to Baghdad

in charge of the same messenger as had brought them thence.
On arriving at Baghdad, the governor Ishak ordered them
to keep to their dwellings *), but afterwards relaxed his sever

ity toward them and allowed them to go abroad. Some

of
those who had been sent, however, had the temerity to
leave al-Rakka and come to Baghdad without having ob
tained permission. As might have been expected, they suf
fered for their boldness when they reached the latter place,
for Ishak punished them. Those who thus procured trouble
3
to themselves were Bishr ibn al-Walid, al-Dhayyal, Abu !-
c
Awwam and Ali ibn Abi Mukatil.

i) On keeping to their dwellings cf. Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II, 94.

 85

Ahmed and
^ return to Ahmed and his companion Moham-
ibn Nuh md ibn Nuh. These two were now sent back to
Ordered back a\-^R3\^.^, where they, also, remained in prison un-
to Baghdad, ft t h e oath of allegiance was taken to the Khalif

they were taken in a boat

c
al-Mu tasim. After this event,
from al-Rakka to Anat at which place Mohammed
c
Death of ,

Ibn Nuh. ibn Nuh died, and Ahmed, after performing the
offices of the dead over his friend, was brought back in

bonds to Baghdad
!
).
At first ,
he was imprisoned ,
as it ap
pears, the street al-Yasiriya for some days. From there
in

he was transferred to the Dar al-Sharshir near to the Dar

G
Umara and in a stable belonging to Mohammed ibn
lodged
rented as a
Ibrahim (brother of Ishak) which had been
place of detention. It
was very small and his stay there
was short. He took sick in Ramadan, and was then trans
2
common prison in the Darb
ferred to the al-Mausiliya ).

Among those who stood faithful in the inquisition during

See preceding note, p. 82, i. Houtsma (De Strijd etc. 106) says
that
1)
Mohammed ibn Nuh, as well as Ahmed ibn Hanbal, was scourged by al-
Mu tasim,
c
but he, in fact, never appeared before that Khalif.

2) al-Subki, p. 139,

[marg: Copy ^LiaaS] iUL^ V; ^ 1 *

f
 86

Others who tne Khalifate of al-Ma mun, but whose name has
did not no t yet appeared ,
was Affan ibn Muslim Abu
Othman, whom the
c
Khalif and Ishak ibn Ibra-
*Affto?i!m c
MusKm. him his lieutenant in lrak, in penalty for his re
fusal obey the order to recant, deprived of the stipend
to
which each of them granted to him. When asked what he had
to say in reply to the demand made on him, he answered
by reciting Sura 112, and enquiring whether that were cre
ated. His people were very angry with him for leaving them
without means of support, for he had about 40 persons
dependent on him. But the very day his stipend was cut
off, a stranger brought to him a purse of 1000 dirhems (his
D
stipend from al-Ma mun had been 500 per month), and prom
ised him that he should receive the same amount each
month from the same source. He died in Baghdad in 220
A. H. During his life he was one of the leading men in
Baghdad
o and a friend of Ahmed s who had much influence
with him *). Another to whom the Mihna was applied in

i)al-Makrizi, p. 13, ii>^

^L^uJ ^J iW*> JL& JU4 ^ 0Uc Loi
j

ti Lac jLiii *Jlc OJO Lo

5
Ki^ ^ j

[Cod.

Lo i Jls v^ 1

0_>I it [Kor. 112]

 87

Abu Nu aim al- this Khalifate, and who did not yield was
c
Fadlibn Dukain. the Kufite, Abu Nu aim al-Fadl ibn Dukain.
D
When al-Ma mun s letter came to Kufa he was told of its
purport and exclaimed It means only beating with whips
, ;

and, then, taking hold of a button of his coat, he said, to

me my head is of less consequence than that Of his trial .

we have no particulars but he at all events does not ap

, , ,

pear to have died a violent death. He died in 219 A. H. ).

!

G
"All ibn Ali ibn al-Madini is classed with those who sur-
al-Madlnl. rendered their faith at the time of the Mihna , ap
parently about the beginning of its course. He bitterly re
gretted his weakness, however, and was firmly reestablished
in the orthodox faith before his death in 234 A. H. ~).

[Kor. 51. 22]

^4 ,3 e

i) al-Makrizi, p. i3,iuL^It O^L> LI AX

JJS p+xj bl vJ.JS

y^ J J^i i J5 xi

S [so Cod.] JsLyw^l <-j./to

j-P LJ^ jLiis

c
^^ Nu aim al-Fadl ibn Dukain was a Shyite according
to Shahrastani ,
Haarbriicker s transl n I, 218.

2) al-Subki, p. 185, vJiJbSU 3 & vL>

!

i** t^tt C>

c
0^5
xJlc ti5LJ3
L\_JJ^

1
[ Cod -
 88

Ahmed In the common prison Ahmed ibn Hanbal was

in

confined for a considerable time, the whole period,

Prison,

from the time of his arrest until he was set free after being
c
scourged by al-Mu tasim, being twenty-eight months. While
in the prison he used to lead the prayers with the inmates,
and engaged in the study of books which were provided
for him by his friends. His good friend Buran did him the
kindness to send him daily cold water, by means of a boat.
During the first part of his imprisonment, his uncle Ishak
ibn Hanbal spoke to the officials and attaches of the gov
ernor seeking to secure a release of his nephew from prison;
but, failing to obtain any satisfaction, he appealed to Ishak
ibn Ibrahim in person. With a view to securing from Ahmed
a modification of his position, Ishak then sent his cham
berlain to the prison with Ahmed s uncle, ordering him to

report whatever might pass between them. When they came

to the prison, Ishak ibn Hanbal urged his nephew to yield
an assent to the doctrine which was being pressed upon him.
He reminded him that his companions, with much less reason,
had recanted and that he had justified them in doing so on
the ground of the Takia. Why then should he not recant?
After much fruitless disputation, they made up their minds
to leave him in prison; and he went on to say that im

prisonment was a matter of very little concern to him a

prison or his own house it was all the same. To be slain
with the sword too,
was not a matter which caused him
,

great anxiety; the one thing that he feared was to be scourged.

If that should befall him, he could not answer for his hold

ing out against it. One of the prisoners then reminded

him that in the case of scourging he need have no fear, for
after two strokes of the whip, he would never know where
any that might follow would strike him. With this assurance

the remaining anxiety of Ahmed was completely dispelled ).

!

Another at- On
the J 7 th of Rama dan, 2 19 A. H., that is, four-
ation before teen months from the time that he was stopped
D
when on his way to al-Ma mun he was brought from
Ishaft ibn ,

Ibrahim,
ft^ com mon prison to the house of Ishak ibn Ibrahim ,

being bound with a single chain on his feet. While he was

confined in the house of Ishak ibn Ibrahim, the latter sent

Lj
Alii AxC _^_ji JU Ol

J5 >
^Ux LJLw-xxS JS Jbu>

_^
Lo xU! AAC LL i^JLc ^ JLas

Jf J15
<

^xc
^.L ^J3 J.M-
Us ^
Abu Nu c aim, 147*, adds idxU]
^.jUa^ j-^vl ^ ^J>}^ ^
.^i,c ej*o ^CJuM [\xxi c>-^^>
>"

Sj-^c
 9o

to him every day two men to reason with him their names ;

were, respectively, Ahmed ibn Rabah and Abu Shuaib al-

Hajjam. These two men used to argue with him, and, find
"~

ing him immovable, as they turned to go away each day

they called for an extra chain to be placed upon his feet,
until, were four chains upon them. One of
finally, there
the which Ahmed had was about the Know
discussions

ledge of God. He asked one of the two inquisitors for his

opinion on the subject, and the man said that the Know
ledge of God was created. On hearing this Ahmed called
him an infidel and though reminded that he was casting
, ,

upon the messenger of the Khalif, he refused to with

insult
draw the charge. Ahmed s reasoning was that the names of
God as symbols of his attributes were in the Koran; that the
Koran was part of the Knowledge of God ,
which is one of
his attributes; that, therefore, he who pretended that the
Koran was created had denied God, and, also, that he who
pretended that the names of God were created had denied
God. Here the argument seems to be: The names of God are
not created but the names of God form some part of the
;

Koran; therefore, it follows that some part of the Koran,

at least ,
is not created.
Aftmcd Or- On the fourth night after he had been removed
dered to ai-to the house of Ishak ibn Ibrahim, the messenger
c
Mtftafim. O f t he Khalif al-Mu tasim, Bugha al-Kabir, arrived
after the last prayer, bringing the command of the Khalif to
Ishak to send Ahmed was brought
to him. When Ahmed
c
in Ishak before going to al-Mu tasim, the governor ad
to
dressed him, reminding him that it was his life which was
at and that the Khalif had sworn that he would
stake,
not kill but would scourge him stroke
him with the sword ,

after stroke, and would throw him into a place where

no light would ever reach him. Then, the governor pro
ceeded to argue with him regarding the Koran quoting ,

the text, Verily, we have made it a Koran (reading) in the

Arabic tongue and he asked him, if there could be any
,

thing made unless it were created. Ahmed answered with

 91

another text. He made them like grass to be eaten ,

and
asked the governor, if he would conclude from such a text
anything about their being created. In this case the argu
ment turns upon the fact that the word j**>
does not, nec

essarily, the meaning of

include sJjL>.

Preparations were then made for bringing Ahmed to al-

Mu ctasim. The interest of Bugha, the messenger of the Khalif,
in his prisoner and his cause was no very intelligent interest.

He inquired of Ishak ibn Ibrahim s messenger what Ahmed

was wanted for, and, on learning, he declared that he knew
nothing about such things; that the limits of his faith as a
Muslim did not extend beyond the declaration that there
isno God but Allah, that Mohammed is the Apostle of God,
and that the Commander of the Faithful is of the relation
ship of the Prophet of God At the gate of the royal park .

they disembarked after a short trip on the Tigris. Ahmed

was taken out of the boat and put upon a beast, from which
he was in danger of falling off, owing to his helplessness
because of the weight of his chains. He was brought under
these circumstances into the palace precincts ) and made to !

alight at a house in a room of which he was confined, without

2
any lamp to enable him to see at night ). During the night

c D c

1) al-Mu tasim s palace was in the eastern part of Baghdad (vid. Ja qubi,
Bibl. 1 The general prison if in the Darb al-Mufaddal (but
Geogr. VII, Fe>6
, 7). ,

v. p. was in the same quarter and Ishak the governor s residence

85, note 2),
may not have been at any great distance from this general prison. In any
case it is clear that the trial and scourging took place in Baghdad, where
Ahmed was well-known and had many admirers. Hence the popular demon
when Ahmed was flogged.
stration against the Khalif

2) Abu Nu c aim,
 92
A
c c
he is said to have had a vision of Ali ibn Asim, and in-

bLs [Cod. J al-Makrizi

[Cod. JLfij oLxi! *

T b

O l
O
J
*
wut [Cod. X

JLs

43- 2] bi

1
Jlfis UiL^I [Kor. 105. 5]

JlS

JlS Jo L/o i
 93

terpreted it as being of good omen, assuring him of exalt

ation (JLc) and protection from God (iUae) *).

Trial be- The next morning he was led to the palace in

2
fore al- his chains and brought before the Khalif ).
On this
tftasim.
occasion, there were present with the Khalif Ahmed
First Day.
ibn Ab j Dow d ancj j^s companions. It is said that

Cod.

i)al-Makiizi,p. 4 ,

J
Jx J.UI5 &*t\j
&L ^t c>^c^
U jj llt uXxc bl

ji &11

c
2) Abu Nu aim, 148 a if. With a few exceptions which are indicated, the
narrative is now drawn from this source until we reach p. 1115 cf. Abu 1-Feda
Annales II, 168. There is a short and mutilated account of the proceedings
c c
before al-Mu tasim in al-Ja qubi II. 576, 577.

UU
 94
c
when al-Mu tasim first saw Ahmed, he said to those about

JUS L* 5 auU aJUl

Jjo *JUI J auJI L> Lo it oJU>

O i
tffe jis
jjici A^ xiji
ys &D!J
^UKI u

^, sLSjJI ^Xjlj
BbLxJi
^5 *JLJI

US 3! Luc\J>
^ftJI _^l Jli
jUi

JlS (j^Uc ji c^*<v. J15 >

j-jl ^iX^- Jl5 X^*^i

U
JOc i JLfti 3! Jl5 J,^aJ! ^1 Jls ^oJ^ ^TJj *UL,
O U>L,

to

olftj 3,1 J15 XJL^

JI5 J *} 3;
J?Lj J15 J J15

s *UI ^ J^Sj U *J (tfAJLJ Jo O UJ! ^ J^sJ

1

Lo
O ^JI
jjlc

^ {
J^>
r
^! 5 iJc^ J* ^15 IJL^J lA-P ^^ J O
Jot^ 3! JI5

*UI XJuw JtUl v.jL.A-^ Q UxXi ^JL

J^-*p jl J>JLci

^ ^-jf Jylo Jfe

y [Cod. omits] Lo &.J

idJI
J,o &l)t
J^-^
XA- 3 I *HSI
v UcT ^ Lo

T. Lo
v^wJjLj* Loj jlcl va^-jls ^L-jjii c^-^lj *1 vi^JlftJ Jl5

*A\ b &UI)

AJ Lo
 95

him reproachfully, Did you not pretend that this was a

jt [Koran . 2]

[Koran 38.,]
/Jjf ^ JQ^ J|5

i i
yu js ^ u , u

i Js

oUL^ ,0
1(1
Opjo [Koran 46. 24] J5 j^ ^J^ Jfc

Crf axj JLJU JI5 aj

O t.

*
0*^1
 96

oy.

cr

^ ^^ J JLs a jJij U

j
^yto

iXJI [Cod. Jo-yi] J^if

U-0 l^ X.x.lfi ylj JLJ U .-.AXit ^ JJ vi

JS ^-K3 8
3 l5 JLJLJ iuJLc vi^JL^o! J,L_x_J! Jl ^ tf UlS

J5 ILX* Lo Ol Lo ^^Jls 1 x> XO -U iuJLc iJLJI

**) Cod. c^AJjJ but if we read the correction is obviously necessary;

,
o-j
i. e.
pointing to the man in whose dwelling I had been lodged .
 97

IA$ u ^j LU.K
8^15 Jyus Js

^uX-j ^ <JUo
Jc>^
JLJLS

jis [cod.

.
4 .
12]

ftj U A! .

^ U

[Cod. U-oJ

a+xs .L/=
^j-j

JLw [Cod. ^5-u

cr*
j 3
 98
*

_ i

^ J!

>

O..JO
o

L>

(^.5 i JLJL3
^A JJU ti\.xU oia J.^5 vji-x-a-i: tiUic JU!
5 LJI

cr

LJls

[Cod. j^Liutji i JlS] efejLjbJt jlS Jf c^*^> > o.x^=v^o OL\>15 jlS

o !^ JU53 ^l jLfti IsL^^ [read ^jU^lj ?

fti
[Margin, variant

.ftj|
^1 *yijt U^2*

jls xJLc s^jl s^ ^ J jUis twUK ^j v^y^i Lo

Q!^

*J

jLai
 99

Jls

jS -AiXiJi ; U s jlS jls L>

LJ f

[Cod.

Axe auJLiil

fto ^

cr

Lil ..-AVO Lwol jLas jL s^i

5

i Lo c>J^
 100

S
vjb^^o

- omits

xJLc _> t\ii

c
[cf. Taj al- Arus]

J15

t
J5
 IOI

young man, but this man is not young [his age was 54] ). 1

The Khalif, on his entering, commanded him to draw near and

bade him sit down. Then Ahmed asked permission to speak,
and, having received it, put the question, To what did the
Messenger of God give invitation? The Khalif said, "To
the testimony that there is no God but Allah Ahmed re ."

plied, T testify that there is no God but Allah and, after ;

he had professed his adherence to the five cardinal points

of Islam, the Khalif told him that if he had not been ap-, _
prehended by his predecessor in the Khalifate he would not
have taken any action against him. Then, turning to Abd al- -
Rahman ibn Ishak, al-Mu ctasim asked him if he had not given
him command to abolish the Mihna. On hearing this, Ahmed
was overjoyed, supposing that it was really the Khalif s in
tention to deliver his subjects from the objectionable test.

Following this, there was disputation, in which the Khalif

ordered Abd al-Rahman ibn Ishak to take a part. This man
then put the question to Ahmed, What dost thou say about
the Koran? Ahmed returned him no direct answer, but, in
turn, asked him what he had to say about the Knowledge
of God To this Abd al-Rahman made no reply. During
.

the Mihna this question was, with Ahmed, a favorite device

in argument and one by means of which he generally put
his opponents in embarrassment. The force of the
argu
ment lies in the fact that the Koran is declared to be know
ledge from God, and Ahmed and such as he regarded this as
equivalent to its being inseparable from the Knowledge of

Us WjJl<J 5 xJjLLj ?5 l$i SL\-$>

J, auAfiai* <JS

) al-Makrizi, p. & <gUe xjtf jjO Jb *,A*^W *J^ \ u LJli

 102

God. Knowledge say they, be uncreated then the

If this ,

Koran must be uncreated Another point which Abd al- .

Rahman urged was that God existed when a Koran did not
exist ;
to this Ahmed replied with the same argument, Did
God exist and not his Knowledge ?
!
).

During the passage between Abd al-Rahman ibn Ishak

and Ahmed, the latter asked Abd al-Rahman what his master
c
al-Shafi had taught him about the ritual washing of the
i

feet, and Ibn Abi Dowad, in great astonishment, exclaimed,

Behold a man who is face to face with death
indulging in
z
questions over Fikh ).
!

One of those in the room recited a tradition of

c
lmran
ibn Husain that God created jJJ and is the Koran
y y\3Jt ;

to this Ahmed
answered that he had the tradition from more
than one authority in the form, God wrote
yjJP. The bear
ing of this tradition as corrected by Ahmed is to the effect that
the substance and words of the Koran were not created but
that the earthly record was. Another tradition which was ad
duced was that of Ibn Mas c ud God did not create in para ,

dise, hell,heaven and earth anything greater than the Throne

verse (Koran 2. 256). Ahmed s rejoinder was that the cre
ation applied only to paradise, heaven, hell and earth, but

)al-Makri Zi,p.6, O
<w5 JU
2) Abu Nu c
aim, 144^, iCaxJl
^ J^Xr>
^ ^X^i J^o Jyb

vJUc
 IDS

did not apply to the Koran --a construction which is ad

missible ).
Someone introduced the verse, What came to them of
^5 from their Lord was a thing newly produced ,
and asked,
(
Can anything be newly produced unless it be created ?
Ahmed said the Koran, Sura 38, declares, By the Koran,
the possessor of jjt so JJI is the Koran but there is
;

in that other (.5\5)

no article. Here the argument is to she

that JLJI and the Koran are identical in meaning, but ^

without the articleis not identical with the Koran. Con

sequently, no argument can be based upon the declaration

that was newly produced.
^<3

The words were cited ,

He is the creator of everything .

Against this
quoted Ahmed ,
Thou dost destroy everything ;

and he added Dost thou destroy except what God wills ?

,

The argument is that the term everything must be under

stood in harmony with declarations as to the unoriginate
character of the Koran found elsewhere within the Book itself.
It is said that, in the course of the discussion, Ibn Abi
Dowad lost his patience because Ahmed insisted on keeping
to Koran and the Tradition. Ahmed s defence was to
the
the effect that his course was justifiable, for Ibn Abi Do-
wad was putting a construction upon the Koran with which
sincere minds could not agree, and, failing to agree, the men
were being cast into prison and loaded with chains. With this
Ibn Abi Dowad called upon the Khalif to ask his kadis
and fakihs if Ahmed were not a man misled, misleading

i) al-Makrizi, p. 6, *Ui vJ&> U

[Kor. 2. 256]
and heretical. On his enquiring of them they declared he
was such. On this occasion Ahmed repeatedly protested to the
Khalif that his opponents were not adhering to the author
ities which alone could settle such disputes ). Indeed, Ahmed

seems to have been the most vehement of all the disputants.

Ibn Abi Dowad shewed his zealot spirit, likewise, by fre
quently interjecting his opinion. On the first occasion of his
c
interference, Ahmed did not answer him, and, when al-Mu
-

tasim rebuked him for it, he replied that he was not aware
that Ibn Abi Dowad was a man of learning 2 ).
When it came to the time of closing the Khalif bade all
present arise; and after the session was ended, the Khalif
and Abd al-Rahman ibn Ishak had a private conference with
c
Ahmed, in which al-Mu tasim mentioned to him the pun
ishment he had visited upon his own private tutor Salih
al-Rashidi for opposing him in regard to the Koran. He
complained, too, that Ahmed had not given him any chance
Abd al-Rahman, how
to learn his views or their vindication.

ever, explained that he had known Ahmed for thirty years

as a pious Muslim who observed the Hajj and the Jihad and
was a loyal subject of the Khalif. In view of what Abd al-
Rahman said and of what he himself had heard of Ahmed s
,

c
answers, al-Mu tasim then exclaimed, Surely, this man is a
c
fakih surely he is a man of learning [ alim]
!
,
and I would !

that I had men such as he with me to take part in managing

[my affairs and to effectually answer the advocates of other

,

religions .
further, professed himself ready to suspend at
He,
once all action against Ahmed, and to support him with
all his power if he would but give him the very slightest
,

1) cf. Dozy, Het Islamisme, 152.

2) al-Makrizi, p. 6, X^.U I jt
^xLfiji

\
Jls
 imission as a ground for doing so. To this Ahmed made
a lnswer in
harmony with what he had said before, asking for
J
some justifying passage from the Koran or from the Tradition
of the Prophet.
This closed the first day s proceedings, and Ahmed was
sent back to his place of confinement, where two men, one a
c
follower of al-Shafi i and a certain Ghassan, of the following
of Ibn Abi Dowad, visited him and engaged in conversation
and disputation with him until the next morning. In the
meanwhile, the evening meal was brought in and the two
visitors partook; but Ahmed, though strongly pressed and

though suffering from hunger, would not touch anything.

Before the audience of the next day Ibn Abi Dowad him
self brought a message from the Khalif enquiring as to
whether Ahmed had changed his mind or not. Ibn Abi Dowad,
also, expressed his personal sorrow at his arrest, especially
in view of the Khalif s resolution not to execute him with
the sword in case he should refuse to recant but to scourge
, ,

him stroke after stroke until he should be brought to a

change of mind or should die under the lash. He assured
Ahmed that the Khalif al-Ma^mun had written his name
among the first seven who were summoned, but that he
had been instrumental in securing its erasure ). To all these 1

persuasions Ahmed replied with the same plea for some sat

isfactory ground from either the Koran or the Tradition

on which to base a change of faith. The man in whose house
he was detained, Ahmed ibn Ammar, was, also, sent to
c

him repeatedly with messages from the Khalif, but all in vain.
Second Day. On the second day, the proceedings were much
the same as those of the previous audience. Whenever they
used the Koran or a tradition of recognized authority Ahmed
shewed himself ready to meet them, and appears to have
been fully able to hold his own. When, however, they
adopted any other method of argument, he refused absolutely
to recognize the validity of their proofs, and maintained a

I) Cf. p. 6 4 .
 io6

stubborn silence. He carried this practice out so thorough!

complained to the Khalif that, when

.

that his opponents

ever the argument was in his favor he had his answer ready,
but, on the contrary, whenever it
went in their favor he
which they adduced. It
simply challenged the testimonies
seems to have troubled him that they should have insisted,
to
as they sometimes did, on the letter of the Koran; and,
not to be too slavish in their
shew them that they ought
adherence to the Koran, he asked one of the disputants
what he had to say about the text, God commanded you
concerning your children, the male portion shall be the
s

portion of two females

The . man replied that the text re
lated specially to the then asked him,
believers. Ahmed
what would be the rule if the man were a murderer, a
this his opponent made no
slave, a Jew,, or a Christian. To
answer. This argument Ahmed apologized for using on
the

ground of their annoying

manner of argument with him;
fand would from this case that he was prepared
it appear
to follow the text of the Koran as closely as practical ne

cessity would allow,

but admitted the need, in special cases, ,

of modification or expansion by means of additional light \

from some other source. This additional light he apparently

.would have borrowed only from well-established Tradition.
On this day, as on the previous one, Ahmed Ibn Abi I

Dowad, whenever opportunity offered, took an active part i

in the discussion. In one of Ahmed ibn Hanbal s three

examinations in this trial, probably in the first or second,

when he had declared his faith in the Koran as uncre
ated, it was retorted upon him that he was setting up a
God
1
His reply was, He
"similar being to (dualistic view) ).
is one God, eternal; none is like him equal. and none is

He
2
is even as he has described himself ).
At the close of
this session a private conference between the Khalif,
Abd

1) Steiner, 77, cf. 90 f.

2) al-Makri i, p. 4,
al-Rahman and Ahmed again occurred, to which Ahmed
ibn Abi Dowad was afterwards called in. At its close,
Ahmed was returned to the place of detention, and the
history of the first night
was repeated. Messengers came and
him before
went, and the two men who had been with
came back and stayed with him through the night. Before
the next day came, Ahmed had a premonition that an
issue would surely be reached at the coming session, and
prepared himself for it.

Third Day. When the messenger came the next day Ahmed
was brought to the palace of the Khalif and his fear began ,

to be confirmed as he saw the great display of pomp

and of
armed men, apparently prepared for some special occasion.

First, there was an audience, in which the learned men

followed another private con
disputed with him, and then
ference in which the Khalif, as before, besought Ahmed
to yield in however slight a degree so that he might grant
,
,

him his freedom. The Khalif assured him of his having as

much compassion for him as he would have for his own
son Harun in such a case. Ahmed s reply was the invaria
of faith ad
ble one, asking for some ground for a change
duced from the only sources which he recognized as author--
itative. Finally the Khalif lost all patience when
he saw
that his hopes of a ground for leniency toward his prisoner
were to be disappointed, and he ordered him to be taken
The flogging then ensued.
Be-
Afrned away and flogged.
Scourged. fore it occurred, a little knot was noticed in the
sleeve of Ahmed s kamis, and he was asked what might
be the explanation of it. said that it held two hairs of
He
the
1
On learning this Ishak ibn Ibrahim saved
Prophet ).

On hairs of the Prophet as charms cf. Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II, 358.
I)
 io8

the kamis from being destroyed. Before and during the course
of the flogging, the Khalif sought to secure from Ahmed a
recantation and seems to have been moved by compassion
,

forhim, though equally moved by a determination to drive

him to repent of his obstinate refusal. Ibn Abi Dowad and
the leaders who were with him did their best, however, to
move Khalif to put Ahmed to death. When bound,
the
Ahmed complained to the Khalif that the punishment he
was inflicting upon him was unlawful according to the dec
laration of the who had said that the blood and
Prophet,
possessions of any man who confessed that
there was no
God but Allah, and that he was God s Messenger, were
- inviolable. Ahmed Ibn Abi Dowad thinking his master in- ,

/-clined weaken out of admiration for Ahmed s spirit and

to

^/courage and from the conviction wrought by his arguments ,

c
reminded al-Mu tasim that, if he yielded, he would cer
tainly be oppose the doctrines of the former Khalif
said to
~~
al-Ma
D
and men would regard Ahmed as having ob
mun ,

tained a victory over two sovereigns, a result which would

stimulate him to assume a leadership fraught with evil con
sequences to the dominion of the Khalifs *). As he was bound
to the whipping-posts the lictors, one hundred and fifty in

al-Makrizi , p. 7 ,

^ J15 **La all!

t aiit

^i of

LJlS

cr ^^ ^
 f
109

number it is said advanced in turn and each struck him

,

two strokes and then went aside ). At first with each stroke 1
,

Ahmed a pious ejaculation, concerning the exact

uttered
tenor of which the accounts vary 2 ). There is an apocryphal
story to the effect that, after he had been struck twenty-

JlS

) al-Subki, p. 136, LJ!

^S [cf. Abu Nu caim, 150^, ^^ ^ A! ijlftj *1

^^
[UXSl

Uis
2) al-Makrizl, p. 8, JlS ^LxJI L-Jyto
&iJ!
^J JlS

^ *i:i
^o yUf Jb" eJUJi Vr .i Uls xlJL ^1

LJ *JLJl
v^T U ^^ Lu**aj J
Jo Js -j
jJ

[read c ?] *-^

l
XJ5
df*jQ j^-J
y^j ; xUi cXxc Lb vyJLfii
j.|jl

"

L5^ <^y^
tfL^ 1

ti)^U ^UAVJ! j.^ (^.j

1

5
o^x]5 ^ o^U ^AJ! i^U^L ^XJL_^! J,!
 no
nine strokes, Ahmed s nether garment threatened to fall to
the ground ,
was miraculously restored to its
but that it

place and fastened securely, in answer to a prayer which

l bl-5

oJtfy JlS J.LiJI & *UJ

^MJ JIS

^ LT ^1 SL&, U J6 e>sJUJ5

JIS MoUl 5
&UL ^t 8^5 ^ J> ^ JIS

J15

y^ot (ji^I^ ^ LJ JIS

gjL**.^ ^5 ^Ji au^ j3j "^

>-^5 JS

^51X1 ^j
UU LstsJ

L?

c LJ vi

*js )

Jyb (^ j-j ^-^ o^Uwi ^LXs JlS

c
 Ill

he uttered. Some accounts go even so far as to

of the

say that a hand of gold was seen to go out from under his

upper garment and adjust what was deranged *). As the

flogging progressed Ahmed lost consciousness under the
blows, and was removed in an unconscious state into a room
near by. Meanwhile, the crowd outside the Palace court
became moved with anger at the Khalif s treatment of

Ahmed, perhaps, too, the report of his collapse had reached

them; in any case, they were preparing to attack the

Palace, when the Khalif ordered the suspension of the

punishment. This order was due, it is likely, more to the

.

c -
fear of the multitude on the part of al-Mu tasim than to

any other cause. One account relates that, even after

Ahmed was brought in unconsciousness to the room, his
torturers continued their abuse by trampling upon him
with their feet. When consciousness came back he was of
fered sawik for the purpose of producing vomiting, but he
refused to take Subsequent to this, he was removed to the
it.

house of Ishak ibn Ibrahim, where, after a short detention, he

was set free, and went to his own dwelling. The date when
all this occurred was within the last ten days of Ramadan

219 A. H., though the particular day is not known ).

Ahmed 2

does not seem to have harbored blame against the Khalif

for having done what he did, and, afterwards, declared
that he had no ill-will against any of those who had taken

part in his persecution.

Sequel to the In his own dwelling he was visited by the
prison physician and treated until
Scourging, he was cured
of his wounds. The scars, however, remained on him to the

day of his death; and he never ceased to suffer from the

dislocation of hiswhich was brought about by
wrists,
to do, of the upper
neglect to take hold, as he was advised
parts [lit. teeth] of the whipping posts.
When he failed to
do this the principal weight of his body was suspended
c
from the wrists. After the scourging, al-Mu tasim brought

[)
vid. foregoing note. 2) Ibn Chall. N. 19.
 112

out Ishak ibn Hanbal (Ahmed s uncle) to the people, and

asked them to witness that he would testify that he [the
Khalif] gave over to them their Imam without hurt or damage
to his body. It is said that if the Khalif had not caused this

deception to be practised, the people would have risen in in-

surrection. As it was however, they were calmed and evil

consequences were averted. It was the wish of Ibn Abi

Dowad that Ahmed should now be imprisoned but ;
al-

Mu c
tasim was angry at the suggestion and commanded ,
his
lieutenant Ishak to set Ahmed free. It is probable, that in
this instance, likewise, fear of a popular uprising deterred
the Khalif from continuing to use severe measures against his
c
prisoner. As matters stood al-Mu tasim gave him the gala dress,
and as already related had him sent to his dwelling; and,
as long as he was confined to his house, had his lieutenant
Ishak enquire every day about his condition. The gala clothes,
however, Ahmed sold and distributed the price in alms *).

slto&f t\*J *Jus aJUf *J

i) al-Makrizi, p. 8, .^^
*j L>

[i. e.
;
Look ye at him. Thou, Ishak ibn Hanbal, Is

he, Ahmed ibn Hanbal, not sound in body? Ishak, thereupon, nodded as

sent. Supply after &.JI ,

oi^W^ Jl5 Jd and after )*A.Jt ,
*.x3 ^
JuJI

JUS L& tiLJo ^ ^J5 ^c J^?. Q l

^ IJcj J^?. ^LS

8.L\.i5
It is related that he remained only sixteen days at the Camp,
c
and during this period used altogether as food a rub of
sawik (i.
e. four handfuls of parched barley ground to meal).

He took every night a dram of water and every third night

a handful of sawik. So much wasted was he by these ex

periences that it was a full six months after his return home
before he seemed like himself again ).
]

Mihna in During the short governorship of al-Muzaffar

Egypt in the ibn Kaidar ,
who succeeded his father in Egypt ,

Reign of there came to him a

from the Khalif al- letter
Mu
al-Mtftatim. tasim
ordering a renewal of the Mihna. Al-
Muzaffar tested the doctors in pursuance of the order he had

J^> JI5

c
_ .^2

tAxs

Abu Nu caim, 142^ f. tX^t LL3

XAW .-. iCXAw

^*3 Lo
LOJ..J
iCaxJL
 H4
received ,
it brought him only an increase of the troubles
but
of his short term of authority, and of the success of the
test we know nothing *). After him we have no specific rec
ord of trials for the Koran in Egypt, but it is sure that
al-Buwaiti underwent an examination in Egypt in the reign
of al-Wathik. A little later on his case will be again noticed.
In the year 231 A. H. al-Wathik sent a letter to his gov
2
ernors commanding the revival of the inquisition ). It must
have been in the examinations which followed this com
3
mand that al-Buwaiti was cited to answer for his faith ).

Ai-Mifta- Al-Subki probably, right when he asserts that

is,
c
? im and al-Mu tasim had not the learning which qualified
the Mihna.h\ m to decide whether the doctrine of the Koran s

creationwas right or wrong, and that the prosecution of

the Mihna by him was due, in great part, to the charge
D
which was left him in the testament of al-Ma mun, and to
, the moving spirit among those by whom he was surrounded 4 ).
*rWe do not hear of any further action against Ahmed on
the part of this Khalif. He died in the year 227 A. H.
c
Al-Wathik After the death of al-Mu tasim and the accession
and Ahmed. of his son Harun al-Wathik, Ahmed became a
very
popular teacher, and was much resorted to. Al-Hasan ibn
G
Ali the Kadi of Baghdad noticing this wrote to Ibn Abi
Dowad of the circumstance. Ahmed ibn Hanbal, however,
heard of what had been done, and of his own will refrained
from teaching, before any action was taken against him. Ibn
Abi Dowad once again tried to persuade al-Wathik to per-

1) Abu 1-Mah. I, 649.

2) Abu 1-Mah. I, 683; al-Sujutf, Tarikh al-Kholafa,

3) Abu 1-Mah. I, 686.

4) al-Subki, p. 145, c

xJI

cf. Weil, Chalifen II, p. 334.

secute Ahmed ,
but was unsuccessful. The Khalif let Ahmed
alone; whether he was moved at all by admiration for him,
or by a superstitious fear that something might happen to
him should he lay violent hands on so holy a man, does
not clearly appear ). It is reported of al-Wathik in relation
1

to the Mihna that he did not personally wish it, but that
the stimulus applied by his minister did not leave him much
opportunity to escape from the work in which the latter
was so zealous. The greater probability, as far as Ahmed
ibn Hanbal enters into consideration, is that al-Wathik, like
his predecessor, feared a popular outbreak should anything
further be visited upon the Imam. And, for the reason that
he wished to please parties, he took the course of asking
all

Ahmed to leave Baghdad, and dwell at a distance from

him. Ahmed, however, did not go away he simply withdrew ;

into a comparative seclusion ,

which he maintained for the

greater part of his remaining life.

Al-Wathik Al-Wathik did, nevertheless, carry on the policy
Prosecutes of his predecessors. His command to all the gov-
the
f#*-ernors of the provinces to apply again the Mihna
for the Koran has been already mentioned 2 ). It was issued

i) al-Makrizi, p. 8 f.
U^^ Q^ **$l ^^33 fAa JLa.lt olo

f
L^I a_c i\-s>^
a* ^LJt *tf

O - -^

lS JutUI .c

3! ^^ jjlc
LJ Ul f$ j-A JasUl Jfe

oL-x>
Q^ ^
vid. Weil, Chalifen II, 340; Abu l-Mahasin I, 691.. 2} vid. p. 114.
 n6
in 231 A. H. It is said that he gave this order, notwith
c
standing the fact that he had withheld his father al-Mu ta-
sim from the application of the Mihna *). We have no record
of those who were subjected to this examination, beyond
the names and accounts of one or two who would not con
fess the doctrine of the Koran s creation and suffered for
their faith.

Ahmed ibn The best known of those who suffered under

Na?r ai- this Khalif was Ahmed ibn Nasr ibn Malik al-Khu-
c
za i
2
)
from the city of Merv, who was of one of

1) Abu 1-Mah. I, 683; al-Sujuti, Tarikh al-Khol. 346.

2) v. Kremer, Herrsch. Ideen des
Isl.
243; Weil,Chal. 11,341 f. ; Dozy, Het
c
Islamisme, 1565 al-Sujuti, Tarikh al-Kholafa, 346; al-Ja qubi, II, 589; Tabari, III,

.;
De Goeje, Fragm. Hist. Arab., I, 529 f.; al-Makrizi, lof. J Js^l wk

UU 3,^1 WAJL& Jj

_.
^a]^ ^
o tf jls J^

a O i

*x ^.
<i
XJ ^-*
; c5*---> yt
KOI-. 29

J15 i^J iJlji

Joti Lo c>J^5 _Lj Ai^r

JLSs
the leading families of his tribe. One of his teachers was
Malik ibn Anas and of his pupils one was Yahya ibn Ma in.
c

Ibn Nasr was, at first, left unmolested, but afterwards was

apprehended for a cause that will be presently shewn. He
was, according to Ahmed ibn Hanbal, a man of noble spirit,
and we know from other sources that he was of distinguished
ancestry, both his father and grandfather having held high
places under the Abbaside khalifs. At the same time, he
had a great name among the orthodox traditionists and was
himself a man of staunch orthodox belief. For this reason,
he had a deep hatred toward the Khalif and Ibn Abi Do-
wad, and openly defied both by his bold profession that
the Koran was the uncreated Word of God. When the people
of the quarter of Baghdad known as Amr ibn Ata saw his
G c

temper and considered his rank, they induced him to lend

his moral and it may be also his material support to a
, ,

conspiracy against the Khalifate. It was all arranged that

the city of Baghdad was to be taken on a certain night,
when the drunkenness of some of the conspirators on the
night previous to that which had been appointed led them
to give the signal for the attack on that night, with the
result that the mass of the confederates did not respond,
and the leaders of the conspiracy were at once arrested by
order of the acting-governor, Mohammed ibn Ibrahim, their
arrest being due to the turning State s-evidence of one of
the subordinate plotters. Strangely enough, when brought
before al-Wathik, the latter asked Ibn Nasr nothing about
his part in the incipient insurrection but began instead to
, , ,

question him about the Koran and the actual seeing of God on
the day of Resurrection *) perhaps, because the case against
;

him on this count was much stronger than it would have been
on that of sedition. When
al-Wathik questioned him about
his belief relative to the Koran, he, however, in reply, would

give nothing but that he believed it to be the Word of God.

i) al-Wathik had forbidden his subjects to profess either of these beliefs ,

Houtsma, De Strijd over het Dogma, 109.

 n8
One rather inflated tradition represents that Ibn Abi Do-
wad urged the Khalif to give his prisoner a delay, as he
was an old man temporarily out of his senses and would
come to a better mind if allowed time. Al-Wathik in the
tradition appears as rejecting this view, and as declaring
that Ibn Nasr s unbelief had disciplined him to the view he
had expressed. Whatever may be the truth of this story,
the trial had not proceeded far when the Khalif called for
the execution carpet and the sword Samsama; and, desiring
to be allowed to personally strike off the obstinate infidel s
head, as he expected to be rewarded by Heaven for dispos
ing of him, he was allowed to try to despatch the martyr.
He could not accomplish it, however, and Sima al-Dimashki
had to come to his aid and dispose of the man. The head
was then ordered to be sent to Baghdad where for some ;

days it was exposed to view in the eastern part of the city, and
then for some days in the western part, after which it was
fixed up permanently in the eastern portion. The execution
c
occurred on the second last day of Sha ban, 231 A. H., and
the trunk and head remained exposed to public view for six
years, until the Khalif al-Mutawakkil ordered them to be
taken down, and handed over for burial to Ahmed ibn
Nasr s relations *).

A
fabulous story, to the effect that the head, after being
exposed, recited the Koran until it was buried, is equalled
by another which relates that long years afterwards, a hunt
,

ing party found the body and head of Ahmed ibn Nasr
buried in the desert sand and that there was not the slight
,

decay upon them

2
est indication of ).

1) Abu 1-Mah. I, 719.

2) al-Subki, p. 142 f.
 Nu aim ibn Hammad was another who held out.
c

Hammad. He was the fourth of a quartette who came from

Merv and endured with steadfastness the Mihna; the first
was Ahmed ibn Hanbal and the others, Mohammed ibn Nuh
al-Madrub and Ahmed ibn Nasr. Nu aim ibn Hammad studied
c

c
Tradition a great deal in the Hijaz and lrak and went, after
wards, to Egypt. In the Khalifate of al-Wathik, he was
brought from Egypt and examined and not satisfying the ; ,

demand made upon him to confess the Koran to be created,

he was thrown into prison where he died ). 1

Abu, Yefkub Abu Ya c kub, Yusuf ibn Yahya al-Buwaiti, the

c
pupil of al-Shafi i to whom he entrusted his cir
al-Buwaiti.

cle of scholars at his death, was imprisoned for his refusal

to acknowledge that the Koran was created and died in ,

c c
prison 232 A. H. One of his fellow Shafi ites, al-Rabi ibn
Suleiman, relates that he saw al-Buwaiti in his chains, and
heard him saying, God created the creation by Kun [Be!],
but, if Kun be created then it is as if a created thing created
,

By God
2
what was created ).
! I will die in these thy chains, that

i) al-Makrizi, p. n,

2) Kun is here employed as synonymous with a manifestation of the Heavenly

Word of God (as explained later in the present work). Al-Buwaiti seems to have
been in full agreement with his master al-Shafil, and the latter in turn with
Ahmed, as Koran was concerned (cf. p. 49 and Abu 1-Mah. I,
far at least as the

686). The discussion of Kun in Houtsma, De Strijd etc., 129, seems to look
l

toward other views than those held by the orthodox at the time of the Mihna.
 120

those coming after us may know that men have died in then
bonds for this cause and ; ,
if I go in to him [al-Wathik], I

will declare the truth before prison he wrote to him . From

c
al-Rabi ibn Suleiman entrusting him with the care of his
circle of pupils and bidding him be faithful to them ).
,
l

The remaining history of the Mihna the reign of al-

in
Wathik is shortly told. There is one incident which is in
keeping with the fanatical bigotry shewn by Ahmed ibn
Abi Dowad in his efforts to establish the doctrine that the
-Koran was created. In the year 231 A. H. it was proposed ,

Ransom to ransom 4600 prisoners from the Greeks, when

of
Prisoners Ibn Abi Dowad suggested that they should ransom
from the
only such as admitted the creation of the Koran ,

Greeks.
anc t jlat these should each receive two dinars on
j

their release. This was actually done and a small number ,

of prisoners, who could not bring their consciences up to

the point of meeting the test, were left unredeemed in the
hands of the Greeks 2 ).

i) Hammer- Purgstall Lit. Gesch. Ill, p. 200,

,
N. 1050; al-Sujuti, Tarikh
al-Khol. 350; Abu 1-Feda Ann. II, 132; Fihrist I, 212; Abu l-Mahasin , I,
686; al-Makrizi, p. n, cXjJ

J^ 013 [cf. Kor. 6 , 72]

2) Tabari III, t^dt flf.;

De Goeje, Fragm. Hist. Arab. II, 531; Abu l-

Mah. I, 684; al-Subki, p. 146.

 121

Al-Wdtldif Sur-
Al-Wathik is generally considered to have
renders the Doc- given up the doctrine of the Mihna before his
trine of the death and an incident *) which we may ac-
,

Korfats Creation.
cept as fundamentally true accounts for its ,

Alleged surrender. Ibn Abi Dowad caused to be brought

Cause, before the Khalif a sheikh of Adhana on the charge
of heresy. The Khalif bade him discuss the question of the
creation of the Koran with Ibn Abi Dowad, but the old
man objected on the ground that Ahmed ibn Abi Dowad
was a Sabaean and was too unsound in his views to spend
words upon. At this al-Wathik began to be very angry, but
the sheikh promised to prove his points, if the Khalif would
but give close attention to the discussion which was to take
place between them.
To begin with, the sheikh asked Ibn Abi Dowad if his
view were to be looked upon as an essential of the believ
er s creed. The latter answered that it was to be so re

garded. Then the sheikh pointed out that God having sent ,

Mohammed with a revelation to his people, the Messenger

of God did not leave unpublished any part of the Divine
Message. Ibn Abi Dowad allowed that Mohammed had fully
delivered the Message. His opponent then asked if (on the ,

basis of the revelation made through him) the Prophet had

called upon men
to accept the doctrine of the Koran s cre
ated existence. Ibn Abi Dowad gave to this no answer,
and the sheikh claimed from al-Wathik one point establish
ed in proof of his charges. The Khalif allowed the point.
The second Koran 5.5, This
step was the quotation of
day have I
completed you your religion and perfected
for

my grace upon you and the sheikh asked how any new
;

doctrine could be justifiable in view of such a passage. Ibn

Abi Dowad did not attempt a defence of his position against
this assault upon it, and the sheikh claimed his second

point, which al-Wathik conceded him.

i) v. Kremer, Herrsch. Ideen, 243 ff.; al-Sujuti, Tarikh al-Kholafa, 347 f.

;

Abu 1-Mah. I, 691 f.

5 al-Makrizi, p. 9 f .
; al-Subki, p. 143.
 122

In the third place the old man asked if the Prophet had
,

known the doctrine now propounded, and if he had ever

men to
invited accept it. Ibn Abi Dowad claimed that Mo
hammed knew the doctrine, but he would not answer the
question as to whether the Prophet had made its profession
obligatory upon the believer or not. Here the sheikh claimed
his third and final point. But he did not stop here. He
argued that allowing Mohammed to have
,
known the doc-
trine in point and the early Khalifs to have known it ; seeing
that both he and they had been satisfied to refrain from
obliging men to confess the tenet of the Koran s creation,
was it the part of a modern zealot to do what they had
done? Supposing they did believe as he did, was it not
his part to keep his belief a mere private opinion as they
had done, instead of forcing people to think as himself? A
companion of the Khalif al-Muhtadi who tells this story says
that al-Muhtadi, who was present on the occasion, gave up
the doctrine of the creation of the Koran from this time,
and that al-Wathik ordered the sheikh to be at once set
free, and, apparently, himself believed no longer as he had
believed Koran. Other accounts say that al-
relative to the
Wathik changed view before he died, and, in the con
his
nection where it occurs in the Arabic record, the testimony
of al-Muhtadi is cited to shew that the incident above given
occurred toward the end of al-Wathik s Khalifate *).

Al-Mutawakkil Al-Mutawakkil began to reign in 232, and

Abrogates the the Mihna continued to exist for two years
reign, being brought to a close in the
in his

year 234. The whole term of its duration was, thus, from the
D
last year of al-Ma mun, 218 A. H. to the second or third ,

year of al-Mutawakkil, 234 A. H. In the latter year, al-

Mutawakkil stopped the application of the test and by pub ,

lic proclamation throughout the Empire forbade men on

78, says al-Wathik brought the Mihna to a close. But

the truth
i) Steiner,
is that he went no further than to change his view in relation to the Koran
and to purpose abrogating the test. His death prevented him from actually
carrying his purpose into effect.
 I2 3

to profess the creation of the Koran. At

l

pain of death
)

this there was great rejoicing everywhere. Men praised the

virtues of the Khalif, and forgot his vices; prayers for bless

ing upon him were heard on all sides and his name was
mentioned with those of the good Khalifs Abu Bekr and
c
Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz. Two things alone were remembered
against him by his Muslim subjects, both of which occurred
in the year 236 A. H. The one was the permission granted
for the sack of Damascus to the Turkish soldiery (the event
however did not happen); and the other, the destruction of
the tomb of al-Hosain together with the buildings round
about it, and the conversion of the land into fields 2 ).

1) On
death penalty for heresy cf. Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II, 216.

2) cf.Kremer, Herrsch. Ideen d. Isl. 245 ff.; cf. Dozy, Het Islam. 163;
v.

cf. Ibn Chall. N. 1335 Abu 1-Mah. I, 691, 695, 702; al-Sujuti, Tar. al-Khol.
c
3525 al-Ja qubi II, 592; al-Subki, p. 143, jLbj &u&! (
aJ\P -*l jlk vXSj

Jl
[Abu 1-Mah. I, 714]

LJL*Jt J^iJ Lo
J* v3 JJCSii

JlXfii _5 idxj *I c^^^^s

jJ|j ij^aj

[Abu 1-Mah. I, 712; Fragm. Hist. Arab. II, 546.]

 124

Taking a general survey of the inquisition

!
in-
General )
D
Surveyof augurated by al-Ma mun and carried on by the ,

the Milina. two

succeeding Khalifs we can say that as an at ,

tempt to stamp out by force moral convictions it was a

failure from the start for in the Muslim world as everywhere
; ,

else ,
there was an admiration and a moral support accorded
by the great body of the people to those who suffered per
secution ,
such as might have led men far less sincere than
Ahmed ibn Hanbal to stand out against a tyrannous crusade
of repression
2
).
That the principles of the strictest orthodox

al-Makrizi, p. 10, &JL*-

JS ^3- -J L\4^ At U-AJL^wO 3 Jf J,*5 U

y!

A short account of the Mihna and its issues is to be found, Dozy, Het
1)
Islamisme, 154-ff-

Strijd etc. io6f.) appears to make

Houtsma (De the motive for the re
2)
sistance orthodox theologians to their rationalistic opponents one of
of the

religious policy. If they surrendered

the doctrine of the uncreated nature of

the Koran, the hope of the universal spread of Islam would have to be given

up. I have not found this motive alleged in any of my sources , but can well

believe it may have been a secondary, though not a primary one. The
that

primary motive was altogether personal. Ahmed and those who stood with
him had a simple belief, incapable of analysis, in the eternity and unorigin-
ateness of the Koran they hoped , too , for a reward if they
maintained their
;

and feared grave spiritual consequences should the doctrine

faith at all costs,

be given up. The honor of God, the Divine Legation of the Prophet, the
the everlasting well-
unique and ineffable dignity of the Koran, and, finally,
 125

as blar f w hich Ahmed representative ,_

was the leading
wou not win waytheir generations of Islam _
in the following

not because had been killed out by persecution _ ,

?/as they
ut because a more liberal and enlightened
sentiment had -
been introduced into the Muslim commonwealth; because^
the yoke this Puritanism would have imposed was one
which
concerns of
people could not bear amid
the practical every
rested upon casuistries,
day life; and because the system
in their prem
which, though deductively perfect, were false
ises and could never have satisfied the untrammeled com
the devel
mon sense of men. The inquisition only retarded

opment of freer and purer conceptions among the adherents

of the religion of the Prophet. But the retardation was not
an unmixed evil. It checked, for a time, a philosophical

movement, to give it a theological and religious concern,

without which the Muslim people would have had for their
teachers men indifferent to practical questions of religious
lifeand observance, and unsympathetic in their attitude
toward popular theological conceptions.
Of the men, persecuting and persecuted, connected with
the Mihna, Ahmed ibn Hanbal comes out with the greatest
credit to himself. Bishr ibn al-Harith al-Hafi had a saying
that God had cast Ahmed ibn Hanbal into the crucible

and he had come out pure gold. Ahmed s method of argu

l

ment was no more unsound than that of his opponents ).

being of their own souls

and the souls of those who looked to them for an
orthodox apologetic, which
example these are expressed motives for the
in some cases became a defence of conviction
even unto death. The faith in
at the root of all their
the Divine and uncreated nature of the Koran lay
in this defence. In the historical instances of such a re
arguments and actions
rather than any considerations
sistance as this the personal element of conviction,
of the defence which has
of religious policy , has been the moving principle
been put forward.
The statement of Houtsma (De Strijd etc. 106) would give the impres
i)
sion tha^ the orthodox when in disputation with their opponents had no ar
to offer, and were quite incapable of dealing with
guments worth mentioning
of view nei
those stood against them. Judging from a modern point
who
had judged from a Muslim standpoint, the
ther side very strong points ; but,
 126

They had, on philosophical grounds, declared the : i n-

as well as the attributes of God, to be created; but, we
they opposed him, they sought to convict him of error OK
his own ground and by his own method of proof, and he
,

seems to have had the better of them in most of their word

passages. The arguments used were childish enough, but
not more so for him than for them. The fact that he had
earnest convictions to defend, and that many of those who
stood against him had been either frightened or bribed into
.taking their present stand, stood him in good stead, and
.must command our respect as we, to-day, review the whole
historical scene in which he is a figure.
D
As mun he evidently disliked the slavishness of
to al-Ma ,

orthodoxy, and was impatient at its many absurdities; but

he shewed at the same time how easy it is for a learned
man to display a disdainful and narrow spirit toward the

unlearned, for a philosopher to become a dogmatist, and

for an advocate of liberal views to become a
tyrant toward
those of stricter beliefs.
Ahmed ibn Abi Dowad was a man whom one find:: it

difficult to credit with earnest convictions. His

first master,
D
al-Ma mun, may be credited with acting in the belief that
he was right and in the consequent wish to secure the gen
eral adoption of his opinions; but his minister will not be

misjudged if we look upon him as actuated by contempt

and violent hatred toward men of strict life and toward
zealous advocates of religious duties, whose puritanism ap-
.

peared in his eyes to be but pharisaic hypocrisy. He is not

disputations which are recorded in these pages shew that the orthodox had
the great arguments of the Word of God and the Tradition and could wield
,

these as well or better than their opponents. Ishak ibn Ibrahim the
governor,
Abd-al-Rahman ibn Ishak , and al-Mu c tasim are all said to have been impressed
by the force of what Ahmed ibn Hanbal said and the way in which he said
it. Steiner (Die Mu c
taziliten , 8) says that the Mu c
tazila used the Kc-*n inter
preting it
allegoricallyand giving their reasonings a philosophical cast. Houtsma,
c
(De Strijd etc. 80) speaks of the Mu tazila as being, in general, men lacking
in earnestness and given to dialectic trifling in disputation.
 12;

as black a character as the

partisans of Ahmed ibn Hanbal
would represent him to be, but I have met no record
of his connection with the Mihna which shews him as
other than arbitrary and
unfeeling, except the isolated
reference in the trial of Ahmed ibn Nasr the
conspirator
whom al-Wathik put to death. There we have
as"
already ,

seen, Ibn Abi Dowad suggests, when al-Wathik

grows
angry with Ibn Nasr for persisting in his belief, that the
prisoner is an old man whose mind is deranged, but who
differently when he has had time to come to
will see

himself. This account, be it

remarked, occurs in al-Sub-
ki s of Ahmed ibn
Jabakat (life Hanbal), where Ibn Abi
Dowad finds from the author an
apology for his acts in
more than one instance, but in each case the
apology
is a personal opinion of the author of the
book, rather
than well supported historical tradition. In earlier
accounts,
and in later as well, Ibn Abi Dowad is
put before us
as an able man, with eminent social
qualities, but with
a persecuting spirit in
administration; and, though we have
said that al-Ma mun wished to enforce the
Mihna before
he really did so, we must remember that he
actually did
not do so of his own motion, but that it was Ibn Abi-
Dowad alone who turned the scale which
brought about-
the long tyranny of sixteen years ending shortly after al--
Mutawakkil s accession. We
can believe too, that had it
not been for him the Mihna would have
lapsed for want ,
of interest or from positive distaste on the c
part of al-Mu ta-^
sim or al-Wathik.
For al-Mu c tasim s
part in this movement we have not"
to say. He
found no pleasure in the wretched bus-
jnuch
u
of persecuting men s
convictions, and clearly shewed
^s
Ahmed s case that, had it not been for
^ obligations which
fie held to be
inviolable, he would have had nothing to do
with the enforcement of the test as to the Koran.
Al-Wathik as to his part in the Mihna is in
,
somewhat
,

greater degree a return to al-Ma D mun. Like his

predeces
sors was dominated by Ibn Abi
he, too, Dowa d. The re-
 128

corded cases, very few in number, of those whom he tried

for Koran evince cruelty as a feature of this Khalif s

the
character, and that of Ahmed ibn Nasr, in particular, is
1
positively brutal ).

Not much can be said in favor of those who yielded in

the Mihna. The assent of the first seven who were summon
ed to the Khalif s presence was the fatal factor which led
to the following up of the persecution. Still, it was not the
less weakness in those who recanted afterwards that they
should have been terrified into submission. The doctrine
of the Takia was generously applied to them by their friends
and companions, and, no doubt, saved them a great deal
in the estimation of the public; but their course was not
felt by themselves to have been creditable, and bitter was

the regret of men like Yahya ibn Ma in that the sword

c

should have frightened them into surrender of a doctrine

which was felt to be the truth. It is the fault of an ,age__ol
controvej^L, that theological opinions are based too much
on the logic of words, and not upon verities from which
the moral and intellectual judgment cannot separate itself.
This was the case with the doctrine of the unoriginate na
ture of the Koran. Its evidences were simply words, and it
was only an exceptional character like Ahmed ibn Hanbal ,

who had seen the purely speculative question of the Koran s

origin in relations, the maintenance of which seemed to him
to involve the very existence of his religious life and faith,
to whoma surrender of his opinion became of transcendent
moment. Others had not the same great conception of the
question that he had they knew it only as one of the con
,

^
troverted points in the_4EJtejmic_ which was going on^abo 1

them. The surrender of it might be a victory for an e iad

%
d
^lenT, but it was worth making for the sake of one s l

Those who yielded took, at a later date, a more serious

view of what they had done, but, at the time when they

i) In the account of Ahmed ibn Nasr s execution, p. 118, we have sup

pressed the more harrowing features.
 I2 9

committed the act of denying their own confession ,

it
ap
peared as simply a question of yielding an unessential point
and acknowledging themselves beaten. Even their plea of the
Takia cannot be taken as rendering this explanation nuga
tory; though it might seem to suggest that they looked upon
their act as one involving the cardinal sin of apostasy, to
which sin the Takia stood specially related. This plea was but
an excuse used for effect upon the people and was not of , ,

course, an explanation of how they came to do what they

had done. Ahmed ibn Hanbal excused them on this ground ,

but his excuse contemplates the act after its commission and
finds grounds of pardon for it. It does not offer any expo
sition of its inward cause and significance. The Takia itself

might render impossible the proving of an act to be apos

tasy, for it could often be urged that a man s apostasy was
but in word ,
while in heart he was sound in the faith.

Notwithstanding the testimony of historians to al-Muta-

wakkil s cruelty, it cannot be said that he ever shewed any
unkindness or impatience \with Ahmed ibn Hanbal. He might
have been provoked to acts of harshness by Ahmed s peev
ishness had he allowed himself to yield to the provoca
tion, but he was, instead, constantly kind and thoughtful
of the old man s comfort and welfare. He does not
appear
to have been as intolerant in matters of religion as his
c
predecessors unless his hostility to
, Alyite movements be
counted as of a religious character ). We are justified, in my __
judgment, in assuming that the interest in religion and theol-_
ogy which he shewed was not that of a persecuting partisan
of a political faction but of a sincere though fanatical re
,

2
ligious bigot ). His connection with orthodoxy was, because
free from any immediate and violent display of
persecuting
3
spirit ), hardly from a political motive. Counter persecution

1) On this hostility cf: pp. 140, 152; Abu 1-Mah. I, 712.

2) For a different view cf.
Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II, 57, 665 Dozy, Het
Islamisme, 163.
3) Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 113 infra.

9
 1
3o

would surely have followed the persecution already past,

had al-Mutawakkil desired to make capital out of his con
nection with orthodoxy. It is more likely that his relation to
theology and religion is to be explained by temperament
and revulsion of feeling from the course of his predecessors.
The latter, indeed, had already shewn strong signs that,
personally, they were weary of the inquisition. They, how
ever, still accorded in their theological views with the
persecuting party and were subject to their influence. Al-
c
Mutawakkil was, apparently, a Shan ite ). None will deny
that his theological position made him friends as a result ,

but, however black his record may be, and whatever there
may be to blame in his narrow bigotry, we think that his
-intention was only to reform abuses in religion as he saw them 2 ).

III.

Al-Mutawakkil ^n tne eai years of al-Mutawakkil s reign

"ly

and Ahmed there were those who sought to injure Ahmed

ibn Hanbal. w ith the Khalif 3 ). One report, in particular, was

1) al-Sujuti,
Tarikh al-Khol. 359.

2) Nearly all European writers impute political motives to this Khalif, as

D
well as to al-Ma mun when he inaugurated the persecution. It may be ad
mitted that al-Mutawakkil recognized the futility of persecution as long as the

great mass of his subjects were of orthodox sympathies (Houtsma, 112); but
the which appears to be well established, that al-Mutawakkil was per
fact,
sonallyorthodox in his theological convictions, as w ell as the other facts r

which have been noticed in the text, would seem to fully account for what
he did. It is nowhere stated in the original sources which I have consulted

that he had any other motive than that of personal religious preference. Out
of this personal ground sprang his intension to bring about a restoration of
c
orthodoxy. His antagonism to Alyites , too was more that of a fanatical re
,

presentative of certain views than that of a man who hoped to make himself
more popular with the majority by the step he took. The public feeling when
he destroyed the tomb of al-Husain shews this.
c
3) Abu Na aim, 150^ ff. (This
source is now followed with a few ex-

ceptions which are noted)- ^ ^5

 that he had charged with Atheism the predecessors of
ie

US

US

JUQI
[Cod. ^x [Cod.

[cod.

j Uls

U ^^I>i
o i

[Cod. &

r >>x!
[Cod. auJL^] ^-^ [
Read

t
J15 Jf CJLc [Cod. AA] aJUc t
,
Jo^l

*Lfti i

Xi Jf

Jf
 \

132

the Khalif a report which the latter did not appear to con-

*JU Ju^ls j&SUcI lyJo \JI

?

[Cod. ujistj

CT ^A
j-j JS <

bj ill
- o _

iX-5 J L**J i^LJUi (j.

rH^ ^W J**
^
O^

Byo Lg-^s BjAj -^j^ ^ Jyii*i J^ xiyw ^O 0"^

Byix t^ujt ^
3
L^L\^ Jf l^-JI j^j j^JLs r*-^ ?^ ^ ^^ }-^l(

&3* cr

Lb *}
JlSj
JkJLc *;*!) Lo

y *a [Cod. JuL>W
&l

\> iLo b

b JUs a^-JI

Jyb _j

o Uli ^A

xSL>
^ ^ y^JJ! (j^J3 L^k L^sj ^5
 133

sider very seriously, for he is said to have ordered the man

5 Jo xit
(J/.UJ! ^^ L^J

J^ b ^oA^ ^ jUs JI5

LJLs

U J^x

AC Llj
_oo
^iUw

Jo jLfti
^U ^ J^ *Ts?
^LXjj ^b ^ Jpl

s t
sciL
f^yH kV i5^^
yo! ^t jUs Xj^ljw Q

.
^

oyis
 134

who made it to be flogged for trying to injure a good subject.

,-J JL5

A! ^ O ^yl
t L\-S
^J JI5
fS [i.
c. x

JLi /i^ _ *. _ ] ^_A_JI . Lo &) v^>v.lii5

/^.xXj *.^^xJLJ5
^^ a^.xv<xii

JLjl
> ,
[Cod. omits]

j &JJI LXxc blj JUis J^iJt Q, L5 x^ olc Jf

ci j
c^J._/o X.A-WW

Jli &J lo A! ^Jl.ii.2 8^.^.JLis [Cod. (j^AJlj

[Cod.
_ ^

[Cod. ^xj] (ji2*J Job [Kor. 20. 57]

 135

L I5 4
cLo

j. ts
s
v^l JLii: ^LXj
,

Ji
^iab

^3
BJ^UL t^>
!3I UCs v.ax asu

jL-ii-s
^j-^
"bJI KJLc ^j Lo

^3l5
[cod. J,^ J^L boLl lii
lyl Ulj

iC-d.O

Lo Ul
 136

L jULs yj>
LLJ [cod. Q
dU3 9 i -Aj jS

JL_J JJLt!

^- [Cod. AAa.o]

cr v^^

Ju

JLS-9 o Uxj Lg.^ [Cod. b

L.L JLfis v^ftj

Ijlj .^Jl jLfti * K UJL5

\JLJI

LJUI ^ Jb"

* G , ., .. _ G_
jL-j ^,\M ^iJi [Kor. 17. ..Ly
(jls tXi^ 36] "^.wwo

Kor. 5. i]

3t JL3
 137

5
ILcf LJ JdJt

[Cod. JU^j U A*x9

us

jLfti

Lo c^JtsJ

^13 [Cod. -^.] -^

x^i to

XxJ! XxXi Jy^J! ^ jfe

^l

[Cod.

^^0 ^ ^ [Cod.
Jls
(jolsjj

iiU.e J>j
[Cod. gtexslc] likXxifc sJUl

li

LJ

^X] ^ixJLj QL^ L\Ji5

LxAai^ ^
l. Lo bis aus Ljl Al

jl JS LjJ Aflt U

a-JI

LLi [Kor. 9- 33",

61. 9]

a *J
O i

j
[Cod.
 139

First invitation An invitation from the Khalif to Ahmed to

to Visit al- visit him was brought to him before the end
Mutawakkil of the year 235 A. H. by Ishak ibn Ibrahim ), ]

who on this occasion asked Ahmed s forgiveness for the part

c
which he had taken in the scourging under al-Mu tasim.
Ahmed in reply assured him that he had fully forgiven
, ,

all who had sought his hurt, or participated, in any way,

and Conversation on that ccas n Ishak then proceeded to ask i -

with ishalc ibn Ahmed for his own private satisfaction about
Hn-ahim on the the Koran and the latter expressed himself,
,

Subject of the as he uniformly did to the effect that it was ,

the uncreated Word of God. Ishak then asked

for the
proofs of the statement, and Ahmed, in answer,
citedKoran 7.52, Are not the Creation and the Command
his? and pointed out that in the passage a distinction
was made between the Creation and the Command. The
Command* ^M ,
in controversies of this kind refers to the
eternal and heavenly Word of God, just as does Kun on ,

page 119. Ishak said, The Command is created What! ex .

claimed Ahmed, the Command created! Nay, it creates that

which is created Ishak then asked, Who has handed down
.

in Tradition the view that it is not created ? Ahmed an

c
swered, Ja far ibn Mohammed, who said, It is neither a creator
"

nor a created thing" 1 ). Then, this conversation being ended

and Ishak having secured Ahmed s agreement to go to the
camp, it was not long before he was on the way thither;
but, for some unexplained cause, orders came while the

Lot *ljt

Ishak ibn Ibrahim, the governor of c lvak, as well as Ishak ibn Ibrahim
1)

al-Mausili, the favorite of the Khalifs, died in 235 A. H. The one referred
to in the text is ,
of course the former.
,

2)This appears to be not only an authentic tradition, but, as well, the

clearest and most direct which was offered by the orthodox in
support of
their view.
 140

journey was in progress for him to be returned to his home.

c
altogether likely that a suspicion of Alyite leanings in
It is

Ahmed ibn Hanbal afford an explanation of this fact. As will

presently appear, Ahmed was two or three times accused ot

such leanings to this Khalif.

^ n t ^ie ^ ear 2 37 A. H. information was given to
Ahmed Ac- ,

cused of the Khalif charging Ahmed with having sent one

c
CAlyite in- of his companions to meet an Alyite who was
tngucs.
coming to him from Khorasan. On hearing this, the
Khalif wrote a letter to Abdallah ibn Ishak, governor of
Baghdad (who had succeeded his brother Mohammed and
,

his father Ishak ibn Ibrahim in the office) asking him to

inquire of Ahmed
as to the truth of the charge laid against

him, and, also, to search his premises and make sure in the
matter. In pursuance of these directions, Abdallah sent his cham
berlain Muzaffar and the postmaster Ibn al-Kalbi *) together ,

with women who were to examine the women s apartments, to

carry out the orders which had come to hand. When they were
come and had read to Ahmed the Khalif s letter, he protested
that the report was without foundation, and that he was in all

respects a loyal subject ). The searching of the premises, too,

2

revealed nothing to substantiate the charge against him.

The result was reported to the Khalif, and a day or two
later ,
a letter from Ali ibn al-Jahm 3 ) to Ahmed
there came
saying that the Khalif was fully satisfied of the groundless
ness of the report, and that it had been fabricated by her
G
etics with the design of injuring him. The letter of Ali
intimated, likewise, the Khalif s wish that Ahmed should

1) For employment of postmasters in this sort of detective service vid.

Houtsma, 71.

2) Ahmed had been keeping to his house up to this time, following the

orders of Ishak the former govei nor. On theologians keeping to their houses
cf. Gold/iher, Moh. Stud. II, 94. On the similar practice by the so-called
Kac ada (still-sitters) cf. Houtsma, De Strijd etc., 26 f.

c
3) Ali ibn al-Jahm banished to Khorasan and killed there by al-Mutawak-
kil s directions, 239 A. H., vid. Ibn Chall. N.
473; Abu 1-Mah. I, 730; Abu
1-Feda Ann. II, 190.
 Second invi- y ^ him, and advised that a
s
messenger was on
i

tation from the way with^ a gift of money from the Khalif.
al-Muta- The day following the arrival of the letter the
wakktl. IT- n AI TT-
messenger, Ya kub Kausarra arrived bringing, in ,

official form, the invitation

already alluded to, and hand
ing over the sum of 10,000 dirhems as the royal gift (s;jb>).
c
Ya kub went away, telling Ahmed that he would re
then
turn next morning for an answer to his
message. That night
was a sleepless one for Ahmed. The
gift of al-Muta wakkil,
which he had given into the
charge of Salih his son, troub
led him greatly. he made up his mind to be rid
Finally,
of the money altogether, and, rising betimes in the morn
ing, he summoned persons whom he ordered to take por
tions to the descendants of the Muhajirun and Ansar and
to the geneial
poor, until the whole sum received had been
paid out. It was a great grief to him that now at the end
of his life, after he had
successfully resisted anything of the
kind for so long a time, he was to be forced to be a
com- /
promised pensioner on the bounty of the Khalif, a rela-
tionship which he with all his might sought to avoid, and
from which after this he succeeded in
keeping himself al
most entirely free to the very end of his
days. When word
came to the Khalif of Ahmed s action, cAli ibn
al-Jahm
prevented his master s displeasure by the explanation that
such a man as Ahmed had no need of
money, for his liv
ing consisted but of a crust of bread.
In a short time, Ahmed
was on his way to the Khalif.
Of the journey nothing of special interest is
recorded, save
that he availed himself of the
legal provision that the prayers
might be shortened while travelling, and that he,
interpreting
the provision as positive and not
merely permissive, on one
occasion complained that Salih his son had made the
prayers
Arrived at. the camp, he was first
too^long. lodged in the house
of Itakh ) J
and word was sent to his sons from the Court
,

that an allowance of 10,000 dirhems had been

appointed
v. p. 144, note 2.
 142

to be given them, in place of the money which had been

given away by at the same time
their father. It was , ,

specially ordered that their father should not be told of the

matter. Al-Mutawakkil now sent his greeting to Ahmed, and
congratulated him on his escape from the attempts of his
enemies to involve him in suspicions. If we may believe the
record, and we probably may, al-Mutawakkil also expressed
his pleasure at Ahmed s presence, as he wished to consult him
in the matter of Ibn Abi Dowad, who had just fallen into

disgrace ). Very soon a wish of the Khalif was made known

to Ahmed that he should remain with him to teach Tradi
tion and give up the idea of returning to Baghdad. Especi

ally did the Khalif desire him to undertake the teaching

c
Ahmed Objects
f al-Mu tazz ,
his favorite son 2
).
From all this

to Remain at Ahmed tried to excuse himself on the ground

the Camp of physical infirmity, pointing to his loose teeth
and other evidences of age and weakness. He declared his
belief to be that the invitation and entertainment were, to

gether, parts of a conspiracy to keep him in restraint to

and Virtually make him a prisoner while yet the guest of
Gives up his Sovereign. And he vowed a vow that he
would never as long as he lived tell another
complete tradition. Some say that this vow extended over
the last eight years of his life; but if he came to the Kha
lif 237 A. H. and took upon him the vow in order to
in ,

escape detention where he was, the duration of its binding

force was a little over four years. It may be that the vow
was taken when al-Wathik requested him to leave Baghdad ,

for we know that he ceased to teach during the latter months

of that Khalif s reign still as a matter of fact we have in
; , ,

this case more than eight years, and, on the whole, it seems
desirable to date his final cessation of teaching from the
time of this visit to al-Mutawakkil, when he was
73 years
of age and, as we really know, a man much weakened in
his physical constitution.

1) vid. note 2, p. 56.

2) al-Sujuti, Tankh al-Khol. 357.
 143

The interest of It appears to have been some time before

al-Mtitawakkil Ahmed was summoned to the Palace; but, in
in Ahmed. the
meantime, the Khalif shewed a friendly
interest in him and evinced a respect for his
learning by
submitting to him questions for his judgment upon them.
One of these was the following: Supposing two animals to be
fighting with their horns, and the one mortally wound the
other; may the wounded animal if slaughtered be used for
food? Ahmed s answer was that, if the animal shewed signs
of life by moving its eyelids and by switching its tail, and
if its blood was still
flowing and not congealed, it might be
slaughtered and eaten.
His Visit to At last he was ordered to appear in the pres-
,

the Palace, ence of the Khalif s son al-Mu c tazz. It was a sore

affliction to Ahmed when Yahya ibn Khakan came to fit on

him the Court costume but he was induced to allow it to be
,

put upon him, though put it on himself he would not. On

this occasion, Yahya ibn Khakan told the sons of Ahmed
that a stipend of 4000 dirhems per month had been ordered
to be paid to them, but that their father was not to know of
it. On arriving at the Palace, Ahmed was well received, though
there is but a very scant notice of the audience. After his
return to his lodgings from this first visit to his new
protege ,

he felt badly over the sin he thought he had committed in

wearing the fine clothes he had been obliged to put on;

and, at once removing them, he ordered his son Salih to send
them to Baghdad, where they were to be sold and their price
given to the poor. His own family he forbade to reserve any
of the garments for their personal use; but,
notwithstanding,
Salih kept the bonnet. Ahmed s peace of mind was mu/h
disturbed at this time, also, over his prospective visits tV
the Sovereign himself, and the charge he should have as V
tutor to the Khalif s son; for it seems that al-Mutawakkil
did not, at first, take into consideration the vow which Ahmed
had taken not to tell Tradition perfectly.
It is not likely that he really appeared before al-Muta
wakkil at all; at least, we have nothing to shew that he
 144

did ,
nor have we any evidence that he actually had the
c
charge of the Khalif s son. Al-Mu tazz, at the time of Ahmed s
arrival at Surramanra ,
was not more than six years of age ,

if as old as that ).

Asks a
Ahmed s next grievance arose when he learned
Change of that the house in which he was lodged had be-
Residence 2
On
i on g ec j to Itakh ). hearing this, he had a let

ter written to Mohammed ibn al-Jarrah , seeking that al-

Mutawakki) would release him from the obligation to remain

there.The Khalif granted this request, and then sought to
engage another home for him by asking some people to ,

move out of the house which they were occupying. This

Ahmed did not wish and it was given up. Finally, a suitable
and is Offended place was hired for him at a rent of 200 dirhems.
at the Luxurioiis Here he was grieved at the luxury with which
Provision Made the house was furnished and leaving the , ,

for Htm. furnished contented him

finely apartments ,

self with a humble mattress which he had brought with

him. The bountiful table which was placed at his disposal

was, likewise, a great offence to him; a fact which we can

readily believe, when we are informed that the landlord of
the house offered Salih ibn Ahmed a sum of 3000 dirhems a
month for it and was refused. Those of his family who were
,

desirous of retaining the table were obliged to have it set

in the vestibule of the house, where he
Fasting and down
Sickness,
might not see it. He himself fasted most of the
time, partaking only of a little sawik and bread, until, at
last, he was taken sick and the well-known physician Ibn Ma-

suyah had to be sent to prescribe for him. He examined Ahmed,

assured him that his trouble was not really a disease, but
simply weakness and wasting of the body from lack of
nourishment, and prescribed for him sesame oil, which he
declared that he, as a Christian, was accustomed to give
to the ascetics of his own faith when they had brought

1) He was born 232 A. H., Abu 1-Mah. II, 24.

2) Itakh the Turk killed 234 A. H., Abu 1-Mah. 1 , 702.

 145

Ahmed at this time seems

themselves to a similar condition.
to have received every attention at the hands of al-Muta-
wakkil and those about him; though, it does not surprise
us to find him sometimes refusing kindnesses which were

proffered.
Consulted At different times, attempts were made to draw
about Ibn fromAhmed an expression of opinion regarding
Abl Dowad. Ahmed ibn Abi Dowad his former persecutor,
who had now fallen from favor. But neither about the man,
nor about his estates and their disposition would he express
himself at all. Nor was he any more willing to hear reports
of the public gossip about his old adversary and the course
of action which had been adopted towards him *).
to After a time al-Mutawakkil proposed that he
Proposal
Buy a House should buy a house for Ahmed, but the latter ob-
for Him. stiiiately refused his consent to the proposal, and
ordered his son Salih to be no party to such a project. In
the end the idea was given up.
Ahmed again The Khalif now began to urge that Ahmed
Urged to Attend should attend continuously on him as had been ,

on the Khalif n i s intention in bringing him from Baghdad.

The day that he should begin had actually been agreed
upon. Ahmed, however, never concealed from anyone how
extremely distasteful to him the obligation was. His uncle
Ishak ibn Hanbal also urged him to go in to the Khalif
and offer him direction and cited the example of Ishak ibn
Rahawaih, who had done this with Ibn Tahir (with advan
tage to himself). Ahmed replied that he did not approve
of Ibn Rahawaih or his course, and that in his conviction
to be near persons in authority or to keep company with
them was to imperil faith and violate conscience. Even
as it was, he did not feel himself safe from guilt. After
but is all this a message came from the Khalif
releasing
Released, him from obligation to appear before either him
all

self or his successors, and from the wearing of the black

i) vid. note 2, p. 56; Abu 1-Mah. I, 719.

10
 146

Court costume. He might wear cotton or wool just as pleased

him. It appears, in fact, to have been a general dispensa
tion from fulfilling any requests from persons in authority
which might be distasteful to him ). Now, at last, he was 1

released from his fear that they were going to make of him
an attache of the Court, and on this point had ease of mind.
For his fellow-traditionists who remained at Court his feeling
appears to have been one of censuring contempt. They were
afraid to do that which would deprive them of their stipends
from the Khalif, and, possibly, bring upon them much worse
consequences. Ahmed had accomplished his end in securing
his exemption from attendance at Court; not, however, by
s mandate, but by persistent
a direct refusal of the Khalif
excuses; by shewing a dislike to what he was expected to
do; and by his discontent with the general arrangements
which were made for him by al-Mutawakkil s orders. He ob
structed as far as possible the royal wishes, but did not
deny them.
His two sons, Salih and Abdallah, now returned
Correspond-
ence -with to Baghdad, and, they had gone away, the
after
his Sons. fi ne furnishings of the house were removed and the ,

Khalif s daily provision ceased to be provided. By Abdallah,

who left him later than his brother, he sent word to Salih,

telling him that both he and his brother were not desired
to attend on him any further, for he regarded most of the

i) al-Makrizi, p. 10,

*X-fcl
JLfc ^oLJ ^JL J* Jj5*>Jf
aJL*^
 147

unpleasant experiences through which he had passed as due

to their not supporting him in the stand he had taken and
their want of active sympathy with his principles. Their ac
ceptance of the Khalif s fine provision ,
if they came back ,

would bring him only into ill-favorwith the public; and their
acceptance of the Khalif s stipend, against his known wish
and sense of duty, he considered a grave breach of filial
piety. They both might go where they would with his prayers
following them but he desired that they should not cumber
,

him further by their presence. Such was the tenor of his

first two letters to his son Salih. In a third he reproaches
his sons for not taking steps to secure his release from his

unwilling detention. But he advises them to keep to their

dwellings and expresses the hope that God by some means
!

), ,

will open up his way.

Ahmed s While at the camp Ahmed made his testament,

,

Testament, which was as follows In the name of God the

:
,

Merciful, the Gracious. This is the testament of Ahmed ibn

Hanbal. He testifies that there is no God but Allah, alone
and without fellow, and that Mohammed is his Servant and
his Messenger whom He
sent with the right guidance and
the true religion, that he might make it known as the per
fect religion, though the idolaters be displeased. He, further,
testifies that those who obey his family and his relatives
worship God among those who worship, praise him among
those who offer praise and do good service to the Com
munity of the Muslims. I, also, testify that I am satisfied
with Allah as Lord, with Islam as a religion, and with
Mohammed as Prophet. I, further, testify that Abdallah ibn
Mohammed, known as Buran, has a claim against me for
about fifty and that he is to be credited in what
dinars,
ever he may say. Let what is due to him be paid from the
rent of the house, if God will, and after he has been paid,
the children of Salih and Abdallah, sons of Ahmed ibn
Hanbal, are to receive, each male and female, ten dirhems,

i) p. 140, note 2.
 148

after the payment of the money to Abu Mohammed. Wit

nessed by Abu Yusuf and Salih and Abdallah the two sons
of Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Hanbal.
Permission was not a great while before Ahmed again
It

Granted to Re- requested a change of residence *), and the

turn to Baghdad. Khalif with great kindness acceded to his re
, ,

quest and, not only allowed him to engage another dwell

ing, but sent to him one thousand dinars that he might

)
Abu Nu caim, 1530, (The narrative now follows this source for a time.)

b J^U Jjytf JU3

xit J*J aufi
LfcJ

auJI aJUt JLIr: L aJ ^.331 tXas

J^l j, o o L

J tik-J
yoi
LX55 ^J ^oi
tXJ>
^>

%
L^O^s j_^t Ux ^xJL/o^II ^ (^jLic!
L\J5 jLSs ^u
vjli ft3 [so Cod.] Jy

UJLc * A-iLs
wxjj J

^yi
I j^ [Cod. XS] \
o ^oi
f
jus tiU

Jo

[del.?]

dJI >5 JLJLJ ^ vUS Jodi ^ J5

 149

distribute it in alms. At the same time, he gave him

leave to return home and ordered a pleasure barge to be

t L*jt 8 xeU>

LJt xUx^o Jlv^i ^.-^ i

^
^ <
it _ _>j
. The account of his difficulties with

the members of his family over the Khalif s allowances is in the Ms. considerably
extended, but the rest of it has no special interest, and varies but slightly
from the extract here given.
made ready take him to Baghdad; this last favor how
to
to travel by land on account
ever, Ahmed declined preferring ,

of risk to his health from the coldness of the river journey.

When he left for home, al-Mutawakkil had a letter written to
Mohammed ibn Abdallah, the governor of Baghdad, ordering
him to deal kindly with Ahmed and take good care of him.
Objects to his
From the time of his return to Baghdad,
\hz story of Ahmed s life is little more than
Family Receiving
-
Stipends. a record of his differences with his family
in with his sons Salih and Abdallah, and his
particular,
paternal uncle Ishak ibn
Hanbal - - about the receiving of ,

the Khalif s stipends and gifts which came to them from

time to time. He would block up the doorways between
his sons houses and his own, when they expressed deter
mination to accept the moneys, which they needed for the
dissented from his
support of their families, and vigorously
view that their position was the same as his own, and that
what was good for him was, likewise, good for them. For

as long two or three months together he would have

as

nothing to do with his sons; and it was, apparently, only

as their children in playing made their way into their

grandfather s house and touched a more sympathetic chord

of his nature, or as the offices of his good friend Buran

(Abdallah ibn Mohammed)

were called in that reconciliation
was brought about. His uncle Ishak certainly played .\

worthy part toward him. He pretended great

friendshf

and complete deference to his wishes as to the receiving

of money,and at the same time accepted it with the
rest. When Ahmed discovered the dissimulation, he was

very angry; and

no purpose that Ishak tried
it was all to

to excuse himself on the ground that he had used the money

in giving alms, for he knew, and Ahmed knew, that
he had
not done so. Ahmed then ceased to worship in the mosque
where his sons and uncle worshipped and for the necessary ,

prayers went to a mosque outside the city quarter in which

he lived.
Harassed as they were by him ,
the members of Ahmed s
family agreed once or twice to receive no more money;
but after a period of abstinence the urgent needs of their
, ,

families forced them to give up the self-denial and again

claim their stipends. At last, Ahmed went so far as to write
to Yahya ibn Khakan , telling him that he had made up his
mind to request the withdrawal of the regular aid which
was granted to his family. Salih anticipated his father, how
ever, by informing the officer who was over that part of
Baghdad in which they resided, and he succeeded in pre
venting Ahmed s letter from accomplishing its object. The
aid was continued and, not only that, but all that was
due to the family, 40,000 dirhems, being the undrawn sti
pend for ten months, was paid over to his sons. And, though
the Khalif had ordered his officers not to inform Ahmed
of the payment, Salih himself sent word of it to his father.
The old man, when he heard the message, exclaimed after
a meditative silence, What can I do when I desire one thing
and God orders another! ) l

)
Abu Nu caim, 153 J, x^l & *Ut

o* \- **t- o 1

LAJ jJiJI ,ij

 152

Again Suspect-
After Ahmed s return to
Baghdad (the date
ciiof AZyite- of which we do not know) some talebearer re
ported to al-Mutawakkil the old slander that
Ahmed was harboring an c Alyite. The Khalif sent word to
Ahmed of the report, and told him that he had imprisoned
the man who made it until he should advise him as to what
truth there was in the report, and direct him what to do
to the man. Ahmed answered asserting his ignorance of the
whole matter, but advised that the man should be set free,
as to visit him with death might bring affliction to many
others who were no sharers in his crime.
A man whose name is given as Abu Ja
c
far ibn Dharih
c
al- Ukbari relates that, in the
year 236, (which appears to
be a mistake, for the circumstances point to the time of
c
the second accusation of harboring an Alyite, and this was
after Ahmed s return to Baghdad from his visit to the
camp
in 237 A. H.) he sought Ahmed to ask him some doctrinal
question but was told at his house that he had gone out
,

c
side that quarter of the city to prayers. So Abu Ja far sat
down at the gate of the street to wait for his return. Pres

ently an old man tall with

, , , dyed hair and beard and ,

of a dark brown complexion, came up and entered the

street, the visitor entering with him. At the end of the
street, Ahmed, for such it was, opened a gate and entered
it , closing it after him and at thesame time bidding his com
panion go his way. Just then, the latter noticed at the gate
a mosque, in which an old man, also with dyed hair, was
leading the prayers. When he had finished Abu Ja far asked
c
,

a man who was at the prayers about Ahmed ibn Han-

bal and why he had refused to answer him. The man re-
 153

plied that Ahmed

had been suspected of harboring an c Alyite;
that, on this account, the prefect of police had surrounded
his dwelling with a cordon of police and then had proceeded
to search it. For* this reason he avoided speaking to people.
The police had, however, found nothing to give substance
to which had been raised. Abu Ja c far, then,
the suspicion
enquired who it was whom he had seen leading the prayers,
and, on learning that it was Ahmed s uncle Ishak, he asked
why Ahmed ibn Hanbal did not pray behind his uncle in
this mosque which was near his own door. The man an
swered that he did not worship with his uncle nor even ,

his own
sons, nor speak with any of them, because they
had accepted the stipends and gifts of the Khalif 1 ).

i) Abu Nucaim, 1420, U

[so marg.; text

>T UiJb

xlc jlii
 154

Al-Mutawakkil never ceased to shew his interest in Ahmed s

welfare, and to make frequent inquiries about him. This
was, for some reason which is hard to divine, most dis
agreeable to Ahmed and he professed himself as preferring
;

to die rather than have to live through such incessant at-

Thc Khalif Asks tentions ). Among the evidences of the Kha-

!

for Ahmed s View lif s interest was a letter written by Obaid-

as to the Koran, allah ibn Yahya on his account asking Ahmed ,

to write him his views on the Koran, not by way of as

surance of his accordance with the opinion of the Sovereign,
but merely for the information of the Commander of the
Faithful. In reply Ahmed dictated to his son a letter to
c 2
Obaidallah ,
in which he said )
:

i) Abu Nu caim, 153^, *^L*Jf **^:* tj? J?* J^-*- ^ 1

(
-V*
w
) l )^-5 ^

L^XJL^
^ ^ccX-J ^ ^AM,ftJ Q\ _^_J *il^ J^
ft-j [Cod. no points]

2) Abu Nu c aim, 153^ flf. UI Axe LJO

 155

I ask God to continue his aid to the Command-

Letterin er of the Faithful, for men were in the depth of
Reply falsehood and immersed in violent differences of
opinion came to the Commander of the
until the Khalifate
Faithful, and God banished by means of the Commander

[Cod.

&JU!

JLj li- (ja*xJ

(j

*U! [Cod. ^ ;
^/to,

Jt j jLS-s jJLwj jule ^XJi

J.A L-.U.J

JlS IJ^ JUt JJLJ

iJLJt
5 ,3

*.

xJlc [Cod omits] xi-c

-^

jlfis Jo J
 156

of the Faithful every heresy, and took away from men the
straitness and humiliation of the prisons. God has, thus,
all that, and removed it
changed through the Commander
of the Faithful, [all of] which has made a great impression
upon the Muslims; hence, they pray God to bless the Com
mander of the Faithful, and I ask God to hearken to all

j^j J5 X^Uit c

3! <iU>/ IS! UAAJ L

vLJb y>
1313
<^^;^ t-fcjwo^t j-yot
>!
jlaj
J^ Jjljl [Cod. 131]

Lo
j&5 ^
vJCj
^^Oo ^x^ii -AXii li

[Cod. ^] Lo Lo
^5^03 l^aJc^Vj |^AA^.

UJt5 ^.^^ UJ JI5 yiXXftJ l^aJU^.

good petitions for the Commander of the Faithful and to perfect
[all]
that for the Commander of the Faithful that he may go ,

on in his design; [I ask God] to help him, also, in that in

G
which he is engaged. Now, it is related from Ibn Abbas

Lj

, JlSj

ii JlS [Cod.

L^iLs

cr

I
JlS 5

j jLiis bS\s ^L>Jt Us JlS x

 158

that he said Do not smite God s Book one part of it with

,

another part, for that casts doubt into your hearts And .

G
it is told from Abdallah ibn Omar that he said, Some per
sons were sitting at the Prophet s door and some of them ,

-iS"! _4.c
Q_J

[Cod. Lxi

CT

[Kor. 9. 6]
-.

3 JB -li
[Kor. 7. 52]

o ^u K r- 55- i, 2, 3 ]
~~ 9 9 ~. + O *
tz^xfi
^5 J^J!

v O -O^o
[Kor. 2. 114] Lx.
J-A-A^J ,J,*Ji

f
uj c^jilij i^uS Li

fl^l c^

j [Kor. 2. 140] x Lo cX:

 159

were saying Does not God say so and so ? while others

,

were saying, Nay! does not God say so and so? and the
-- and it was
Messenger of God heard that, and went out
as if pomegranates had been burst over his face
]

and he said, Was it this ye were commanded to observe,

to smite God s Book one part of it with another? The

peoples who were before you erred thus, but ye have noth
ing to do with this. Observe what ye are ordered to do
and do it; and observe what ye are forbidden to do and
abstain from it It is related from Abu Huraira from the
.

Prophet that he said, Disputation about the Koran is un

belief. It is related from Abu Juhaim ,
one of the Compan
ions Prophet, from the Prophet that he said, Do
of the
not dispute over the Koran, for disputation over it is un
belief. Abdallah ibn Abbas said, man came to c Omar A
G
ibn al-Khattab, and Omar began to ask him about the people,
and he said, O Commander of the Faithful, so and so many
of them recite the Koran (or, supply
byo:
Some of them
have read the Koran so and so many times ?). And Ibn
c
Abbas said, So I said, By God, I do not like them to vie
c
with each other in rapid reading of the Koran, but Omar

or. 13. 37]

"

seeds of the pomegranate", but often

i) ^Wl ^A.5>
"the "the
pomegranate"

itself.
 i6o

blamed me for saying this, and said, Stop! Hush! I went

down, then, to my dwelling afflicted and grieving [because
he seemed to oppose my zeal for the
Koran]. And, while
I was in this state of mind a man came to me and said ,
,

Answer the summons of the Commander of the Faithful .

So I went out, and lo he was at the door waiting for me,

!

and he took me by the hand, went aside with me, and

said, What was that with which you were displeased in
what the man said a little while ago? I said, O Com
mander of the Faithful, when they indulge in this rivalry
to see who can read fastest, they read with mumbling voice;
and if they read with mumbling voice, they
dispute with
one another; and if they dispute with one another,
they
fall into discord; and if
they fall into discord they fight
with one another. He said, Very good!
Verily, by God, I
was concealing it [the same opinion] from
anyone until you
said it It is related from
.
Jabir ibn Abdallah that he said,
The Prophet was presenting himself to the men in the
Maukif [at Arafat] and he said, Is there any man who will
take me to his people? for the Koreish have refused me
the right to make known the Word of my Lord . It is re
lated from Jubair ibn Nufair that he said, The Messenger
of God said, You cannot return unto God by means of
anything more excellent than that which went out from him.
He meant the Koran It is related from Abdallah ibn Mas c ud
.

that he said, Write the bare Koran, but do not write in

it
anything except the Word of God . It is related from
c
Omar ibn al-Khattab that he said , This Koran is the Word
of God; give it, then, its proper place . A man said to al-
Hasan al-Basri, O Abu Sa
c
id, when I read the Word of
God ,
and think over it ,
I almost despair and give up hope .

And al-Hasan said , The Koran is the Word of God ;

the
works of the children of Adam incline toward weakness and
insufficiency,but work and be of good cheer! Farwa ibn
c
Naufal al-Ashja i said, I was a neighbour of al-Khabbab, who
was one of the Companions of the Prophet and I went out ,

with him one day from the mosque, he

holding me by the
hand and he said O you draw near to God by means of
, ,
!

that which you are able to use as means but you cannot ,

draw near to God by means of anything dearer unto him

than his Word A man said to al-Hakam ibn c Uyaina,
.

What leads the sceptics

l
)
unto this [state of theirs] ? He
said, Disputation Mu awia ibn Kurra, whose
.
c
fatherwas
one of those who came to the Prophet said ,
Beware of
these disputations, for they spoil Abu Kilaba good works .

said (and he had met more than one of the Companions

of the Messenger of God) Do not keep company with ,

sceptics, (or he said, With disputatious people ) for I do

not feel secure that they will not plunge you in their error,
and make obscure unto you a part of what ye know .

There entered two sceptics unto Mohammed ibn Sirin, and

they said, O Abu Bekr, let us tell thee a tradition . He
said, Nay . Then they said, Then let us recite unto thee a
verse from the Koran . He said , Nay ; ye surely shall go
away from me ,
or else I shall go away .So the two men
arose and went out, and one of those present said, O Abu
Bekr, what was the matter, that a verse from the Koran
might not be recited unto thee? and Ibn Sirin said to him,
I was afraid that they would recite a verse unto me and
would pervert it and that that should become fixed in my heart .

Mohammed however, added, Had I known that I should

be as I am now, I would certainly have allowed them A .

sceptic once asked Ayub al-Sakhtiyani O Abu Bekr, I ,

would ask thee just a word but he turned his back, and mo ;

tioned with his hand, Nay; not half a word Taus ibn .

Taus said to a son of "his when a

, sceptic was speaking, O
my son , put your fingers in your ears so that you shall

i) This word does not quite represent the idea of the original

These were a class of men who were not prepared to accept the religious
systems of other persons, except as theirown reasoning confirmed their
positions. They were thus in the first instance sceptical and then eclectic ,

taking from different systems such views as they approved or desired to

take. The name AhluVAhwa men of desires ,
is thus appropriate, v. Shah-
rastani ,
Haarbriicker s transl n I , p. I and note ; Steiner ,
Die Mu c
taziliten ,
6.

II
 162

not hear what he says . Then he said Run Run c Omar ,

! !

ibn Abd al-Aziz said, He who makes his religion a butt

for disputations is the most unsettled of men .
(Abiil Fadl
said, I found it in a book of my father s in his own hand
c
writing, Isma il told us from Yunus saying, I was told that
c
Omar ibn Abd al- c Aziz said, He who makes his religion
a butt for disputations is the most unsettled of men ).
Ibra
3
him al-Nakha !
said, These people shallhave nothing laid
up in them until there is
store for with you an excellent
provision Al-Hasan used to say, The worst diseased per
.

son is the man diseased at heart he meant the desires ;

[i.
e. men of desires sceptics]. Hudhaifa ibn al-Yaman said ,

Fear God, O ye Reciters of the Koran, and go in the way

of those who were before you for if ye strive for preced
; ,

ence, ye have yet been preceded by a great distance, and

if ye leave this way to the right or left ye have clearly com

mitted error The letter went on to say: I have omitted

.

the mention of the Isnads because of the oath that I pre

viously swore, of which the Commander of the Faithful is
cognizant. If it were not for that, I should have mentioned
them [the traditions] with their Isnads. The Koran, too, has
said, And, if one of the idolaters seek protection of thee, grant

him protection that he may hear the Word of God (Koran

9 .
6). Do not the Creation and the Command
belong to him ?
(Koran 7.52). So he tells about the Creation and then he says, ,

and the Command ,

thus he tells us that the Command is
something else than the Creation
!
). Also, The Merciful taught

(JL) the Koran ,

he created man he taught him the explana
,

tion (Koran 55 .
I, 2, 3). Thus God tells that the Koran is from
his Knowledge He, also, says, And the Jews will not
(^L).

be content with thee, nor the Christians, until thou dost

follow their religion. Say, Verily the direction of God is the
right direction; but, surely, if thou dost follow their pas

sions and their desires, after that which has come to thee

i) cf. p. 119 and, also, p. 139.

of knowledge (U) there is for thee from God neither friend

nor helper (Koran 2 114). He says also, Even if thou dost

.

give to those to whom the Book has been given every sign,
they will not follow thy kibla, and thou wilt not follow
their kibla, and one part of them will not follow the kibla
of the other part. And, surely, if thou dost follow their pas

sions ,
after what has come to thee of knowledge in that
(jJU),

case, thou art, verily, one of those who do evil (Koran

2. 140). And also, And, thus, we have sent it down as a
decision in the Arabic language; and, surely, if thou dost
follow their passions after what has come to thee of know
,

ledge (JU), there shall be for thee from God neither friend

nor helper (Koran 13.37). Now, the Koran is from the

Knowledge of God and in these verses is a proof that that
;

which came to him [the Messenger of God] is the Koran,

according to his [God s] saying, And , surely, if thou dost follow
their passions, after what has come to thee of knowledge (JU) .i)

It has been related, moreover, from more than one of

those who went before us that they used to say, the Koran
is the Word of God uncreated and that is what I believe. ,

I am
no dialectical theologian; I approve of argument in a
matter of this kind only by means of what is in God s Book
or a tradition from the
Prophet, or from his Companions,
c
or from those who followed them
(Tab iun), but, as for
anything else, argument by means of it is not to be commended.
On one occasion, when al-Mutawakkil came to al-Shama-
D
siya on his way to al-Mada in it was expected that Ahmed ,

and his family would come, or send, to pay their respects

to him, but Ahmed would neither go himself nor would he

3
i) "Passions" in these passages represents the word Ahwa found in the
name AhluV Ahwa ,
so that the passages must be taken as condemning ra
tionalism in theological matters.
 164

Visit of Yahya
allow Salih to go ,
for fear he should call at-
ibn KhaTcan tention to himself. The result of this was that
to Ahmed. ^
day Yahya ibn Khakan came with
e next
a great retinue to visitAhmed, bringing him greeting and
many friendly enquiries from the Khalif, who, at the same
time besought the prayers of the Imam. These last Ahmed
,

assured Yahya were offered up every day for his master.

Yahya then offered him a thousand dinars for distribution
among the poor. These, however, Ahmed would not accept,
pleading exemption, as he did on other occasions, on the
ground that the Khalif had agreed to excuse him from
obligation to do anything that might be distasteful to him.
Invitation
The mone 7 was finally given to Ahmed s sons.
from
Mohammed ibn On another occasion ,Mohammed ibn Abdallah
Abdailah ibn ibn Tahir besought Ahmed to pay him a visit
and strongly urged This invitation,
his request.

however, Ahmed also declined, offering as an excuse the

Khalif s dispensation. After these incidents he took upon
himself a rigidfast, abstaining from all fat and, apparently,
from meat, for the record states that before this time he had
been provided with a dirhem s worth of meat, from which
he ate for a month !
]

i) Abu Nu c aim, 1550, K-x^L^^cJI jjJLs J^

^ ^1 ^Jo ^ O t
4*>
!

gJL*
b j,i i JLJLS aibU! Ju

L>.L> vXclS l3tj *yJ

<A-*-J
Q!^ U.U ^JLc [Cod. without points] XjJLi

[Cod.

Us
 i6 5

Ahmed s In the course of events we have been brought

Sickness now to the year 241 A. H. On the first day of
and Death. R a bi c
I of this year *),
Ahmed was taken with a

JI5?

L> V^
-

J15 J *J
^.co! Ijlj
^1
^ ^Jlc Jb Lo J wJi-s A)

Lo
y. iU*l JLJj ^UJt . LiUx. ^ 13
/l J^

Lb jLas !

JJ! ,15
^L^o
Us

tf
^5, ^^Ji ^t J S

3 ^^ ^ (

^
^^ixJ^ v^i [Cod. J A*aj]
_

Joo-

jy. Q
XXJLJ Mohammed ibn Abdallah ibn Tahir came from Khorasan, and was ap
c
pointed over lrak in 237 A. H. Abu 1-Mah. I, 719.

i) The sources now used are the following extracts; al-Makrizi, p. 15,
K U Jlo JI5
 1 66

fever attended with difficulty in breathing, and became so

weak that his limbs would not support him. physician A
came to see him, and prescribed for his sickness roast

lij-J

L jLfiJ I

iiLc>i adjl

JlS LJI

Lo Jjt LSls ti)J3

L^jljiis
 i6 7

pumpkin, with the liquor of the pumpkin to be taken as a

drink. Ahmed particularly that this might not be
asked
prepared in the houses of either of his sons. As soon as it
was learned that he was sick, people began to come in
crowds to visit him, until it became necessary to close the
door of the street; and the governor, hearing of the crowds,

[Cod. repeats

s XAJ ^.xXio ^.x^ [Cod. XXA^J] Xx^j L>L/

-vwX x li._>j
*_J * BvrfJtJ XJkfiw Q^ o^ .w *i._J

.x^v

Li
gJLo sjJ, JS au>o
^ ,JU
xii
L^xi

auJLc IxxJLc \xxaJij o^t L^Jlr

 1 68

considerately placed guards before the street door, while

the family also placed guards before the door of the house.
Only his physicians and such as he himself desired to see
were then admitted. Among those who were thus allowed
to see him was a neighbor, an elderly man with dyed hair
and beard, on seeing whom Ahmed became greatly excited, and
called the attention of those about him to this man as one who

Lo JL3

LJLs lit

O^JLb

jl5 ijjl
;

B^lialj *xi ^LjJf AJt i

v^s. %
**3 o 7*

[Cod.
 169

was keeping alive the good rule of the Prophet .

Daily re
ports of the sick man s condition were now sent from Baghdad
to the Khalif at the camp. These were never very encour

aging, however, as Ahmed

sank gradually day by day until he
died. He seems have borne his sickness with great for
to
titude, in which he was supported by a tradition of Taus,

J!5

Jou

Al-Subki,p. i
34 f. XJLx

J!
Q Uo

Lj
Jxx^i
l
JUS

o !

j
^j (iU^33 jjT^i Jliis ^x^ ^
 I/O

who is reported to have disliked groaning in sickness on ,

the ground that it was tantamount to complaining against

God. Ahmed, therefore, was never heard to groan, except
on the day in which he died. Two or three days before his
death, he enquired for his purse, and asked his son Salih
to look what was in it. Salih did so and found a solitary

oU Li

jb
O l
Ju^-. JJbJt5 Jfe

Lo .J4J ^

^ gJLo ^
 I/I

di r hem. This his father directed him to use together with ,

some of the rent to be collected from the lodgers in his

house, in buying dates to discharge an oath of almsgiving
which he had taken upon himself. Salih carried out the or
der he had received, and returned to his father one-third
of a dirhem, on receiving which Ahmed rejoiced at the
prospect of dying as poor as he had lived.
The duration of his sickness was not long. The physician
declared that grief and the hard ascetic character of his life
had ruptured the internal organs of his body and could give the
family little hope of his recovery. A
characteristic incident
occurred when he was being washed preparatory to the

performance devotions in which he took part.

of the last

He was unable to speak, but, strong in the ruling passion

of scrupulousness in the law, he made a sign that his sons
who were washing him should wash between his fingers as
well as on the back and front of them. When this was done ,

it is said that he rested quietly until he passed away. His

prayers he performed to the very last, his sons assisting

c
him in the rak as. One of his last charges was that three hairs
of the Prophet which he had in his possession should at
hisdeath be placed, one on each eye and one on his lips,
and this was actually done ). So he died. The date of the
]

Abu Nu caim, 155 a, (

J-^ e/ O***
1

i) cf. Goldziher. Moh. Stud. II, 358 and note 5.

 172
c
event was Friday, the twelfth of Rabi I, 241 A. H., his
age being a few days, or it may be hours, more or less
than seventy-seven years.
His Funeral.There was the most wonderful scene of grief
all city of Baghdad, and even in distant places,
over the
when the news of his death became known. The scene at
the funeral, on the afternoon of the day of his death, was
one such as must have been seldom witnessed anywhere.
The estimates of the number of those who attended are

very discrepant. Some

say 600,000 were present on the spot
where the prayers were held over him; others say 2,500,000,
and other figures fall between these two ). It is said that !

there were 10,000, and some say even 20,000, converts to

Islam from the other religions on the occasion of Ahmed s
death but inasmuch as the family and others specially in
;

terested in him knew nothing of any such number, al-Subki s

teacher Dhahabi thought such figures to be absurd and that ten
converts would be nearer the truth. The Emir Ibn Tahir wished
to furnish the burial suit of Ahmed but Salih refused to accept
it, as he knew that his father when living would have been

unwilling to accept any gift from the Emir. The filial respect
of Salih for his dead father s wishes in regard to receiving
gifts or attentions from persons of state now took very de
cided form. It was only by main force that his friends with

held him from displacing Ibn Tahir in the official conduct

of the prayers at the funeral 2 ). Indeed it was not known ,

by the people that Ibn Tahir had prayed over Ahmed until ,

the day after he was buried. When they knew they flocked
3
in crowds to his grave in the cemetery of the Bab-Harb ) ;

so much so that one man who attended the funeral de

, ,

clared that itwas a week before he was able to come near

the tomb. His own family and the Hashimites also conducted
prayers for him inside their own quarters on the evening of
4
the day of his death ).
In the time of Ibn Challikan the

i) cf. Ibn Chall. N. 19. 2) Magoudi VII, 229.

3) cf. Ibn Chall. N. 19. 4) Ibn Chall. N. 19.
tomb of Ahmed in the cemetery of the Bab-Harb was known
far and wide and was much visited ). At a later time, the 1

raised work of the tomb was destroyed and the

grave made
level with the surface of the ground because of the undue
reverence which was being shewn to it 2 ).
His Biog- Among those who are said to have written of
raphers. Manakib of Ahmed are Abu D l-Hasan ibn al-
the
Munadi ), the Hafiz al-Manda 4 ), al-Baihaki 5 ), Abu Isma c il
3

c
al-Ansari, the Fakih Abu Ali ibn al-Banna, commentator of
al-Khurki, the Hafiz Ibn Nasir, the Hafiz Abu l-Faraj ibn
al-Jauzi Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Hatim
6
),
al-Razi and al-Hasan
7 8
ibn Mohammed al-Khallal ) ).

IV.
His Family. The immediate descendants of Ahmed ibn Han-
9
bal ), except his two sons Salih and Abdallah, both of whom

i) Ibn Chall. N. 19; vid. also al-Nawawi, p. 146.

2) Goldziher, Moh. Stud. I, 257.
3) al-Fihrist I, 38 f.5
Dhahabi Tabakat n, N. 55.
4) Dhahabi, Tabakat 13, N. 29.
5) Ibn Chall. N. 27; Dhahabi Tabakat 14, N. 13.

6) In his book jjJiAxAjfj _..^u , Chapter on the Manakib of Ahmed ibn

Hanbal . v. al-Nawawi Biog. Diet. 1435 cf. on Ibn al-Jauzi, Goldziher, Moh.
Stud. II, 1 86 and note 2.

7) Dhahabi, Tabakat 13, N. 68. The others I have not been able to trace
in the authorities at command.
8) al-Makrizi, p. 18, v_ajuuaxJL X*jlxx> t++*$\ ^ _cU> O-_s5

SAJLo

9) al-Makrizi, p. 2, jj J^aJi ^\ ^^ JLo

^j^
j * 5f Lol
3
were men of eminence, were not remarkable in their time.
3
His eldest son was Salih, surnamed Abu ! Fadl, who was
born in the year 203. He related Tradition from his father
D c
and from Abu l Walid al-Tayalisi and Ali ibn al-Madmi,
and had as pupils his own son Zuhair, who died in 303,
al-Baghawi and Mohammed ibn Makhlad. Salih occupied the
c
office of Kadi of Ispahan. His mother was Abbasa bint al-
Fadl. His death occurred in the year 265 *). The second son
was Abdallah Abu Abd al-Rahman 2 ). He studied a great
c
deal with his father, and studied, also, with Abd al-A la
ibn Hammad, Yahya ibn Ma in, Abu Bekr ibn Abi Shaiba,
c

and many others. He was a man thoroughly conversant with

cr-
> Lo -c! l

jlai vj

O t

<t>-W

^XXAM^

- -^ cr*

1) Ibn Chall. N. 19, says Ramadan 266 A. H.

2) Abu 1-Mah. II, 136. cf. his relation to the Musnad of his father, p. 24.
 175

Tradition and the arguments for it The special distinction

which he enjoyed, however, was that of being the greatest
authority on the traditions of his father. It is related of
him
that, when he was on his death-bed, he asked to be buried
in the quarter called commonly al-Harbiya [or JUxLaJi
= the
in which his house
quarter of the city or the plot of ground
stood?]. Those present asked him if he would not rather be
buried with his father in the cemetery at the Bab-Harb but ,

he said he preferred to be under the protection of a prophet

whom he knew by trustworthy reports to have been buried
in al-Harbiya to being under the protection of his father. He
died at the age of 77 in the year 290 A. H. ) By a con
]

cubine named Hisn Ahmed had a third son, who was named
Sa id and who became in time Kadi of Kufa. By the same
c

mother he had, further, two sons Mohammed and al-Hasan

and a daughter Zainab and likewise by the same mother, , , ,

twin sons al-Hasan and al-Husain, who died soon after their
birth. Finally, he had another daughter whose name was
Fatima. 2
)
This is all that is known of his family.
Testimonies A few evidences of the esteem in which Ahmed
was held will assist us to
of Esteem, place him in the posi

tionwhich he really occupied in the estimation of his

c
own and of following generations. His pupil Abu Zur a
o

said he had never met with any one in whom learning (pic),

selfdenial,knowledge of the law and general knowledge

3
were so combined as in his master ). This is one
(yw)
opinion out of a host of similar ones, all of which are ex-

1) Ibn Chall. N. 19 says ,

8 th day remaining of Jumada I ,
some say Jumada II .

2) cf. Abu Nuc aim

> b JLSs

# *j ^
j**^UJ ja^
s. A ^ U The 3
Umm c
Ali here referred

t^ may be the Zainab or Fatima named above.

3) Abu Nu c aim, 139 a,
ceedingly fulsome in expression ,
but still afford us the
substantial truth of his high worth in the view of the
men among whom he moved. By many testimonies he is

placed at the side of the greatest doctors of Islam in the

preceded him Sofyan al-Thauri Malik
had - -
ages which , ,

ibn Anas, Rahman ibn Amr al-Auza i, al-Laith ibn

Abd al-
c

c
Sa d and Ibn Abbas. The regard in which Ahmed ibn Hanbal
c

was held is also seen in the way in which he is cited as giving

an opinion on the doctors of his time as for example by ; , ,

c
al-Nawawi, biographies of Ali ibn al-Madini, Yazid ibn
c
Harun, Yahya ibn Sa id al-Kattan, Yahya ibn Ma in; also
c

Ibn Challikan on Abu Thaur and Ishak ibn Rahawaih. Al-

Dhahabi, too, in his Tabakat adduces Ahmed s opinion in
regard to the men of his time with great frequency and
with evidence of much respect. It used to be held that, if

Ahmed discredited anybody, he could not fail fo suffer for

it in the eyes of people generally ). noteworthy testi
]
A
c
mony is that of al-Husain ibn Ali ibn Yazid al-Karabisi,
a man with whose theological views Ahmed had little sym
pathy. He said that those who spoke evil of Ahmed were

Lo

JLfis j, *J oJLft9 J*JL

jJW)
O
Lo

Abu Nu caim, 140 a,

j
JLc IJ^JL
^
Jlas ^axAiaj J^x^>
j

tol ^0

lj JLtJLJLfi ^ Jw ^ 5> The f rce of the passage is clear. For

c
Alkama and al-Aswad cf. Dhahabi jj^x i iUiiXc Tabak. 2,1;
^_j
JI ib. 6; Abu 1-Mah. I, 280, 1. 2.
like people who tried to kick over the mountain Abu Ku-
1
bais with their feet ).

Ahmed as As
a fakih he bore a great reputation among his
a Faklh.
companions, as well as with others in his own gen
eration and the generations following. The reputation of Ahmed
c
in Baghdad at the time of Abu Ja far Mohammed ibn Jarir
al-Tabari (f 310 A. H.) is shewn by the anger of the Bagh
dad people that al-Tabari should have omitted reference to
Ahmed in his book upon the Fakihs and their distinctive
doctrines His reason was that Ahmed was no fakih but
.

rather a traditionist ). The opinion was given out in his

2

c
own day that he was a greater fakih than Ali ibn al-Ma-
dini ).
One traditionist in speaking of Ahmed s authority
3

on the subject of Tradition said that when Ahmed supported

him in a tradition he was indifferent as to who might differ
from him in relation to it ). He was credited with extra
4

ordinary pov/er of discrimination in the judging of sound and

unsound traditions 5 ). The general impression that one gets from
the biographical details which we have brought together in the
present work, and from less important notices which could
not with propriety be introduced into the narrative, is that
Ahmed s judgment on points of Fikh was seriously reached
and often shrewd but always shewed narrowness. His gen-
,
/r
eral reliance upon the Koran and the Tradition cannot be
from a Muslim standpoint, and was a safer course ,
^discredited
ewed from that point of view, than any setting aside of such
6
3) -ddences in favor of individual judgment could have been ).

it his
principle of slavish literalness and his incorrigible ar-
^".rariness in the interpretation of his evidences was that

. ) Abu Nu c aim, 141

4)

2) cf.
Goldziher, Zahiriten , p. 4 (from Abu 1-Feda Ann. II, p. 344).

3) al-Nawawi, p. tff. 4) al-Nawawi , p. Iff.

5) cf. p. 2%. 6) cf. Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 95.

12
 78

which vitiated his claim to direct men to sound and perma

nent positions in theology. Such was impossible with his
method. Belief founded on the letter of any standard of faith
willalways be narrow, dogmatic and polemical. Life founded
on the letter of any rule of conduct can be only hard and
exclusive in character. Just but not genial; irreproachable,
but unattractive - -
such is the life. Sincere and earnest
and, with its own postulates, correct, but, still, wrong at
its foundation and unsightly in its superstructure such
is the opinion.
We subjoin a few remarks about the traits of character
and habits of life of Ahmed
Hanbal, with a passing
ibn
Habits notice of his personal appearance. He was abste-
of Life, mious in the extreme so much so in fact that
, , ,

his life might be termed a continuous fast. He is reported

never to have bought a pomegranate, quince or any other
kind of fruit, unless it might be a melon or grapes, which he
ate with bread. In eating his bread he frequently dispensed
with the use of vinegar. It was often the case that his sons
bought things which they deemed permissible or even nec
essary, but which were luxuries in his eyes; and to escape
in such a case his strictures they hid the things from him

altogether *). It is said that when he appeared before Ishak

ibn Ibrahim after his long imprisonment in 219 A. H., Ishak
looked in the little basket which Ahmed had with him
found his store of food to consist of two pieces of
a piece of cucumber and some salt ).
2
*-

He had a profound dislike to the receiving of money ass

tance from others, and took very little pains to secure a?. W

1) al-Nawawi, p. If 6.

2) al-Makrizi, p. 5, ^JJI J^xUJf c\:>li

money His happiest moments were those when he
for himself.
was without a coin in his purse ). His needs were few and
left
!

his expenses next to nothing 2 ). We have had in the course

of the narrative abundant illustration of his selfdenial and his
preference for poverty, and, were it desirable to do so,
much more of the same kind of incident could be furnished.
Characteristics. His demeanor was that of a man abstracted
from the common concerns of life though in questions of ,

he always shewed the liveliest interest ). He was

3
learning
a man of gentle nature, but capable of being roused to
vehemence at the sight of injustice or wrong done to men
4
or of impiety shewn toward God ).
That he was looked
upon as a scrupulously just man, even among those who
were not Muslims is shewn in many ways. One incident
,

may be mentioned. It is related that two Magian women

had a dispute about an inheritance before a Muslim Kadi,
and when judgment had been rendered, the woman against
whom the judge had decided said to him, If thou hast
decided against me according to the decision of Ahmed
ibn Hanbal, I am content; if not, I will not
acquiesce in
it . The narrator of the story thought it such a strong testi

mony to Ahmed s character that he told it far and near to

those whom he met 5
).
Ahmed s aversion toward lightness ,

1) al-Nawawi, p. tf .

cf.
2) al-Nawawi, Iff, pp. 141, 164.

c
3) Abu Nu aim, 138 b, t\4J>l US
^J

^ Jjyb j>U*:uJf J3 b LI c^Jt^v J15

S lots LJO.XJI
yoi y* u*UJI xo
Qzys?.
U/>

4) cf. pp. 73, 150.

5) Abu Nu caim, 141 ,

.jJJI AAC US -^S- j US
 i8o

particularly in men of learning, was pronounced. On a cer

tain occasion Yazid ibn Harun was indulging in pleasant
badinage with his amanuensis, when some one in the room
gave a slight cough. Yazid enquired who it might be that
had given the apparent sign of disapproval and on being , ,

told that it was Ahmed, he smote his forehead, and, turn

ing to those nearest to him, asked them reproachfully why

they had not told him of Ahmed s presence that he might
have observed becoming gravity before him *).
People used to say that Ahmed himself was a touchstone
or Mihna. A versifier, Ibn A yan,
c
has the lines, Ibn Han-
bal is a safe test (Mihna) :
By the love borne to Ahmed the
pious man is known; But when one is seen who defames him,
Then be sure that his true character will be disclosed 2
).

[Cod.

y JL5

c
i) Abu Nu aim, 140 a, ..-.J ..-A^is. LJu c\4^>-i ...

*
^ US Jl5 jij jl^ j s^> c^*^, JlS

2} al-Subki, p. 134,
 Religious An indication of Ahmed s character from the re-
Hgious point of view is found in the following ver
Character.

ses, which are said to be of his composition and furnish

the only discoverable trace of his poetic talent. Whenever
thou art alone at any time, do not say I am alone, but
say over me a Watcher; And do not think that God is
is

indifferent towhat has passed by, and that what thou

hidest from him is out of his sight. We give ourselves no
care until sins follow upon the track of sins But then would ;
!

that God would grant us repentance and we would repent

]
!
, )

It is said that he was wont to pray every day 300 ra-

c
k as, and that, even after he was scourged and his bodily
weakness was extreme, he reached the number of 150 daily.
He completed a recitation of the Koran once in every seven
days. It was his custom at night after the last prayer of
the day, to sleep for a short time, and then to arise and
2
pray formal or extemporized prayers until the morning ).

JJS bis UtoP

Uy. ^cXJ! c^JL3>

UJ ^-I
-. _^_
^
^
*12 **J. *^
S
^
^
, <y
-

2) Abu Nu c aim, 143 a .,

 182

When at home
in Baghdad he is said to have perseveringly

kept to house, so that none ever saw him, unless it

his
were at public worship at a funeral or visiting the sick ).
, ,

He was scrupulous adherence to Tradition and to the

in his
ritual observances. We have already cited the incident of
the ritual ablutions performed on him by his sons just be
fore his death, when, though unable to speak, he made

signs that they should wash between, as well as upon the

front and back of his fingers 2
).

Personal In personal appearance Ahmed was of beautiful ,

Appearance, countenance and of medium height. He used to

dye his hair and beard with henna and katam, but not a

JL3 J,^>
-j Ju>l j UJI L\^ US

Abu Nu c aim,

_>

^^LT

w 3
2) vid. p. 171.
deep red, for in his beard were seen black hairs. He began
the practice of dyeing his hair and beard when in his sixty-
third year, and then wholly out of regard for the practice
of the Prophet ).

V.
His Views. Ahmed Hanbal was a man whose peculiar
ibn

temperament disposed him not only to the kind of life which

he lived - - intense ascetic and fierce in its protest against
, ,

liberalism, but also to those views and beliefs which

-

2
were ,
the springs of such a life ). His
to a certain extent ,

beliefs were not entirely free from adjustment to the circum

stances of his age, but the measure of accommodation was
the least that could be made. In fact, look where we will
in Ahmed s life, and the elements of concession and com

promise are never found to be present by his own wish, and,

when found, their degree is the minimum possible.
Sources. We propose to generalize on the basis of the
narrative already furnished and the few other sources of
information accessible in order to reach if we can a fair
, , ,

notion of the leading theological opinions or principles

which Ahmed ibn Hanbal directed his life. His testament,
3
which has been given in the foregoing pages is a very ) ,

colorless document, and affords no view of his character

istic beliefs. The confession it contains comprises stock

phrases, which might come from a Muslim of any kind

or character. The letter to Obaidallah ibn Yahya, in an-

c
Ibn Chall. N. 19; Abu Nu aim, 138 ,
 1
84

swer to the Khalif s

enquiry relative to the Koran, has
so much that is characteristic that we may credit it with
representing accurately Ahmed s The conversation
1
belief ).

on the Koran with Ishak ibn Ibrahim is

fully in the spirit
of Ahmed and lends us an interesting view of his
s life,
faith as touching the Koran 2 The trials before Ishak ibn
).

Ibrahim and al-Mu c tasim, with the conversations connected

with them, furnish much on Ahmed
light s opinions and the
individual element which they contain 3
).
TheKoran. First, Ahmed ibn HanbaFs doctrine of the Koran 4
).
The Koran he asserted to be the Word of
God, by which
he meant the expression of God s Knowledge, as such ex
pression must be thought to be eternally present to God s
Being. Or, if we must modify this at all, it would be to
say, that, as long as there has been present to God that
which is objective to Himself, so long has there been a
Word of God as the expression of his Knowledge. Before
the Objective came into existence, the Word of God was
potential in Him and not actual. This gives us the Eternity
of the Word of God. Then, as the Divine Knowledge can
not be conceived to be without the eternal
adjunct of sym
bolic expression, and as speech is to be looked
upon as a
faculty expressing itself in energy and not a creation, the
Word of God is not only eternal but uncreated as well. It

may be objected that a Word of God is not the point in

question, but the Koran, the Word of God as known to
men. Be noted, however,
it that the between
distinction
the written or otherwise presented Koran and the heavenly
and essential Word of God is
5
clearly drawn ). This, too, is

P- 55- 2) p. 139. 3 ) p 93 ff. .

4) p. Goldziher, Zahiriten p. 138 If. The Word of God was said

loi. cf.
,

by some of the orthodox to be an attribute of God, Houtsma, De Strijd etc.

103 f. cf. Shahrastani. All the evidence at command, however, shews that Ahmed
ibn Hanbal s belief was as I have set it forth.

Steiner, Die Mu taziliten ,

c
5) cf. von Kremer, Herrsch. Ideen d. Isl. 227;

38 f. The accounts given of the orthodox view as to the Koran differ from
that which I have inferred Ahmed ibn Hanbal to have held. Nor does he
not drawn for the purposes of mere controversy, but re
presents, as we take it, a belief in the difference of extent
between the visible and invisible Word of God. All the
words spoken to Moses are the Word of God ); certainly, 1

not as belonging to the visible Koran, but as belonging to

the one eternalWord of God. All God s words to Mohammed
and to the prophets are the Word of God; all those which
c
were spoken to lsa ibn Maryam are equally the Word of
God. And, in controversy, the words spoken to these va
rious persons are used to prove the uncreated and eternal
nature of the visible Koran, though they form no part of
the Book. Why? Because they, with the substance of the
Koran, are the revelations of the Eternal Word, not revelations
coextensive with it but partial revelations. This leads to the
doctrine that the Word
of God is one as well as eternal
/{
and uncreated 2 ). It could not be one if the visible words
were taken in evidence, but regarded as a faculty of ex
pression, latent or energizing, belonging to a Being, we

seem to have been alone in his idea of the Koran

but had both among the ,

learned and unlearned number who sympathized with his opinions.

a large
Most of those who have expounded the orthodox view make the distinction
between the visible and invisible Koran and go no further, thus making the
Book as known to men the equivalent of that preserved in Heaven. The great
distinction to be drawn is between the visible Koran and the invisible Word
of God , the being not an equivalent but infinitely more extensive than
latter

the former. The connection with the doctrine of the

Logos as held by Syrian
Christians (Houtsma 101 note i) confirms the presentation of the Koran doc
,

trine which is given in the text. The manifestation of the Logos in Jesus
Christ is to be set over against the Heavenly and Uncreated
Logos which is
in the bosom of the Father. As for the Well-guarded Table of the Koran,
Sura 85 ,
22 , (cf. Steiner 39 and note 5 , also in the preceding account in
these pages, p. 67) this, it is
true, was an archetype of the visible Koran
kept in Heaven but, still , ,
even this celestial archetype was not coextensive
with the eternal and uncreated Word ofGod of which it was one manifestation.
We thus think that the orthodox in Ahmed s day held to three elements in
their doctrine of the Koran: it ? the Visible Koran; 2 nd ,
the Heavenly Koran;
3
rd
,
the Eternal Word of God.

1) p. 38.

2) cf. Goldziher, Zahiriten , p. 138 ff.

; Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 129.
 1 86

may see how the Word of God came to be looked upon

as a continuous unity; or, as we may better express a fact
in relation to a Being not knowing any succession of time,
as a unity in an eternal present. Such a Word of God con ,

sidered both as to its thoughts and words, is necessarily

without fault and infallible ).
The Word of God is, thus, Eter
nal Uncreated
, ,
One and Infallible. This we conceive to have
been the doctrine of the Koran held by Ahmed ibn Hanbal
and the theologians of his type. We have used modern expres
sion to voice his ideas; the ideas, however, are not ours but his.
The Koran in terrestrial relations 2 ), is to be regarded as
,

a manifestation of the One Word of God such as constitutes

a revelation of the perfect religion, a means of salvation
and a right guidance for men. In all the forms of its existence
among men, written, recited or committed to memory, the
substance and the unexpressed words in which the substance
is embodied in God s thought are eternal, uncreated, in
fallible ). The human acts in relation to the substance and
3

the words as found in connection with these human acts are

temporal created fallible. This is the doctrine of the so-
, ,

called Lafz al-Koran.

4
This Koran doctrine )
is strongly suggestive of Pantheism,
for the Word of God as spoken to Moses, to Mohammed
and as found in the Koran is the One Word - - not parts
of coming
it - -
manifestation; just as the moon at its
to

quarter may be called a particular manifestation of the moon,

but not a part of the moon. The Pantheistic suggestion is
much the same as that found in the Christian doctrine of
the Logos, from Eternity resident in God, inseparable from
a true conception of Deity, and proceeding to manifestation
at the coming into being of Objective Existence.

1) cf. Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 101.

2) Zahiriten, as in note 2, p. 185, especially p. 141, 1.

i8ff.; cf. present
work, pp. 32 ff.

3) cf. Houtsma, De Strijd etc. nyf.

4) cf. von Kremer, Herrsch. Id. d. Isl. , 41. On the whole much like the
c
doctrine of al-Ash ari, Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 118.
 i87

The Divine We are now prepared to consider the doctrine

Unity. of the Divine Unity. Ahmed ibn Hanbal was firm
in his belief in the unity of God *), and when we keep in ,

view the doctrine of the Koran which we believe him to

have adopted it is easy to understand with what vigor and
,
/
conviction he would resist the charge of polytheistic heresy
which his opponents sought to fasten upon him. We may,
by the way, notice his belief in the eternity of the Divine
2
attributes ).
His view, except in the case of the Divine Sov
ereignty and Knowledge, the attributes formally connected
with the origin of the Koran, is stated but not elaborated
in the sources to which I have had access. We have, how

ever, in the case of the two attributes named sufficient

data to enable us to arrive at his opinions. He stated, with
all emphasis, that God could not exist without his Know

ledge. And
though his adversaries declared that to make
,

eternal and uncreated anything which was in thought sep

arated from the bare idea of Deity was to make as many
more deities as there were things so thought of 3 ), Ahmed,
taking the concrete view of an unphilosophical mind could ,

not think of Absolute Being, except as involving all the ful

ness of a perfect or yet to be perfected finite creature , , ,

and a finite creature he could not think of except as having

attributes. The Absolute was the infinite correspondent and
correlate of the perfect finite.
The Anthropo- The same conviction evidently lay at the basis
morphic Attri- of Ahmed ibn Hanbal s faith in the anthropo-
butes. 4
morphic attributes given to Deity in the Koran ).

1) p. 1 06 infra. For the Mu c

tazilite doctrine of the Divine Unity, vid. Stei-
ner, Die Mu c
taziliten , 50.

2) pp. 90, 101 f., 139; cf. a slightly different view, von Kremer, Herrsch.
Id. d. IsL, 40 f.

3) For the Mu c
tazilite view of the attributes of God, vid. Steiner, Die
Mu c
taziliten 50, 52, 59; Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 103, 1245 Shahrastani,
Haarbriicker s transl n I, 71.
4) p. 72; cf.
Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II, 186; von Kremer, Herrsch. Id, d,
Isl. 41 f.
(a more positive view).
 1 88

Puzzled philosophical arguments the untrained mind

by ,

though resting on the analogy of perfect human being, and

holding fast to this as the undoubted ground and explana
Koran s anthropomorphisms asserted its impotence
tion of the ,

to answer philosophizing objections by saying, He is even

as he has described himself, I will say no more than this *).
There was a much less arbitrary answer, which may not
have been fully formulated in Ahmed ibn Hanbal s mind
any more than it was in that of Mohammed himself, but which ,

had it been clear to the mind of either, would have seemed

a blasphemy in its utterance, and would have involved in

evitably a proof of the charge made by those who were

arguing on the other side. This answer would have been to
assert the literal truth of the Koran s anthropomorphisms.
Ahmed s belief was anthropomorphic. That was the simple
fact 2 ). And the Prophet s was not the less so. The principle
on which Ahmed formed his notion of Deity was essent
ially right, the absolute is the perfection and infinitude
of the perfect finite but his opponents properly objected
;

to the giving of accidents of human nature, which may

or may not be found when the human creature is in other
environments, to the Being in connection with whom to speak
of accidents and environments would be paradoxical and

contradictory.
The fact of the matter in relation to these anthropomorphic
attributes is that Ahmed ibn Hanbal had to set himself up
not only, as his own apologist, but, also, as the apologist of
the Koran and the Prophet and he knew that ,
at least so it ,

1) cf. Dozy, Het Islamisme , 136; an argument of the Sifatiya, Shahras-

tani, Haarbriicker s transl n, I, 95.

2) cf. Goldziher, Zahiriten, p. 133, 1. 24 ff. The so-called negative position

of Malik ibn Anas and Ahmed ibn Hanbal in this connection is hard to un
derstand (vid. Shahrastani, Haarbriicker s transl n, I, 97, ii4f.). Refusing to

accept the meaning of the anthropomorphic expressions, and yet

figurative
insisting on the real force of these same expressions, as Ahmed certainly did,
how can passivity be conceived to exist in such minds? Insistence on the pos
itive meaning and yet not stating what the specific meaning was though
, ,

denying it to be figurative, leaves only anthropomorphism over.

 189

seems to us. Ahmed

had believed differently from the
If
Koran and Mohammed, human author, the case wouldits

have been a hard one for him but anthropomorphism existed ;

in higher quarters. Ahmed had the Word of God to uphold ,

as well as his own theological character and he made the

best defence that could be made under the circumstances.
He asserted that God was describing himself, and who knew
about himself more or better than he did? To such an
argument there is no direct answer. One must follow the
much more circuitous route of proving the apologist s con
ception of the Koran revelation to be wrong, and once
this is done the controversy on minor points would be time
lost. The allegorical interpretation of the anthropomorphic /
expressions appears to be justly repudiated by any man who
wishes to expound the Koran according to the temper of
the man who composed it the temper of the men to ,

whom it was first addressed ,

and the special intention actu
ally present in the mind of Mohammed ,
as far as this can
be learned.
Koran In- The step to the consideration of Ahmed ibn
terprctation. Hanbal s principle in the interpretation of the Koran
is not a great one 1
). He believed that the Koran was to be
explained literally, except in cases where the Book itself
indicated a limitation or modification of this method to be
necessary, and in cases where a practical impossibility was
involved. We
say practical impossibility, for purely abstract
necessity he was loth to admit as a regulating principle.
There are so few ascertainable instances of allegorical in
terpretation on his part, that one can say that his general
principle of hermeneutics governed him in dealing with the
portions of the Koran which might seem to some to be fig
urative. The indications of the Book itself and practical
necessity would determine for him the application of the
literal or some other method to such passages. In all cases

i) cf. his use of texts pp. 72, 90 f.,

101 ff., 106, 139, 162 f. For the freer

method of the Mu tazila,

c
v. Steiner, Die Mu taziliten
c
, 79.
 i
go

where the literal method had to he given up the

interpreta
tionhanded down in Tradition ever found favor with Ahmed.
Extra-Koran Closely allied with the interpretation of the
Sources of Koran is the question as to the authoritative
Doctrine. source of doctrine and rules of conduct, where
the Koran
fails to give
sufficiently explicit directions. For
Ahmed ibn Hanbal this lay in the Tradition. What had the
Prophet said? What had the Prophet done? What had the
Companions of the Prophet reported from him? Or, their
Followers? Or, the second generation of Followers? What was
the consensus of opinion and practice in the Muslim Com
munion ? The admission of the Kiyas or of Ray was generally
opposed, but admitted where there was no better help
to be found ). His monumental work, the great collection
Musnad had for its declared purpose
of traditions called the ,

the furnishing, conceivable instances, of sound tradi

in all
tional arguments to those who might resort to it 2 Its com
).

position and the importance Ahmed attached to it shew that

Tradition next to the Word of God itself was the great rock
on which he stood. Many testimonies go to prove that he
was more tenacious of Tradition than any of the other doctors
of his age 3
).
We find that when he forgave his persecutors
it was because of a traditional interpretation of a Koran verse 4
).

Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II, 217, note 4; Sachau Zur Aeltesten Gesch.
1) ,

d. Moh. Rechts, 17; Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 91 f.; cf. Goldziher, Zahiriten,
2O, note I. Houtsma s words p. 92, 1. 16 ff. seem to be too favorable to the
Mu c
tazila. Their interpretation of the Koran as far as the attributes of
God,
the anthropomorphic expressions regarding God and the predestination passages
,

are concerned was wholly figurative, and we know how large a part of the
polemic which they waged was over these points. The name Rationalists, or
Freethinkers, is justly applied to the Mu tazila and implies that the Koran
c

with them was authoritative , not absolutely or as far as practical necessity

would admit but only as far as the rational demands of human life and com
,

fort and the fair requirements of human thought allowed.

2) p. 19.
Ibn Khaldun, Proleg. Ill, 6; Goldziher, Zahiriten, 23, 1. 25; Sachau,
3)
Zur Aeltesten Gesch. d. Moh. Rechts 15; cf. present work p. 16 f.

4) Abu Nu caim, 150 a, oJj LO^J ^ J^

When the author of the Hilya relates that Ahmed was angry
[aJJ with those who weakened under the test in the days
x*.>G2c]

D
of al-Ma mun, he follows up the incident with a tradition of
some of the Prophet s Companions having been very angry
when they were called upon to give up any part of their
religion ). The author s purpose in introducing the tradition
where it stands, is to point out the analogy between Ahmed s
case and that cited, and to justify Ahmed in view of what
the Prophet s Companions had done. He may wish to inti
mate, also, that Ahmed acted knowing this precedent, and
being stimulated by it to feel as he did.
The Inter- His interpretation of Tradition also leaned to the
fretation of most rigorous view. A provision for relief in ex-
Tradition. he often made imperative such
ceptional cases in

JIB ^bUflt ii *i_:>

IL^ \

Jlas

IJo!

I) Abu Nu Gaim, 147 a, ^ Q^J ^-j-

^ *Ut
 192

instances, even if the persons concerned had no wish to avail

themselves of the dispensation or the cases were in detail not
the same as that originally provided for in the tradition. Hence,
what was meant to be a relief became instead a burden ). , ,

The Reason The belief he held in the merit of good works 2 )

for his was so strong that a rigid exegesis of the Koran and
Method O f Tradition was the most natural
thing to be ex
pected of him. The same belief explains his persistent applica-
and for the^w- f himself to a
of ascetic rigor and fasting 3 ). life

Manner of His love of the ascetic life in its turn throws light , ,

his Life. U O n the

p mystic character of his piety and his faith
in dreams 4 ). Solitude, hunger, and the absence of distract
ing comforts made the subjective life seem more real than the
objective, and led Ahmed to feel an aversion to a life such
as other men
lived; for in such a life the reality of the interior
world which he had created for himself was shattered, and mys
ticism with its revelry of religious imagination dissipated 5 ).

1) For illustration of his rigorous interpretation, see

Goldziher, Zahiriten,
pp. 87, 88 f., 103 1. 20 ff.;
cf. p. 141 infra; Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II, 250.

2) 164 and note I infra. Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 85, says that the
cf. p.
close adherence to the letter of the Koran on the part of the orthodox revived
a strict conception of life such as was found especially among the Hanbalites.
But we would call attention to the fact that there was at this time a
deep
current of popular sentiment favoring a stricter religious life, and this great

tendency of the life of individuals and of society at large expressed itself in

high views of the Koran and a rigid interpretation of its precepts. The stricter
conception of the Koran then reacted and gave definite form to the life ten
dency of the nation and its members. It was the conception of life that affected
the conception of the Book which was the rule of life ,
rather than otherwise.
Such is my reading of the circumstances , but Houtsma s explanation will also
find many advocates.
3) cf. Abu 1-Mah.
I, 364, obituary notice of Yazid ibn Yazid al-Azdi, AM
containing a reference to his ascetic life and imitation of Ahmed ibn Hanbal.
f.

4) al-Makrizi, p. 18, &(*i *1II 1

fljl
v_ftL*JI

cf. pp. 92 f.
,
82.

Abu Nu caim, 8

5) 142 ,
^J^ cX*.^ ^_jl
^ [Cod. inserts i] jLi
 193

Reverence This ascetic-mystic aspect of his character comprises

for Relics, a reverence for relics which has found expression
,

once or twice in the course of the

preceding narrative ).
1

Foreordination To one holding such views as those of which

of Events, we have been speaking the belief in a pre ,

destined order of the only explanation of human events.

life is

Ahmed appears to have held that there was no contingency,

either in the actions which men do, or in the events through
2
which they are called to pass ).

The Doc- The doctrine of Faith expounded by his friend

trine of Mohammed held by
ibn Aslam was , apparently ,

Faith. Ahmed ibn That is, that Faith

Hanbal, likewise.
is in the spirit, is expressed by the lips, and is confirmed /

by the acts. His declaration that discipline and trial would

3
serve to increase his faith favors such a view ).

Ahmed s Atti- His attitude toward patronage and favors on

tude toward the part of rulers was that of an extremist,
Patronage. b u t there can be no doubt that his high con-

LL
c
Abu Nu aim, 144 #, ic^

cf. p. 107.

2} note 2, p. 109; p. 151.

3) al-Maknzi, p. 12,

^^ <3^*^ >3
The faith which was increased by his adversity appears to
have been an inward exercise of the mind. cf. Mohammed ibn Aslam s

view p. 38 f.

13
 194

ception of his vocation as a teacher led him to keep as

clear of as possible ). Surramanra would become
compromise
his prison he said , were he to stay there and teach while ,
,

at the same time, receiving the fixed 2

salary of the Khalif ).
Ishak ibn Rahawaih he said he would rebuke, if he ever
saw him, truckling for his to the Emir Abdallah ibn Ta-
hir 3
).
The wilfulness
of Ahmed, doubtless, contributed to
his opposition to a Court position he was master of his own ;

circle in his own way in Baghdad, but at the Court such

would have been impossible. And, then, his real hatred of
easy and congenial conditions on the ground of religious
4
principle presented a crowning obstacle ).
Aversion to Sys- The character of Ahmed as a traditionist,
tematic Theology and his aversion to generalization and deduc-
and its Result. tion f prevented him from leaving behind any
system We may formulate for him in these
of opinions.
days, but he would not have been willing to do so. Hence,
the uninnuential character of the Hanbalite school. Their
master s teaching was unsystematic, and much ground was
lost his spirit and teaching could be put before the
ere
world such a form as to accomplish any powerful effect.
in
His personality in his lifetime and after his death was a great
force in the Muslim world; and the
personality seems yet
to be as powerful in its influence as the opinions which he
enunciated, though his following has never been great in
comparison with that of the other three orthodox Imams.

1) p. 112 infra, p. 141; cf. attitude of Malik ibn Anas toward Harun al-

Rashid, von Hammer, Lit. Gesch. Ill, 101 ,

102.

2) p. 142. 3) p. 145.
4) On this whole subject, cf.
Goldziher, Mori. Stud. II, 39.
 INDEX.

c
Abbas, the client of al-Ma^mun, 75.
c
Abbasa bint al-Fadl, 174.
c
Abd al-A la ibn Hammad, 174.
G
Abdallah ibn Abbas, 157, 159, 176.
Abdallah ibn Ahmed ibn Hanbal, 20 ff., 26, 28, 146 ff.,

f.
150,
173
Abdallah ibn Idris, 46.
Abdallah ibn Ishak, 140.
c
Abdallah ibn Mas ud, 102, 160.
Abdallah ibn Mohammed, known as Buran, 88, 147, 148.
Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak, 11.
c
Abdallah ibn Omar, 158.
Abdallah ibn Tahir, 18, 194.
Abd al-Malik ibn Abd al-Hamid al-Maimun, 26.
c
Abd al-Mun im ibn Idris ibn bint Wahb ibn Munabbih, 73.
Abd al- Rahman ibn Amr al-Auza i, 176. G c

Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi, 173.

Abd al-Rahman ibn Ishak, 70, 74, 78, 101 ff.

Abd al-Razzak, 12, 15 ff., 26.

c
Affan ibn Muslim, 86.
AhluVAhwa, 161 n. !
), 163 n. ).
c
Ahlu t-Tauhid wal- Adl ,
62 n. J
).

Ibn al-Ahmar, 73.

Ahmed ibn
c
Ammar, 105.
Ahmed ibn Abi Dowad, 3, 4, 52, 55 f., 64, 93, 102 ff., 120,
121, i26f., 142.
 196

Ahmed ibn Hanbal ,

his greatness and influence ,
2 ff. ;
his
biographers etc., 5, 173; family and early years,
birth,
10; teachers of, 1 1 ff. ; performance of the Hajj 14; at ,

c
Mecca, 14; at San a, 16; period of teaching, 18 f. works, ;

19; Musnad, 19 ff.; his pupils, 26; method of teaching,

26; contemporaries, 27 ff; friendship for mystics and ascet
ics, 41 ff; his trial predicted, 49; regrets of his apostasy
companions, 64 cited before Ishak ibn Ibrahim, 70, 72;
f.;

referred to in al-Ma mun s letter, 77; refuses to recant,

80 ordered to Tarsus, 8i; sent back to Baghdad and his
;

imprisonment there, 85; second citation, 89; discussion

before Ishak, 90 f. taken to al-Mu c tasim,
;
91; trial, 93 ff;
c
discussions before al-Mu tasim, 101 ff; ordered to be
flogged,
107 ff; set free, in; relations with al-Wathik, H4f.; in
vited to visit al-Mutawakkil , 139; conversation with Ishak
ibn Ibrahim, 139; accused of G Alyite leanings, 140; second
invitation of al-Mutawakkil 140 f.; vow to renounce teach,

ing, 142; royal gifts, 141, 143; fasting and sickness, 144 f.;
consulted about Ibn Abi Dowad, 142, 145; released by
al-Mutawakkil, 145 f.; correspondence with his sons, 146 f.;
his testament, returns to
147 f.; Baghdad, 148 ff; objects
to his family receiving stipends, I5of. accused to the ;

Khalif again, 152; al-Mutawakkil asks for his view as

to the Koran, 154; his letter in reply, 155 ff; Yahya ibn
Khakan visits him, 164; Mohammed ibn Abdallah ibn
Tahir invites him, 164; fasting, 164; sickness and death,
165 ff; his funeral, 172; his tomb, I72f.; family, 173 f.,
testimonies of esteem, 175 f.; Ahmed as a fakih, 177;
habits of life, 178; characteristics, 179; religious char
acter, iSi; personal appearance, 182; His Views,
183 on the Koran, 184 ff; on the Divine Unity, 187;
f.;

on anthropomorphic attributes, 187 ff. on interpretation ;

of the Koran, 189; on extra-Koran sources of doctrine,

190 f.; on interpretation of Tradition, 191; the reason for
his method and for the manner of his life,
192; rev
erence for relics, 193; foreordination of events, 193; the
doctrine of Faith, 193; his attitude toward patronage,
 197

193; aversion to systematic theology and its result, 194.

Ahmed ibn AbH-Hawari, 26.
Ahmed ibn Ibrahim al-Dauraki, 64.
Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Hani al-TaD i al-Athram, 26.
c
Ahmed ibn Nasr al-Khuza i, n6ff. 119, 127, 128.,

Ahmed ibn Rabah, 90.

c
Ahmed ibn Shuja 70, 78, 84.
,

Ahmed ibn Yazid ibn al-

c
Awwam Abu D
l-
c
Awwam al-Bazzaz,
70, 77, 84.
Ali (the Khalif), 54.
c c
Ali ibn Asim, 92.
c
Abu Ali ibn al-Banna, the Fakih, 173.
G
Ali ibn Hisham ibn al-Barid, 12.
c c
Ali ibn al-Ja d, 70, 84.
c
Ali ibn al-Jahm, 140.
c
Ali ibn al-Madini, 12, 26, 31, 87, 174, 176, 177.
c
Abi Mukatil, 70, 71, 76, 84.
Ali ibn
c
Ali ibn Yahya, 79.
G
Alkama, 176 n. ).

al-Amash 63. ,

Ammar ibn Yasir, 84.

G
Anbasa ibn Ishak, 84.
1
al-Aswad, I76n. ).

Ibn A yan, 180.

c

Ayub ibn al-Najjar, 46.

Ayub al-Sakhtiyani ,
161.

al-Baghawi, 26, 174.

Bahr ibn Asad, I2n. 3
).

al-Baihaki, 173.
Baki ibn Makhlad al-Andalusi, 26.
Ibn Bakka al-Akbar Abia Harun, 70, 73, 84.
Ibn Bakka al-Asghar, 72, 74.
Abu Bekr, 54, 123.
Abu Bekr ibn Abi Shaiba, 174.
3
Bishr ibn Ghiyath al-Marisi, 48 and n. ).

Bishr ibn al-Harith al-Hafi, 45, 125.

 198

Bishr ibn al-Mufaddal ,

12.
Bishr ibn al-Walid al-Kindi, 70 f., 75 f., 80, 84.
al-Bokhari, 26, 34.
Bugha al-Kabir, 90, 91.

Ibn Challikan, 176.

Abu Baud, 26.

c
Baud ibn Ali al-Zahiri, 46.
Abu Baud al-Hafari, 46.
al-Bhahabi, 176.
al-Bhayyal ibn al-Haitham, 70, 71, 76, 84.
al-Bhuhli, see Mohammed ibn Yahya.
Bivine attributes, The doctrine of, 391"., 90, 187.
Bivine Unity, 187.
Buhaim al-Shami, 26.
Ibn Abi Bunya, 26.

al-Fadl ibn al-Farrukhan , 70, 77 f., 84.

al-Fadl ibn Ghanim, 70, 77, 84.
Faith, Boctrine of, 39, 193.
D
Abu l
Faraj ibn al-Jauzi, 48, 173.
Farwa ibn Naufal al-Ashja c i, 160.
Fatima bint Ahmed, 175.
Fikh, 13, 177.
Freedom of the will, 62.

Ghundar, 12.

Goldziher, I, 7.

Hairs of the Prophet as charms, f.

107
al-Haitham ibn Jamil, 29.
c
Hajjaj ibn al-Sha ir, 26.
G
al-Hakam ibn Uyaina, 161.
Hammad ibn Zaid, n.
Hanbal ibn Ishak, 10, 26,
 i
99

Hanbalite School, Origin of, 4 f., 194.

Abu Hanifa, 30.
al-Harbiya, 175.
al-Harith ibn Asad al-Muhasibi, 41 ff.

Ibn al-Harsh, 70, 84.

Harun ibn Abdallah al-Zuhri, 61.
Harun al-Rashid, 47, 48, 50.
D
Abu l Hasan ibn Abd al-Hadi al-Sindi, 21.
al-Hasan ibn Ahmed, 175.
c
al-Hasan ibn Ali, 114.
al-Hasan al-Basri, 160, 162.
al-Hasan ibn Hammad al-Sajjada, 70, 78, 80, 84.
al-Hasan ibn Mohammed al-Khallal, 173.
al-Hasan ibn Musa al-Ashyab, 12.
Abu Hassan al-Ziyadi, 70, 71, 77.
Abu Hatim al-Razi, 26.
c
Hayyaj ibn al- Ala al-Sulami, 55.
Hisham, 47.
Hisn, concubine of Ahmed ibn Hanbal, 175.
Hudhaifa ibn al-Yaman, 162.
Abu Huraira, 159.
al-Husain, Tomb of, 123.
c
al-Husain ibn Ali al-Karabisi, 32 f., 176.
Abu l-Husain ibn al-Munadi, 173.
D

Hushaim ibn Bashir, n, 50.

Ibrahim al-Harbi, 26.

c c c
Ibrahim ibn Isma il al-Mu tazili, known as Ibn Ulayya, 47.
Ibrahim ibn al-Mahdi, 12, 26, 76, 80.
c
Ibrahim al-Nakha i, 162.
c
Ibrahim ibn Sa d, 12.

Ikhlas, Doctrine of, 76.

c
lmran ibn Husain, 102.
Ishak ibn Hanbal, 3, 10, 88, 112, 145, 150.
Ishak ibn Ibrahim al-Mausili, 139 n. ).
c
Ishak ibn Ibrahim ibn Mus ab, 56, 64, 70 ff., 83, 84, 85, 88,
89, 90, 139 and n. ), 140, 178, 184.
 200

Ishak ibn Abi Israel, 70, 84.

Ishak ibn Rahawaih, 12, 14, 18, 46, 145, 176, 194.
Ishak ibn Yahya, 63.
Abu Isma c
il
al-Ansari, 173.
c
Isma il ibn Baud, 64.
c
Isma il ibn Ibrahim ibn Bistam ,
12 n. 3
).
c
Isma il ibn Abi Mas c ud, 64.
c
Isma il ibn Ulayya, u.

Itakh, the Turk, 141, 144.

Jabir ibn Abdallah, 160.

c
al-Ja d ibn Dirham, 47.
Jarir ibn Abd al-Hamid, 12.
c
Abu Ja far al-Anbari, 81.
c
Abu c
Ja far ibn Dharih al- Ukbari, 152.
c c
Ja far ibn lsa al-Hasani, 74, 79.
c
Ja far ibn Mohammed, 139.
Abu c
Ja far Mohammed ibn Jarir al-Tabari, 5, 9, 177,
Jahmia, 37 ff.

Jahm ibn Safwan , 37 n. ).

Jubair ibn Nufair, 160.

Abu Juhaim, 159.

Kaidar, Governor of Egypt, 61.

2
Kalam, 32 and n. ), 41, 55.
Ibn al-Kalbi, the postmaster, 140.
Karramiya Murji a, see Murji a.
al-Khabab, 160.
Khalaf ibn Hisham al-Bazzar, 12 n. 3
), 31.
Khalid ibn Abdallah, 47.
Abu Kilaba, 161.
Kiyas, 190.
Knowledge of God, 90, 101 f., 187.
Koran, Orthodox doctrine of, 184 n. 5
).

von Kremer, A., 7.

Kubaisa ibn Okba, 12 n. 3 ).
119 and
its 2
"Kun", significance, n. ).
 2OI

Kussas, 24 n. *).
c
Kutaiba ibn Sa id ibn Jamil, 12 n.
3
), 70, 72.

Lafz al-Koran, 32 and n.

3
), 34 f., 46, 186.
c
al-Laith ibn Sa d, 176.

3
Abu l-Mahasin , 5.
Ibn Mahdi, vid. Ibrahim ibn al-Mahdi.
al-Makrizi, 8.
Malik ibn Anas, n, 50, 117, 176, 188 n. 2
), 194 n. !
).

Abu Ma mar c
al-Kati
c
i, 70, 78, 84.
al-Ma mun, 3, 6 f., 19, 47, 48, 50 ff., 52 f., 54, 55, 82, 83,
2
84, 105, 122, 126, 130 n. ).
His letters, 9, 56 ff., 63, 64,
65 ff., 74 ff, 83.
al-Manda, the Hafiz, 173.
Marwan II, 47.
c
Ibn Mas ud, see Abdallah ibn Mas c ud.
Mihna, i n. ),19, 47 ff; in Egypt, 61, U3f.; at Damascus,
61, 62; at Kufa, 63; general survey, I24ff
Mohammed ibn Abdallah al-Makdisi, 21.
Mohammed ibn Abdallah ibn Tahir, 164 and n. !

), 167, 172.
Mohammed ibn Abd al- Wahid, 21.
Mohammed ibn Ahmed, 175.
Mohammed ibn Ahmed ibn Abi Dowad, 56.
Mohammed ibn Aslam, 36 ff, 193.
Mohammed ibn Hanbal, 10.
Mohammed ibn al-Hasan, 29, 79.
Mohammed G
ibn al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn c
Asim, 70, 79, 84.
Mohammed ibn Hatim ibn Maimun , 70, 78, 84.
Mohammed ibn Ibrahim, 85.
Mohammed ibn Ishak, 140.
Mohammed ibn Ishak al-Saghani, 26.
Mohammed ibn al-Jarrah, 144.
Mohammed ibn Makhlad, 174.
Mohammed ibn Nuh al-Madrub c
al- ljli, 70, 78, 80, 81, 85,
119.
Mohammed ibn Sa d, 64.
c
 202

Mohammed ibn Sirin ,

161.
Mohammed ibn Yahya al-Dhuhli, 26, 46.
c
al-Mu aiti, 31.
Mu c awia ibn Kurra, 161.
al-Muhtadi, 122.
c
Murji a, 37 ff.

Musa ibn Harun, 26.

Abu Mushir, 79.
Abu Muslim , 64.
Muslim, 26.

Musnad, 5, 19 ff.

Mu c
tamar ibn Suleiman, 12.
2
al-Mu^tajim, 3, 6, 23 n. ), 55, 62, 63, 85, 90, 93 ff, 114, 127.
ai=Mufawakkil 4, 6, 19, 54, 63, 118, 122,
, 7, 129, 130 ff,
163, 169.
Mu c
tazila, 2, 6, 48 and n.
2
),
62 n. ), 187 n.
3
), 189 n. ),

190 n. *).
c
al-Mu tazz, 142, 143, 144.
al-Muttalib ibn Abdallah, 77.
Muzaffar, chamberlain of Abdallah ibn Ishak, 140.
Muzaffar ibn Kaidar, 113.
al-Muzaffar ibn Murrajja, 73.

al-Nadr ibn Shumail, 70, 84.

Names of God, 90.
Ibn Nasir, the Hafiz 173. ,

Abu Nasr al-Tammar, 70, 77, 84.

al-Nawawi, 176.
Abu Nu caim, Ahmed ibn Abdallah al-Ispahani, 8.
Abu Nu caim al-Fadl ibn Dukain, 63, 87 and n. J

).

Nu caim ibn Hammad, 119.

Ibn Numair, 12.

c
Obaidallah ibn Mohammed ibn al-Hasan, 72.
c
Obaidallah ibn Mohammed Abu l-Kasim, 26. D

c c
Obaidallah ibn Omar al-Kawariri, 70, 79, 80, 84.
c
Obaidallah ibn Yahya, 154, 183 f.
 20 3

c
Omar ibn Abd al-Aziz, 123, 161 f.
c
Omar ibn Ahmed al-Shamma al-Halabi, 21.
c
Omar ibn al-Khattab, 54, 159 f.
c c
Othman ibn Sa id al-Darimi, 26.

c
al-Rabi ibn Suleiman, iiQf.
Raja al-Hidari, 82.
Rationalism, vid. Mu tazila.
c

D
Ra y, 190.

c
Sa dawaih al-Wasiti, vid. Sa c id ibn Suleiman.
c
Sa id ibn Ahmed, 175.
c
Sa id ibn Suleiman Abu Othman al-Wasiti, 70, 78, 84.
Salih ibn Ahmed ibn Hanbal, 26, 141, 146 ff., 150, 151, 164,
i f.
/of., 173
Salih al-Rashidi, 104.
Samsama, 118.
al-Sari al-Sakati, 45.
c
al-Shafii, 2, 13, 27 ff., 49 f.
Abu Shuaib al-Hajjam, 90.
Ibn Shuja see Ahmed ibn Shuja c
, .

Shyites, 54 and n. *).

Sima al-Dimashki, 118.
al-Sindi, 75.
Sofyan al-Thauri, 176.
G
Sofyan ibn Uyaina, n, 12, 13.
Steiner, H., 7.
al-Subki, 8, 127, 172.

Tab c iun, 163.

Takia, 65, 83, 88, 128, 129.
Tashbih, 106.
Tauhid, 62.
Taus ibn Taus, 161, 169 f.

Abu Thaur, 176.

c
Ibn Ulayya al-Akbar, 12, 47, 70, 73.
 204
c
Wagil ibn Ata, 55 and n. 4
).
c
Waki ibn al-Jarrah 12 and n. ,
3
), 13.
al-Walid ibn Muslim, 12.
D
Abu l-Walid al-Tayalisi, 26, 174.
al-Wathik, 4, 6, 55, 63, 114, 1158"., 121, 127 ff.

Yahya ibn Abd al-Rahman al-

c
Omari, 70, 79, 84.
Yahya ibn Aktham, 52, 54 f., 56.
Yahya ibn Khakan, 143, 151, 164.
Yahya ibn Ma in,c
12, 16, 31, 64, 117, 128, 174, 176.
c
Yahya ibn Sa id al-Kattan , 12, 176.
D
Yahya ibn Abi Za ida, 12.
c
Ya kub Kausarra , 141.
c
Ya kub ibn Shaiba, 26.
Yazid ibn Harun ,
12 and n.
3
), 26, 29 f., 52, 176, 180.
Abia Yusuf, the Kadi, 12.
Yusuf ibn Yahya al-Buwaiti, 114, 119.
Yusuf ibn Abi Yusuf, 79.

Zainab bint Ahmed, 175.

Ibn al-Zayyat, the Vizier, 55.
c
Ziyad al-Baka i, 12.
Zuhair ibn Harb Abu Khaithama, 64.
Zuhair ibn Salih, 174.
Abu Zur ca al-Dimashki, 26.
Abu Zur ca al-Razi, 26, 175.
 INDEX OF NAMES OCCURRING IN ARABIC
FOOTNOTES.

(Names occurring only in Isnads or as names of Rawi s

are omitted).

1 6.
99-
12.

^UJI f^ljf 158.

1/6.
j^sJ 1 68.
174.
52, 55> 56, 63.
9;ffv 102, 104, io8f., 112, I8l
114, 115. I2 3-
97-
a^H 51

49.
82.
30.
1 1 6, 1 1 8 f.
S^I 173-

LaJ I
33 ,
I
35 .

181.
jj! 157.
t
46.

65, 8 1, 86 f., 98 f., 1 10, 112,

131, 178.

^ ^JL^M>\ 89, 112, 146, 33, 35 ff-

182.
>

153-

O- o 1

c^
-J 49, 169.
 206

j
92 f.
157.
174- 12.

j .& ^jf 15. 30.

j^i 43. I2 3> 124- J 3O, 192.

-

J 8 1. v^JL3> 1 80.

156.
J *\
*>
169. 99.

^ r*^ 34-
\JI
4O f. jf 46.

5
b _^jt 179.
L\A*,!
33,
27.
44 f.

109.
42.
1 66.
34, 158.

1
34, 70.
175

174. O J
0^51 49 f, 120.
82.
156.

169.
J
70. 174.

>

174.

115.
174.
173.

173.

174. 30.

124.
13, 14, 27ff, 33, 49, 102.

33 f., 169, 177.

 207

I ff,
3 176.
148 f, 151 f, 164, i66ff, i;of, ^1 173.
i;3f. 183, igof. 1 66.

^^ 133* X 36.
1 68.
176-
c\xc
31, 87 f, 174.

43, 155, 156-

L\X 123, 124, 157.

no.
a-
^ ^ f I
5 I

174- JI 28.

A 17, 18.

2O, 174.
28, 137, 149, i66ff, 171, 174. Ca^ 1 66.
aJjl L\X 46, 1 66.

&JJ1 tXxc 131.

c 1 8, 146.

155. J^aiJI 63, 87.

^j! 44 f.
83 I
3 8, I
92 f.
,
157.
j JJt
ju43, 103, 156.
.j
^Jt Axe 97, 98 ,
39, 41
99, 102. >Lxo
^-sKJ! 131.
^j!
. c 173.

J v^A-J l66f.
20 -

135.

n, 1 1 6.

99. 49> Si, 53^ 65, 81, 82,

86, 109.
 208

m 123, 124, i3of, 148 r, t

173.
151 f, i54f, 164, 167 f, 170. 30.
85.
113-
174.
,
173.
131.
I I .

40 ff.

J
35- 49-

3 o. 12, 29.
IO, II.
55.

148,
syt 115, 116, 119, 120.
165, 167 ff.

J^i^ 55.
174.
170.
133.

153.

33.
j
174.
170.

**?. 53-

35. _ **?. 134, 135

40 ff. 164.

_x^b 30.
.x^=o 10, 17, 65,
86 f, 99, 1 1 6, 174.
x^u j.jt 176.

134-

xJjXidl 49, 55-

ufctl 92 ff, 101, 104, io8ff, 30, 53
II2f, j 135
114, 115, I3I .

18. , 136.

tf
1
73- 120.
 CORRIGENDA.

Page 3, line 5, Read Abi for Abu.

4.,y
T" it
3,
O "

V)

19, n. i, Read cf. p. 114 and p. 142.

23, n. 2, last line, Read cf. Arabic, p. 97, 1. 2 ff.

28, line 6, Read al-Shan c s i

c
for al-Shan i s.

38, note, 1. 4 infra, Read Shahrastani for Shahrastani.

46, line 2, Read Ayub ibn al-Najjar.
c
47, 5, also Side-heading, Read al-Mu tazili for al-
Mu c
talizi.

53, last line, Read: made a jest.

70, line 6, Dele comma after "Sa

c
dawaih".

73, 2, Read Muzaffar for Muzaffir.

75, 12 infra, Dele comma after "him".

83, ii Read u^-Jj.

96, 10 v^au for jwij.

102, 4
109, 5 ^b *,LJ.
^;
172, 17, Insert after "and": confirmed their judgment.
200, 10 infra, Read al-Khabbab for al-Khabab.
 PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

Fatten, Walter Melville

Ahmed Ibn Hanbal