Ahmed ibn Hanbal and the Mihna

5 ' t

AHMED IBN HANBAL

AND

THE M I H N A.

<>

AHMED IBN HANBAL

AND

THE MIHNA.

A BIOGRAPHY OE THE IMAM INCLUDING
AN ACCOUNT OF THE MOHAM-
MEDAN INQUISITION CALLED THE MIHNA,
218—234 A. H.

BY

WALTER M. PATTON, B. D., Ph. D.

Professor in the Wesleyan 'Theological College, Montreal, Canada.

1 7. M .3.

LIBRAIRIE ET IMPRIMERIE

CI-DEVANT

E. J. BRILL

LEIDE— 1897. SEEN BY

PRESERVATION

SERVICES

DATE.. .pa- 0-2^

PRINTED BY E. J. BRILL, AT LEYDEN.

TO MY WIFE.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

The following pages contain the record of the Imam
Ahmed ibn Hanbal and of a struggle l ) with which he stood
connected, whose issues were so great as to warrant a close
study of all that is involved in the movement. The history of
Dogma in Islam as written by Western writers has given us
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.

J ) The 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 ^^>W) wjthqe ference to ja_religious
test with a view to obtaining assent to some particular beliefLor_s^siem of
beliefs. We find this special usage largely illustrated in the records of the
M u c tazilite inquisitio n , the account of which is to appear in the sequel. It
is also foun(Tin the accounts of the Orthodox inquisition under the Khalif

IKahir 200 years later. M ost commonly, the w hole persecution extending from
the year 218 A. H. to 234 A. H. is called the Mihna.

We have referred above to the issues of the Mihna, as
the persecution inaugura ted by al-Ma 3 nrmn\ is called; The
i mportance of th £m~hes in the fact that-they— settled the
' orthodox character of Islam for all ^following, ages ; and in
-the preservation of orthodoxy lies the preservation of-Islam
-itself, in our judgment. H ad Rat ionalism 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 more susceptible 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 Islam was to continue to be Islam, to preserve
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.

Ah med ibn Hanbal ,_d uring his whole career subsequent to
the death of the Imam al-Shafi c i (204 A. H.) w^i-hgm nsf rem ark-
able fig ure in the c amp of Mohammedan -orthodoxy . and
during the co u rse ofJ:he Mihna_di d more than any other
Individ ual to, stre ngthen the_j^esistance 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 j
and there is little exaggeration in the statement, made more
than once concerning him, that 'all men were looking to
him for an 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 D mun
had made up his mind to cite him to appear with the first
seven men to whom he put the test, but even 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
trial would better determine whether or not it would be
wise to attack one greater than they. Al-Ma^mun's letter to
his governor in Baghdad after the latter had examined the
doctors treats with gentleness Ahmed ibn Hanbal, when
one reads what he had to say about most of the other
doctors there alluded to. In the case of al -Mu c tasirrw-~wp .
must., bear- in m ind that he did not scour ge Ahmed until, he
had exhausted every means to save him, by threats.,, argu-
* merits and entreaties. He declared that had al-Ma D 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.
Furthermore, 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 °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 popular
uprising, al-Mu c tasim kept Ahmed within the precincts of
the palace until the evening, and then dressed him up in
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 the urging of Ibn 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 testimony to the powerful
impression of the man's personality upon his own age and
that following. The things which the Muslims reckon to
Ahmed's praise are his personal life, his intensely orthodox
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
j he had to wage. Ahmed's great book the Musnad is the
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 flattering recognition of Ahmed's worth and ser-
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 to the general course of events in connection with
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 c tazilites

- (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 gospel of Freedom because they felt the Law and the
Commandment to impose an inconvenience upon them, so
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.

The characters of the four Khalifs al-Ma'mun, al-Mu c tasim ,
al-Wathik and al-Mutawakkil will receive some additional
light from the narrative which follows; as a result, probably
that of the first and last named will receive a different
judgment from that which has been passed hitherto. Al-

— Ma D 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. 3110, which, with its companion Cod. 31 1 b,
represents the 5th and 4.^ vols, respectively, of a five vol-
ume Ms. of the *U 3 y *Jb* or ^t *Jb> of Abu Nu c aim
Ahmed ibn Abdallah al- D Ispahani (d. 450). 2) Cod. 730,
which was not in the University collection of Mss. at the
time that Dozy prepared his Catalogue, and is, therefore,
not described. Its companion volume, Cod. 73 £ Gol., is
however described. The two volumes form together one
transcript of the work of Taju'd-Din Abdu'l-Wahhab ibnu D l-
Subki (d. 771), entitled XarSUJI oUut: 3) Cod. 191 7, which
is likewise not described in the University Catalogue, but
will be 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.
S3, Cod. 188, Ahmed el-Maqrizi (f 845) ^a:> q j &r\ ^'iU*
Autographe de Vauteur.

The biography of Ahmed ibn Hanbal in Abu Nu c 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
subject's life. It is the oldest account of the three , and shews
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
biography before and after that time. Al-Makrizi's contribu-
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
account than that of Abu Nu c 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,
as might be expected, the more diffuse narrative of Abu Nu c 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, i^y.

Walter M. Patton.

AHMED IBN HANB AL and THE MIHNA.

I.

Ahmed's AhmedJbjL-Hanbal was born in the month of
Birth" and Rabi c the first, 164 A. H. \ The home of his parents
Family Con- was in Khorasa n 2 ). His father Mohammed ibn Han-
neaiom. ^al was ~~ one of the descendants of a captain in the
Abbaside army in Khorasan which fought to overthrow the
Omayyads 3 ). The family left Khorasan to take up residence
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
access is there, excepting of a brother of his father's, D Ishak
ibn Hanbal 5 ) and a son of this man , Hanbal ibn Tshak ibn
Hanbal 6 ) , any mention of a relative of his father's or his
own generation. His lineage was of pure Arabic_stQck 7 )
from the family of Shaiban of the great tribe of Bekr ibn
Wa'il. Ahmed is rarely called <ibn Mohammed', the name

1) Ibn Chall. No. 19, Dhahabi, Liber Class. 8, N°. 18, Abu'l-Mahasin

I, 735 *

2) Jacut II, 777.

3) Abu Nu c aim, Leiden Ms. 311a, i5°*> ^ £LL ^ CT *H* 0^>

4) Ibn Chall. N°. 19, Dhahabi, Liber Class. 8, N°. 1 8 , Al-Nawawi , Biog.
Dicty. p. Ifl.

5) Abu D l-Mah. I, 771.

6) Abu'l-Mah. II, 76; cf. p. 26, 1. 5 infra.

7) Al-Makrizi, Leiden Ms, 191 7, P- h & IS**** & ^J <** *

II

of his paternal grandfather taking the place of that of his
father , probably from the fact that the latter died at thirty
years of age while his son was still in infancy. On the death
of the father, the responsibility for Ahmed's care and training
devolved upon his mother, whose name and history we do
not know 1 ).

Years of We are without any details of his early years
Study and and know merely that he continued to reside in
Teachers, Baghdad until the year 179 A. H. In this year, when
fifteen years of age, he began the study of the Tradition 2 ).
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
the city to take part in an expedition to Tarsus 3 ). Malik ibn
"Anas, too, died in the very year in which Ahmed began to
study j and the latter used to say that he had been deprived
of Malik ibn D Anas and Hammad ibn Zaid , but that God
had given him in their place Sofyan ibn c Uyaina and D Isma c il
ibn c Ulayya 4 ). His first teacher was Hushaim ibn Bashir al-

1) That Ahmed's father did not die before his boy was born will appear
from the following: Abu Nu c aim, p. 138^, J»*^> q* lX.*^ 5 s^-jt ^$^3

^Jl ^iil u^.&' kXz ^ ^ Jl5 ^ x3-^y> '&-w oy^* *^

2) Dhahabi, Lib. Class. 8, N°. 18.

3) Abu Nu c aim, 138 a, ^ 3 JuJjl *SS> £ piXS ^Li { ^ Q^

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

4) Al-Makrizi, p. 2, *U% ^cL£>t *l\-c ^JU ^a^lXj *^Co. qI^j
v£^olX.£L l^fib uX.J'l JJ^\ ^Ib ^dt XJL«Jf gy */£>, i^ULo q3 g)JL

alii wftJL^Li gUU ^'13 Jyv. rj& £JLo^ (jytA-wj «^o &_JL_>w .^-^

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 &JH v^>

(if

containing about 1000 traditions, a part of the ^^aj, the

^UaS and some minor writings. He is said to have learned
from this teacher in all more than three thousand traditions *).
For the study of tradition he visited Kufa and Basra, Mecca,
Medina, Yemen, Syria and Mesopotamia 2 ) and among the
other teachers under whom he studied were Sofyan ibn
c Uyaina (f 198), D Ibrahim ibn Sa c d (f 183), Yahya ibn Sa c id
al-Kattan (f 198), Wakf {i 196) , Ibn c Ulayya (f 193), Ibn
Mahdi (f 198), Abd al-Razzak (f2ii), Jarir ibn Abd al-
Hamid (f 188), al-Walid ibn Muslim (f 194), c Ali ibn Hisham
ibn al-Barid, Mu c tamar ibn Suleiman (f 187), Ghundar (f 193),
Bishr ibn al-Mufaddal (f 186), Ziyad al-Baka 3 i, Yahya ibn
Abu Za'ida (f 182), Abu Yusuf the Kadi (f 182), Ibn Numair
(f 234), Yazid ibn Harun (|2o6), al-Hasan ibn Musa al-
'Ashyab (f 209), 'Ishak ibn Rahawaih (1238), c Aii ibn al-
Madini (1234), and Yahya ibn Ma c in (f 233) 3 ).

KaX£ ♦•J J.AX4-W)

1) Abu Nu c aim, 139 0, ^fi ^^ ^ jl5 [^nJLa^ J.AnaJi y±} jlS]

■^ * y >

Jtft jo vi>JvA^» ^Si\ &'^L3 0*fi* V ^ A ^ $ I*1«ao Litfj

2) On the subject of travelling about to acquire a knowledge of traditions
cf. Goldziher, Moh. Studien II, p. 176.

3) Cf. al-Nawawi Biog. Diet. If V f.; al-Subki, p. 133; Dhahabi, Lib. Class.
8, N°. 18. Dhahabi adds Bahr ibn 3 Asad. Abu D l-Mah. I, 638, makes Kubaisa

13

He studied with al-Shafi c i the Fikh and the 'Usui 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 D mun and Ahmed comes at
once into prominence. He must have been studying with
Abu Yusuf the Kadi before 182 A. H. when Abu Yusuf died.
His personal intercourse with al-Shafi c 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
in Baghdad, when al-Shafi c i returned there for a month in
198 A. H. before finally taking his departure from c Irak 2 ).
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
"Isnad for it, or, if he would give him the D 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's knowledge in respect to the traditions
of Salama 3 ). With Sofyan ibn c Uyaina he studied in Mecca

ibn c Okba one of Ahmed's teachers; I, 681, Khalaf ibn Hisham al-Bazzar;
I, 715, ^sma^l ibn ^Ibrahim ibn Bistam ; I. 734, Kutaiba ibn Sa^d ibn Jamil.
By Shahrastani Waki c and Yazid ibn Harun are classed as Shyites, Haarbr.
Trans. I. 218.

1) al-Makrtzi, p. 2, &&ii &-a-c J^j &-X>. ^xsUxJ* flo^L J^>^

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

3) al-Subki, p. 132, K*X*Ji «j>.il£ lot *^5 '5 q!^ lXax^ ^j '*-*£&> Jljj

idLJ l\j>15 a-5^u\AS V^^ J^- c *—**£' J^* ,:> ryi ^T^ *** LJy^J

Axle ^sl\ * c\-j ; I [cX^I] jJJI l\-x_c Uj JIs J vJ-xJl SSi^xi

14

before 198 A. H., in which year Sofyan died. We have no
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
the residence of al-Shafl c i in Mecca, in all likelihood, for
we have it recorded that D Ishak ibn Rahawaih on two occas-
ions disputed there with al-Shan c 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 in the hours when he was engaged
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 to whether the writing-tablets had been preserved.
On learning that they had, he asked for nothing more.
Still, owing to the torn state of his clothes, he was forced

^^Jt a^fi US <Vjus \SS} liAl' &*L* lU&^ e5^- ^ (***"* ^ ^^

&JLw o* £ JiJ { Jf^ Lu\\S> oit J^SaS tt-Xi^ \dS KaIav .-fij l3}&9

<A3»Ls "# uf$ jyus IlXS"} \OS KjLw [^c] JbzSKXb ^\?\ jyb J
vi>JLft5 ^U^ o*l> ^=> Lib* Jj-j A*> jb* &*£& £^£ v£^wX!> (3

tiLxi>i L^-^ ^Uav^Ij O^ qIj jU**% i*)jC>I ^-^ (marg. *^UBl)

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

2) al-Subki, pp. 157, 158, <^ 5 » U^/to. ^l^Uwl^ ^.xsLXvJl ^j »j£?U/o
J^o> ^ l\T^ L^j ^yeUJ^ £&<■. US jb* ay>^ ^? ^L^uJ ^_£

tsLJJ uah LJi ^xsL&J! e>X**i L*^JL-o (^j-^-1 Sj-bLjU

I

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 proferred gifts or loans he would
not on any account accept *).

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

1) Abu Nu c aim, 143 0, JlS <A5"t US ^ ( _5\_S\A-£> [*-£*i 3-^ <j&]

*£*j LJji Jls &ka> ^ [J-^> ry}] ^^ O"^ *^ ^^ <^~ c d*^ '
JlS £<x> JJ>! ^ 1^ &cU*v ^ ^ ^L ^Xj g^ I3-0 I^ l ; b

^-^b qI/j **iA:>i c>^.^5 ^JLo J».->* * — 513 x./oA:>l5 Jc>JI \A-£
\V-3o (£— ^' *J v^JLfti £ L-^ a^wUS* &-clJCo ^3y«Mi v^AjA-i#- wdJaj
K % j^-^l *5 c^JlS ~jjMf oJIjc Lo jLas tiV&LS y^AMi ^yji i^JLc

cX^t ^ Q^JU L&\>- (142 a) L^jaC ^^ ^.C jLw L03 L V$ ^LbJi

tf J6 ^t\j ^j <jjl ^-j ^ US J^> ^j <Ar' ^ alH ^.c Ui
IJl-P r «5 LjULS Jaii lA3> q^' 1 JlK Lltf UuJI TJ 3>15 ;L> LJ
XX4.J L-L-f j£ tiXJi ^a$" ^r^ aI U1& J^*> ^-j A+>I Jai>
«_i J& \Jj\ J*aJL>- -y t\*.:>-t 15l\.&& ^a^ c rr-J rj^** ^^ {$&&*
£ y> l^s y> ^J! ^IjJI ^_0>l L-JLJ JLS5 &ac JL**3 xJi U£> J
LUiB ^LsJLi> ^Jift I3I5 &JLc OjO-^ vlJlj &JI La^=5? vii^JI tikJi
*i v^^JLai ^US -s^Jy« Jo *y XU tiLo ^ ^^> Lo *UI tX-x-c Lb

Jl3 5 su\:>b qI ^ ^JLp u^>ji>l3 ,*xi Js »^>L i \ r M& vi^JLa^

^^SxajJIj j^^Ajjj v^ftAaJLj jj-j'b ^-^^ Lc^ls (jv.ftAai iwtLiSl^ Lji J, JCwl
^Li> t^Xgi i i^J& \3fi$ ^^^ o^*aJ ^xaJIo ^a^- J65 -i>^t

i6

pilgrimages Yahya ibn Ma c in accompanied Ahmed *), and they
made up their minds that, after the completion of the pilgrimage, I
they would go to San c a in Yemen and study Tradition with Abd
al-Razzak. On arriving at Mecca they met with the teacher,
who had, like themselves, come to perform the Hajj. Yahya i
ibn Ma c in introduced Ahmed to him, and, after making known
their wish to study with him , an appointment was made by Ibn
Ma c in in accordance with which they should receive his instruc-
tions in Mecca instead of going to San c a. Ibn Ma c in told Ahmed
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- I
tions to overcome his pious resolutions, and, in the end,!
they did go to San c a and received there the traditions. Hel
suffered great hardships on the way thither , for , though I
offered money sufficient to enable him to travel in compar-
ative comfort , he refused to take it and hired himself to 3
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-
ditions of al-Zuhri from Sa c 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

1) Abu D l-Feda, Annates, Reiske ed, II. 186.

i7

learned from Abd al-Razzak, even to one in which the
Prophet is represented as giving to Abu Taiba, a surgeon, a
dinar for cupping him. Following this example Ahmed , too ,
asked to be cupped and gave the surgeon a dinar *).

- 3 w

i) al-Makrizi, p. 7, qJ ^^T. L£a£i*j iS vjfci^ oL;£\> cX-JTl ^_=>
^^aJ5 ^LxJLad £) ...LxAn^ j ^s-> ^Laiiil l\-x-j U-gil (J^-c Lftajt^ ^*^

aS «jL& \*aw1j xSj*j Uil^ A^a^lXv l3j*j ^ lX-^ qI^ AaJLc Lx*X:>t
ail &!!! «L> jUi t}«*^> Q-i iA-J'I <iL-:>i ltA_£> ^*/o q-j i^-*- 5 ?.

oA:>5 *_3 (j^sw ^^ (A-^l Jb' &x£ tyait LJb B^i J> J^-c ^y&Jf

L&XmoJ 2L0 <i>rV lAi&j J>U^ *W q^ Lo l\^I flo^t JUb Ka&aJ^ j%&
A*$\ ^c ^-^ ^ ^-^ «^>tj i*r*-r^ £ L*ao ^t tyLw ^' Jj& Uj
J ^-j .* ^5* &^j o.Uc 1AJ55 "^f L&^> o^*^ U jb* &jt *xrt

LLU> j.L^\11 s-yuJadj. Abu Nu c aim , 141 b, ^> qJ lXTI g ; > U
^UiL (ji2-*-J q-» *.M*ii i^S& £ft&Ji *j vi^v^yiji jiJ! iAac ^Xt

OyV. o'jr^ <-X*^ c>^*-^ (<Aa4,>- ry* ^? c ) 1)5— *-£ • • • • Ls^-^i c\s>i
Lb J v^Jjis Uaw "fl (2^aa^ JS'3 L£l$> Js^a> q-J cX^I LaJIc *lX£

^ JwJb ^ ^^U y A*>l. Abu Nu c aim, 144 a, <-W>i ^-XJ Li
qaaj lXJs^ L^U« &_i 00^ jl;J iA-*x c\xc q-» K5^ J^a^> ^yl

i8

With Ishak ibn Rahawaih, who is called in the Kitab
al-Fihrist (I. 230) a leading Hanbalite, he corresponded
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 *).
Ahmed's When still a youth Ahmed ibn Hanbal was held

Period of in reverence as an authority on the Tradition ,
Teaching. anc j [ n the assemblies of the sheikhs was looked
up to with great respect 2 ). We do not know when his most

U JlS vjV* ^^ ^ A=>^f> & isU*£i ^.c <&£&& lX«J alii c\ah
^.^Ji v^\JlX> iu.c UaX^* yj}\jti iA>.fi o-» IkXfcuMl Ux9 X&&J{ Q^t
^_j <-X-ot>* ,•*-£ i*S &jp v ^-^ :> 5 **$' rt-^ *W «-k*£ rr-f -^L* <*} fi
U>^ to [«lll lXac ^jI ^t] ,3! JB .... ^ B* j-0 ^ q.c v r ^y*M»J
Ll^O lit i^LJJ^ Jjj^l <j*J^* "$ L-y& *.^a> Q-» o|)j^ ^J^ rr~ c

Jl5 [aW Juc yi\ ^t] £\ Jjq fjCo'Jo Lo ljj> K ^ JLS5 pgjf J|
^juw *>*o [lol" KJLa« 0L0] L*.*.* oWI ^ c U^^5 [*^ ^^ c ^] (3'

lXac q^ £*a« q-» J^j all! v\xc jfe jyM £ c5^ vX *-* c V*^ o^
U>Xi <3>t &JU C4JW5 v^xx^ *xU*wi ^OolLI <Axj ^;Jt

1) al-Nawawi Biog. Diet. Iff f. cf. al-Subki, p. 156, u^-:>lJL J*3»cXi

x*JL^U u&^U"t \\xH} L^JLji^ slSJ (Axe L&A:>15 XxiLSI aI^ Ui^Uvl

2) Abu Nu c aim, 144^, lU»J »-^^ > i«t-* ( -^ c O-**** jAnJ jjt jb'
cX^>l 5 q^IJOj v^o^xJl v^^3 ^^*»* ^-JL_bS «A^\^^> ^ a l^

19

active period of teaching and literary work occurred , but
he was established as the greatest traditionist of his time
when al-Ma 3 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: JJlxJl ^U^ - Uctf

lXJuUJ Uutf- Jy^Jt XcLb ^Us'-kI+$|L J^ ">j]\ vJ^-tsUiiil UlsS 3 ).

The 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 reliable basis for argument, and that what was
not contained in it was not to be regarded as a sound
basis. He looked upon this book as an imam which was to
settle all differences of opinion about any Sunna of the
Prophet 4 ). It has always had the greatest reputation in Mo-

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

2) al-Nawawi, Biog. Diet. Ift* 1 .

3) Kitab al-Fihrist I, fti.

4) al-Subkt, p. 133, 1. 20, xa*S\ v<\$> Jyot q-» J«ol dP^ *AJLm«o v-ftMj.

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 it is that, whereas there are a number of partial
copies of the work, only one complete manuscript is known
to-day 1 ).

The Musnad as compiled by Ahmed ibn Hanbal is no
longer extant 2 ) , nor does it seem to have survived his own
age; for Abu Abd al-Rahman Abdallah Ahmed's son, who
edited, with some additions of his own, the work of his

c^Jt^= jl& .... &£l^. (JM.J *!il 5 2u.b ^ jjj &Jt V^^ 1 C x ^° ^
£S>j p.xbo alll jy^ ^c £aav ^ <jJ.aJI v_aJl£>S 131 Lolo! ujUIjI Il\P

L £-w^J ^ $$ c^ajlX.:> v ait &jU*aav q-» l\JU*II ,3! -f> UsjJ vJISj XaJI

y^o q-» q^u> aJoLj^ \Sl\a3 »Aac v^saS ^x "bSt -yki ^ ( ^ji\i)
cXax: ^1 8l>LaavL -Jo J? JOOU ^ [Cod. has these points. Read q*^> ? ]

[y]j*}\ l\ac a c ^S <-JU JS U^JLc Jill U^j Jw>! r Wi ^ *)UI

v^ajlX^. vi>A> L-iLS La£ lX.aav.II £ *_a.£: _y>l J JU& Jjt ^t
Jjji a— Li lXaav.II ^ajoL=>I OtXfi Us -fi.*^ j~^l J© &a$"--j c^A'iljIi

£ a <j >5 ^oLaII a jt Jls JS w^ 2 ^ & ^ C <3 S ^!<A*>.j Oi^j

£♦.** x3^J lA^f *Lo^l ^jl xUI uXac j^jtj *^o &aJ ^^x ^J LotAJI
^Ji UJI y^Az} v_&JI SuLo j^ jaav.^JSj UJI oy^' j.^ iAaavII

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

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

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

21

father after his death l ) } speaks of what he heard from his
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 the Musnad with certain supple-
mentary traditions by the editor was made by Abu c Omar
Mohammed ibn Abd al-Wahid (f 345). A commentary in
.eighty sections making together ten volumes was prepared
by Abu D l-Hasan ibn Abd al-Hadi al-Sindi (f 11 39); an epi-
tome called al-Durr al-Muntacad min Musnad Ahmed was
compiled by Zain ad-Din c Omar ibn Ahmed al-Shamma 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: Li 3; > J^ J^> nl ^^ <AJLw.x> ^ j'
*^\xi^ 4 ). A printed edition of the work, based chiefly on a
manuscript in the Library of the Sadat Wafa c iya at Cairo
was issued in 1896 5 ).

The great work according to the boast of Ahmed himself
was intended to be encyclopaedic in its aim, as far as tra-
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 author's judgment could possibly contribute to a com- I
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
religious character was deemed unsatisfactory could be allowed
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 2 ) ; and , finally, the duplicate i
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 ritual, legal precedents, moral maxims, fables,
legends, historical incidents and biographical anecdotes 4 ).
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 special in view, which permitted of a real
system being observed. But Ahmed's aim was simply to
store up genuine traditions and nothing more 5 ).

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

i) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 478 &. note 1); 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 1 ). 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 2 ). His
great fault was the uncritical aim and method. Even in the
Isnads, where he was supposed to be an excellent critic,

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

2) During the trial before al-Mu c tasim it was not objected that any of his
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 many theologians. In the cases of most of
the latter Ahmed, however, makes a special note to the ^

effect that he sees no reason to refuse the traditions furnished
by them. And, lastly, he favours at times the Kussas, who,
while 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 M

naterials gathered by his father, and inserting corrections* J

ind glosses with explicit statement of his own authorship of
:hem. The traditions which he added to the Musnad appear i

:o have been afterwards brought together by him in a se- I

parate book which bore the title ^j <A*:>i ..L^i ^U**./o ^AjL;
\£>Ui jJJt lX*x 8c\JjJ ^aJ^>, In some cases where Abdallah
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
5alih and Abdallah and to his uncle Ishak ibn Hanbal, and
:hey alone formed the favoured circle who heard the com-
plete work from the lips of its author 3 ).

As may be inferred from what has been already said,

i) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 471 f, 478^ 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 fT. Abdallah is said to have made ad-
litions, likewise, to his father's «-\^Jf 1— jU5^,

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 localities where the author obtained his materials. In
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 of the same primitive authority should
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, pp. 2 — 195, Traditions of ten 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. 199—206, The Ahlu °1-Bait.

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

26

Vol. I, p. 206 to the end, Vol. 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 JoLaJt l\Iw> q*) i).

It should be carefully borne in mind that each one of the
sections enumerated , as well as the whole work , is called a
Musnad, e. g. The Musnad of the Meccans, the Musnad of
the Ansar etc. 2 ). Such is a general description of the long
famous Musnad of the Imam Ahmed.

Ahmed's Pupils. 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
Abu D l-Walid, c Ali ibn al-Madini, al-Bokhari, Muslim, Abu
Daud, al-Dhuhli, Abu Zur c a al-Razi, Abu Zur c a al-Dimashki,
Ibrahim al-Harbi, Abu Bekr Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Hani
al-Ta D i al-Athram, al-Baghawi, Obaidallah ibn Mohammed Abu
D l-Kasim (his last pupil £y>J 3 ), Ibn Abi Dunya, Mohammed
ibn Ishak al-Saghani, Abu Hatim al-Razi, Ahmed ibn Abi
D l-Hawari, Musa ibn Harun, Hanbal ibn Ishak, Othman ibn
Sa c id al-Darimi, Hajjaj ibn al-Sha c ir, Abd al-Malik ibn Abd
al-Hamid al-Maimun, Baki ibn Makhlad al-Andalusi, Ya c 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. If P. The name lXI^ in al-Nawawi's list should

*. o -

be lXJL^U; v. de Jong's ed. of Dhahabi's Muschtabih 74, Kamiis, and Abu D 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
started up and brought a book 3 ). His wish probably was to
verify his memoriter recitation.

Ahmed does not appear to have taken money from his

disciples, either for his services as a teacher or for the

writing materials etc. which he furnished 4 ).

Relations For al-Shafi c i he always entertained the most

with al- affectionate regard. His testimony to him was that

Sh&jii. none j n hj s day carried an ink-bottle or touched a
pen but there was resting upon him an obligation to al-
Shafi c i 5 ). For thirty years he declared he had never prayed
a prayer without offering in it a petition for his friend, and
on his son's asking him what kind of a man al-Shafi c i was
that he should pray for him so regularly, he replied that
al-Shafi c i was like the sun to the world and like good health
to mankind 6 ). Al-Shafi c i , too , seems to have had a great

Mahasin II. H\\. ^oL&Jf |W~><-> I have added from al-Subki, p. 133, 1.
18, cf. Dhahabi Liber Class. 8, N°. 69.

1) al-Nawawi, Biog. Diet. tfl*.

2) Abu Nu c aim, 139 a, Lo (()*>-*.£> ^-J iA+:>f q.-j &W iA-jx) ^i&i

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

4) al-Nawawi, Biog. Diet, If 6, cf. Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II, 181.

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

6) al-Nawawi, Biog. Diet. vl. al-Makrizi , p. 2 , Uo <A*>-i *Uo^' JLJSj

2S

respect and affection for Ahmed. He is said to have declared,
'0 Abu Abdallah , whenever a tradition from the Messenger
of God is sound in your judgment, tell it to us that we may
conform to it'. Ahmed is reported as saying that al-Shafi c i
told him that he (Ahmed) was more learned in the sound
traditions than himself, and that his (al-ShafiTs) desire was to
know from him what he regarded as sound that he might
adopt it. Ahmed's son Abdallah declared that, wherever al-
Shafi c i says in his book 'a trustworthy person told me that', or 'a
trustworthy person related that to me', he refers to his father.
Abdallah said, further, that the book which al-Shafi c 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 1 ). Al-Shafi c i

s jaj, :<-^~ D v^ *W>* i £$-*-* ^ &> r**> -3 1 JobaB

i) Abu Nu c aim, 140^, <Axc \&>x+j* J5 lX*^ ^j qU-Juw Lo w V>

r Jf V5fc Lu -U\**8 h.=>% JLcl

vi>^> xs' t$*3» -xi*J AiJuo ^AJt v-jLaJB' q^ <3^*^ >** oVAAaJ xJuad

2 9

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-
ning of 200. In c Irak 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
198 '). Al-Shafi ! said, 'I left Baghdad and did not leave
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

Content- in Baghdad, thought highly of his pupil's authority.
poranes. Q n 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
Yaztd ibn that Ahmed gave apparently unreserved credit to

Harun. Yazid ibn Harun as a traditionist. At one time
Musa ibn Hizam al-Tirmidhi was on his way to Abu Suleiman
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

* * -

Xxlc .-Jb £.w3 -A2.*J { *J^i Jt} X^jlz. j£*->? £^^ '3-^i L*-£w£ q4

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

2) al-Subkl, p. 132, 1. 9, \^*=>f> *&*f> »^ U>i { j±l£J\ &-xi Ji

cf. Ibn Chall. N°. 19.

3) Abu Nu c aim, 141 a, ++&$ ^ v£oJ^ J^^> ^ f*~& X > vi»A>

30

that it was a very strange thing that Ibn Hizam should be
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 for an explanation. Ahmed
answering said, "You will not receive the Isnad 'Yazid ibn
Harun in Wasit said, Homaid told me from Anas, saying,
the Messenger of God said'; and , yet , you receive the Isnad
'Such an one said, Mohammed ibn al-Hasan told us from
Ya c 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
study with Yazid, on the other hand, Yazid ibn Sa c 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 ).

i) Abu Nu c aim, 144 b^ (A/O^j ^(A^ydi ^J^ O"^ L5^>^ *Jj-^-rf)
V"^ & [Cod. ^Ls^J^t] J>U>^^JI qUJU 3! it <_*Jl&>l kl^jS
it i JU& ~*4^ ^^ J***> cji 0±+z>\ ^.L&CaJs ^**JL ^j k\+^

it +tf f (£** v-^?\*Jt ck.4£>\ i JL& qUa!^ ^.jI it c^A& ^-jt

Uj v^&a^ \^sl£b tj**^ fc^ i' &&L3 J^n f^Mlj &abL$ +jti*a fc^^

v-^&u ^c cj"*^ O* l ^* m ^ ? ^ «3j5j ^% j^*lo &Ui Jv^) jlS vJS
vi>jJCSl5 ^di £ *!> 5 £V fjp* 0~- lT*^ ^ *****" ^-f* [j-*

2) Abu Nu c aim, 140 0, vi^-^ <3v-£-J ic-^ c>Jt*;w (<jdJt <A-*«c) jlS

3i

Q All ibn c Ali ibn al-Madini not only shewed great respect
at-Madlni.iox Ahmed, but received it, likewise, from him. It
is said that when c Ali came to Baghdad he took a leading
place among the traditionists, and at such times as men
like Ahmed and Yahya ibn Ma c m and Khalaf and al-Mu c aiti
were in difference of opinion on any point the voice of c Ali
was regarded as decisive. Ahmed out of respect never called
c Ali by his proper name, but always by his kunya Abu D l-
Hasan 1 ). 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 c in
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
MaHn. 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 ).

jJU jjxf j$> ^i\ ^.*j o* 3 ^ ***** ^ ^ 0>J"^ O^
i) al-Nawawi, Biog. Diet, ??F, cf. Goldziher Moh. Stud. I. 267.

2) al-Subki, p. 185, 1. 1, JlS Jw.fi jJ {JLst i\+»f Jjjb ^-J^ J^ 5

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

4) „ n I^a; the word oLa«:> should probably be read

e , « >

\-jL^-, jars, (sg. v«5>) vid. De Goeje, Gloss. Bibl. Geog.

32

Ai-Husain One of the contemporaries of Ahmed ibn Hanbal
ibn 1 Altai- was al-Husain ibn c Ali ibn Yazid Abu c Ali al-Ka-
Karablsi. r ^\ s \ (| 245 A. H.) This man was well known both
as a fakih and as a traditionist. At first, he was a disciple
of the Ra'y school , but , later , inclined to the views of al-
Shafi c 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
leaning toward dialectical theology (^ ^) 2 ), in general,
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 (qT^JI Ji&J) 3 ). He appears to have trifled somewhat
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, declared it 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,

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

&

2) For origin and use of the term *jL-j vid. Houtsma, De Strijd over het
Dogma, 87 f.; cf. Shahrastani , Haarbr. transl'n II. 388 f.

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
than with his theological conclusions l ).

i) al-Subki, p. 172, qK ^.^-u^fil J.c jJ cXjjJ ^J ^c ^ Cft-*^

^sl&JJ aj&j Jf ^Ul

j^X"i U ^^xjJ^i ^*o- i JS (j>lfi^J 03b jl5)

L15 ^JCjQf A^lfi ty5i ^1 ^ ^v3b* *I t-JLiii j&ctX'i jIlXxj J,t ^LwJI

waX^Us lX-4£>* J. Jtto-i q^ Uaajl 3-^3 JaaJJ^ XU*** w^^wo a-a-J

q-, ^^-m^O^JBI ^C yA ^ y^Xi wAAmJ! iJ^S A_JL_£ (A^^l (jvUil

& - #\}\ r ik f\Ji\ ^*& ^J JUS o^Lftil & ^Ul.* **$} fcSfti^

£iyw £ ^NjJKaII J^-x-* O^L&tt ^ ajU*' J.-c Jj-l\ ajU v-jIaY
Lr %^oly3J J«*3 *jl ^JU ^JLi *]^l J..0I jJLwj - r ;'>-^ v^^o

Jy& Li JJuJI a! jLSj o>^° j^ *^ f^ $ o^' ^ ^y*" 3 ' ^

q.j l\*s>I ^1 JJLJI 1^*24* >J*^^ aj i^UaftJ JUs ^LsJIj ^^-fetai £

<A-*J>1 qJ 13l\/.C (^AJIj Afl\j 8l\.S> JlJLS (£.> U *] _Ji,5 J»AA>

v^a^jJ Jf Joalfl &l&wwo ^_£ v*>-^ it K-cl\.j »A£> A^Jb .Lwi A/£»
qUo KcJo *^Uii ^ t^t a-uou "i U J, * ; it 0^>^>j ^ (5^*J L-*
*jl *U1 at, <A+^Li a ki ^ ^tj J*>1 a-x-5 r ^JBI ^ c^CJI

^MN^L ^1 JJLm^jI jj> ; KclXj «l\^ jls Li o^?\ \ y&) eU3 <5

3

34

Al-Bokhari. 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,

^.mJI nJU-o WJts \X?\ ^S\ Sl*h yji»^ j*£ O^k tl^kalj *J jl&
lo J^c ti)Ju\.J IlX^ &c<Aj Uajl »l\P JISj «^Jo Lcajt i\?\ ^Cil5 Lob
J^t & *^UBt ^-Jf £cu\j »l\_S> aJyij \Jti Lii <A*r>) y\ Q-, *J^5U
\JU<» j%i sUii lo +j$h ***;**3 \c"*^ ^LaSI -£xj v_£x& ^ &JU**,t(

La22j\ <gU<-V. U^ £a*Lo £>!.£> *^U5I l --jt ct\j ^ Lo LJ. &U**il ,5
$3y(^ q^ v£ol:> Lisa.! ^t qJCaj ^ v^aJUJt q^ ^JLi U J.-C

^^Jl ^t ^ »y t ^ gol&ict ^c ^ fc2X..i3 j, *^Lfll c ^ Lit
L^bL^u c\+:>i i3yb ^^ *Jl&« <*j^>^ J^ *^-3 <A*>i *^15" ^*Jlj
O* J xx*' l$y\5 .A'i KJX^L «A^ v3*r^ oV*^ lT^^ J'- 5 '' ^a5C^=)
iU^> r j ^ l\*;>I *U^i &*:>-Ji j, ^x&xJ! LaJax^ L^v3 3 *LLil

lo oJUIj Ul3 <^J.3 J, Jl^xj ^\ -5ol Lxjt., L^aJli^b J scNiixjtjj Lxs
Jaalfl kJUa^o ^t *-^J.Jj q-» f 5 ^ j*^ <3 Lx^xXv JJ5 LiJ^it, blj^Lxv
vJijLall Sl5J> J, (J; ; lXj ^ ^->Jt o* ^/^ f^ ^r* ^ £?>* ^
|?lW» jj^xJ*, Q^i^o ^ 3l> ^5"c> q-. wL^ j£> ytfl uXSj J^Sj Lo

35

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

i) al-Subki, p. 214, LI J.SUJi liJ JlS ^L> ^J «A*^ ^J ^mJL JiS

^sui iJOo j^xcJi ^l^it Jv>Ji Il\5> &\ \y£>6\ j^U^J ^L^uSI 1X5
J.AXJI u*.^ J, Jjji ^> j;> *x,o gL^wJI Jvc y*% **$ ^Uii

Jl>j ju^ J3 ^Uii yia> Lis 8jA^t_*l$ ^JL^ 1 ^j5JL Joaifl vL-S-j
OjJl^ ^ f l _>-$> j^ U3L, iaUl J ^ U alii Jue Lb Jls*

%L? ^L*Ji JUst, o^- 1 -^ j-*-^ ^ r^ r olr *j ls?>M

Ajt'i} &a£ f^SJuj ywUJI i^ax&j J._>-_Jl i^oLwXs £_,ci\_j ...Lr?0o^lj

US* aUf l\a£ ^j J,£: LocX> K^li^Ui oLxJf jlxsf Li Jiyb J^x^J
j-xaJI jlS JlS <\sjlX> q£ ^j. j^_c <s)dx> j.*\ US kjjLjcx ,.-2 oSi*

£ ^il jlxil i _sJI LIS vfy? ^bcTj jJbUiT, jW^» 5 ^>

U^-aJ &LJf J^L*' _^£-i v-i^JLSJI J, <jr^ V}*^ j,^3AA*Jti v^to-Lal'

JyiSi ^5^ ^3 ^]l a ^> JLJLj -Jj H^aJi a ^> D ^li JUj J6 3

J^jui BflyiKj V;-- 51 r ^-^ o^' O^ H£i ; 5jl ° L i JtJt ^ J V^ U^
$U2*j ^ Uy *.lc r xib &UI -wol ^ c Jwo q^ l\>^ (j^^ JujuI

36

Mohammed Another of Ahmed's companions, whose highest
ibn Aslam. compliment was that he resembled the great Imam ,
was Mohammed ibn Aslam Abu Husain al-Kindi al-Tusi

J% £>y iUJI J,-^5 ^Ui» J-*-s Hj^UJI Q i al J^-JB s^gJW $

^cp &aJLc 04.^5 oa3> Lo OOJ-aawIj ^ic ^aj q-» jj vi^i*J y^
^1 ii)J ;L> v_ju^ a! vi^Afti j^asmj o*i3 j'i* 5 lA-P ^£^ ^^ \J

JlS ^> ,£.& IlX^ ^n j^t Li &s~.l\ J.iVo ^L^UJi *«o jC^ JJjti'^
^ LJI 1^ jjUls UjL iL* *.mJ^° J,l ^1x5?. ^ ^) J.JOUI

^ vi>.li «^-^J ^L-5 *axj *Jli sIax^ Jialfi £ f-^-J ^-^ olt\ij

vj^L^ tyiJlj ^JhaJ JB ^ *»aj Lo t^U^ 5 ^ Lo Jx ^Liuil

->-+* 0^ o 1 /^ l^ mj o 1 r £ J ^ ^^ Jt u^- O^ **** J '^>
L/ j.aa=> ^j c\.r 5 »^y Lo jtXJi vAac jJL*J^ ^^ j a*^ u>y

&aa»av (jv*_j q-» r^ ^^^ O* f—fj* *— ^^ oS l5j'- : ^^' ^ajl^°

JjUvo ^ u^jji ^ ^Ji xlfii ^ lj^ ^.ri 3 J-? *y U» 5

*JI -Lyl>^i <Aac (4^U3 ^fi j.c Jj*^ liAxc ^Li^JI r bL5^ ^1
[dittography iAJLc] «Axc O^a^jI^ v^^3 jr^A* 5 ^^^ ^^ (•'^^ ^ j»^U5lJ
^c Ljs\^a5 v-V 5 ^ Uir^V^^ ol5tj> cJ 5 tiU«3 ^ili ^Caa« _Lx>"il *l\c

q^3 KaaJ! iAa£: ^U^ QyiA^" #J Qy^y qJ^xJ' c^J^t oL^jy-*

37

(f 242 A. H.). This man was an earnest opponent of the Jahmi
and Murji *) sects, of the former because they professed that

^_il jii* \jl b^joij ^Aj-ftJi sL. UjO ^_JL-c ^jo cX-Sj XJ;A*ii <j[j.*it
( ^:^?. ^ iA^^* ^I J, v_£a^H ujljyj ^ 5 ^♦fP- ybo "i Q* J.^tw^

*! JlS lXJs, JlS v^.a> ^.L^> (*^ c ^j-^ Q^5 LfjL^M u3.k tXfiJj

^vjL^ o'y*^ c<^ ^^ ^ l^^* ^ (j*' L -^ ^ oUii 5.^ ^j

t$VVl lt** 3 3 j^**** J^* cr ^ cr ^ ^ ^° -k*^ ^ W?

J>l jUjtXt^ K-X-^ »jW2>J^ Ks^il^ otiAijj q'uX^^j l^A [dittography
JL«il oUS j>' ^ jJLSI ^ j>ls V^ H* O^ o 1 /^ L5^ °^

^1 aLJ^ «ajlc |*.UJ^ «Low 3 alfol L» a^^tf J^b oJIS ^L^ 5 oLxJt
JLxSl ^Jls ^Cj " b \s^ ^ k^ L^^ (^*^9. ^ *^' oUasj *bU5t

j^LXilj XjL*!! s<A_£ (jaAxai^ ^_£ jouotxi SkXcS j-^5 £3^L^ oLotJi

L&UJlS %JL^ UJU^ UiUil KJU> ^ UMJ a l r Ul JJitc Jf a li
*jl> sL, Xac iC^V^P L5j^' ^.'5; ^5 tS^ ^H &**ab\ uXfti 5 XJ^Ls^

%1^ UJU51 JUS a UJL J&ilfl a c 5]Lwi ^LfeJI Al r 'S ib^ a !
J.c Li^U>t A331 j.yi^ ^vj «js 5 2<Jl SylXii ^ UJL*st ^^ UbUJI 5

J5 5 VJL^° q^Ij ^^^ [dittography jlS] JS ^-Ato*.j JLftJ ^L^uit
1) 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 it is implied that if the
word 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
eternally potential in him and 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,
— for one Lord is admitted without question, — and the
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 is the result of the reasoning, and without reasoning,
from the standpoint of the orthodox apologist, they are
guilty, as well, of forging a lie against God (sl^Xil) by
declaring that God did not speak to Moses though the Koran
says he did.

Against the Karramiya Murji'a Ibn Aslam maintained the

Shahrastani Haarbrucker's transl'n I, 89; 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, 156 ff. 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,
p. 39) and with the Sifatiya Karramiya (Shahrastani, Haarbr. transl'n I,
H9ff., especially p. 127). Ahmed ibn Hanbal, it will be remembered, com-
posed two works bearing the titles, respectively, JU*fil Jjs JLj ±,[xf
and qU^I V^> vid - P- 19-

39

doctrine that faith is a gift of God 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
in hell-fire. This faith is given only to those upon whom God is
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
for its subjects the things believed on by the heart. These
it declares to be true; and, more specifically, it gives the
formal confession that there is no God but Allah and that
Mohammed is his Prophet and his Messenger. The acts of
the members lie in the performance of such things as God
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 Khalifs , who 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
his task. Those (also called MurjPa *) who held that works
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 &axi\J5I v. De Goeje, Gloss. Bibl. Geog.

4-0

of his method of proving his position in this respect, nor
have we any exposition of what it involved *).

i) Abu Nu c aim, 162 a ff, ^-c JZ&aJ & X-rfiL*' Lo^ ^\_A_.&.Jt Jb

*)^Aa3 q-, 'jA^ ^*a* **^ 'w/3 ^H^

& JUfc LoiLT a! » <jo l\5 aUJ ^ qjJUj ^ ft t*U3 5 y^fct

g, jl& *bLw.il &Jlc tf^y *^ *^!i ^^ ^ o' r^k U.a1£j (^^^
lit J,l ic^a b *L3 ^ ^cj q4 (A- Jj 1j! J>S ^.^^ [> »LjJ ^4.xi5o

o ^M'ft 3$ LaL> q' *«£•; *-i^ &Lii J^-c sjU-Xs^ adfyfc *.£l.c cXiis

*l!l r ^ ^lysJI ^l a Lj oL^I %^» ce ji «UL Uyit C^JU, oils-
olL> «1H J^Js 5 I odli> «l!l ^^i.S' ^1 *_c; ^.^ i^._A ^Laj L^ij

41

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-Mnlasibu s t- r0 ng antipathy because this man was said to use ^- -*H '
reasoning in theological matters. The reconciliation between

£r

*£>„Jt ^.c aJJI &Z* *.*£& Lo^ v_&JL:> &-jL*^ ^ alii l^"^* ^ ^
\-xjS LwL> LU^ 2k jLLo^ j v^JL&S! oLjc\j«2j

ajeLo dll j^-a*^ jl — a— »

^.aJLj _3>^i *^-^JL, <xL"j 5 \-a-X.5^ ^ocXjbLx 5 &UL ^0 ^ qW.^

alM J*.aS q^ qI-.*-j^M ^lA-ji *LJ ^_j u\*^ jlS ^-xi^l-.^ ^JLc ^^
*jJt &aa£>j O^-^' *"^"* CT"^ *"^ ;5~"* '^ ! *-2 *£■}' *-i-i"^V. 5 o^-^

X^p Ijl^'i all* J.>i O^ qU-^I L\>i JU qJ c\*^ Jl5 ^.A^iS *~J.c
a repetition Ly aula ^ lJlXJLo 8l>La£ ^ £ ^V. O"* ti^ ^ nf. ^**2
qL^J X*li5 ^ rJ^J^ »yA*3 *J ^j*^ J J **^* *^ j^. [°f preceding matter
*L* ^ &xaj"^ 2Gl$obL^ 2JJL ^xli qJ &_£_jJ (Codex x>.j^Aaj^) ^a^ 1 ^
.LaJI^ \i.&2 J.**.^ vi>.*J|j q^U, 8.^ tjii^ &f p^h) m z>i\ [»**%

t(3ls xaJLjs ,3 alii ^iuXi (^uXJl ,yil ^ t*V.i3 3 <Ai> ^1 -&Xj ^1^ ^>

V

42

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

qJ j& *L#il *XP ^ ( urU> all! Ayjy !j^ |5 alii ^1 *JI ^
_ J^^lJI u^JUc qLw.1J1 iX-£*w$ ^JlaJS /^woi bL-S Jl-> * r A$j\ L^j
,3 If-Jlc *1N o£-> ooij qU^ J*«ju c^JL^-c^ dill — /ol ^^.cLbli

WW >

£ &VJ3 ^Lxj *Ht qaj cXijj Ux^/j ^ iA-J3 J**j ULs qLJJI *_j
qU-^I a^JI *—*-*■=> *W 0^5 J^ **^ cr» nk."^ ^-? rV *-^xr

*JtJ JB LfcJ J-X.J XwoU-Ti J J*S> *J J*jJ5 (J^=> ^**& &JU-J Q"^

cX'ij (J*«Jb ^ J-*.*JIj uyu ^UjJ ^ ^*j <A£ ail q^j ^i jJjji <)*aJ>
J.*c bli qU"^ Jw*xj J.4^ bt &x£JLj l^UJI j v3*-XJI qU/N qI ^
&xlc ^Js.Ji ftwo^Ll' fcX-g-5 Q-»*r-* 20 1 &.5U-J JUilc .-«£aj •mU^ J***J

ULjuu _>$ U"fl Js U>t *uiU Jl/Oii J.*> *ii 5 vU<Jl 3 *LJt
^t *$ <^Ati\ ,j L^= ^ju ^/.x/Oj t\-g,JLj <A.^L^ qL^..]]I qI^ ^JlaJt

v\>*5 ok.^* L5^^ J ^ C^ O* ^■ 4 "^ $ H^J^ v£ajoI:>I i^*^^^
JUP^L (j^LiJl J^toLftAJ ^J^J5 ^^J^-Ulf JLiLj JUc^L y^UJI JotoU^

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

hji\ ^ <j^\JI ^ Juoas I jjp X s ytfi K a ^ \ ^-cj a,Si \L=>

JJl iy^j Q« JwAi3-Si K alii i$y»j <A*J ^ ^ q! Vj {J ^> Xf
S^LaJj^ _j^^ H-**^ ' iSw ^ O"** V^ ^^ hlXxj IjJUc SU^J **Lo
J? JU* J.a^sI **i/o &UI iV-*^ *A***il jL^ 5 SLSwXjwaJ^ ^LxjuaJ^
^ ^<j jjt L^iLo ^ S-jutt' ^L^l |jJL/: c\.s .& ^.jt i\jtj ^ q-»

^J BjA^f JU^t yt^= l\3 y? <A*J (M^ ^0 *ji" SULx Js-A^it -&

Jj-wj v^' *-^ CT Jf ^° J^si *-*-£$ W*W. A jV= U1^*j ^

isLjl^UaJt ^OJL,c Li -a^I 8-a^ "ziUct y^ tXJj yyuUi' q<» *.xJUo alii

^Aii ^^c^jli t<A-P lk> a -^ jJaJ Lk> ^fj &jl* Jucost fcjL^uaJlj

J.& *^j3 X.A./0 *bJiA-£ *L&J. q^ J*.c «J>Lx. <j^ £ L^j £y% JuCaib pLm^j

alii q-» ^i oW.*^' o^ *^ l5^ cr ^kJ f*-^ n ' j4- *^ t^* cr

J^ L^jLo ^LfiLs s3)\^ *-**-3 L*-^ *LJw ^^ iOLa-C ,^-U &4.**S

&^ cr j>y c^ c j£* j»^l^^U 8,lX-ao JJI _^ ^^ii jLi5 5 ^jCj^JLi' ^
^^Li> ^ ; y a L5" ioLs D LaiuJ| 5 aoLijJt ^ c^Jl^ j^fi. ^j r <s

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
— '.four people attended his funeral. It is possible that this may,
however, be explained as the consequence of some pious
wish which he had expressed *).

J^ (j*-*M £**«& q-* U^^3 J^fi "% v-^li vJb*A«aj ^b Jyj *il

^c^Xj *Jm*^ ^-g-^ rg-ki 5 ^iiLto ^-oi *y$ ^L-s ^Aj^-cS U; ^>. JLS

* *

oy^ 3 - ^a 5 M-^ cr" 1^ crV ^— ! o* c&^ ft- 5 cr*

cIAaj^ (j^Us ^ {A-h!$ 4Aj3I qUa-I aJJl ^yp Ls LetXX*j ^5

1) 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, I.9. ^ *£&-^ OuX^o q(^ \a£ <jJJJ ^d. <A£"f J^l q\ A.lx'i

^J JS fulfil JJL** q-, s^ <j ^.JKj uX.5 vi^lll q1^ 5 &&Jo £>lii
lXajiju jjj^ K^4JL o.co e^=> (*.bo L^ *_i! e^Ui a y^ J^H

/

With Bishr al-Hafi (7-220/ arm wnn al-^ari al-Sak ^\ »^
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

IU.A220? }te tj)<AJLc Q^C! y&j t<A£> vi^Lil q! i^jrLj J*aa^> ^j l\^

ILs *-£$' jjlo jliis *.jl^Pl j^a^. q^ XJLJH i^JIj IUme q! *XSL^
iCLc ^ yto^ &XjLcl3 aW lX-x_£ LI vi^ls j**l r j ^*d5t ci-^ ^y

piLfil J, e^Ul ^\:>l$ scJUwo ^-c JL*o <JUo Js->j Ijoal J JdM
jjj ^ $UjI i^/i^iaili A-xle ^"^ l^^ <^ ^ *j\A:>jj M\ <A/.c

U JL55 *UI <Aa£ ^1 ^t oA*Aaj [^Jj J^j^lot ^^ $Jl> ^Ij
r bir JJU *julfi3. jJc i c^**w ^ r yiJi *^S> J,x* ^ol^ J>i ^icl

HjXAaJi ^xj SuKii *l\$> Jwob ^>sJl'i U*£ Il\S> q-. Jo I ^ jfe Js.^1
a - £ ^yaftj jjU*^ J^J! IJ^J ^ ^ W J*aa> j J^! D i ^

>^

^-j hi^ioned are AbdaliaTT^iBrTTBris (f 192) Abu Daud
al-Hafari and^Ayub al-Najjar *).

Daud ibn Daud ibn c Ali, the founder of the Zahirite school,
c A/z. (-j- 270) was one of Ahmed'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 ^Jjs^). This influenced Ahmed so that he refused
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

1) al-Makrizl, p. 1, pWI $•> oLpJI ^^Lojt q* \^ \j&2> j^J*-^
L&A-J& J&jL tj^cl Lo jJLj J^> q-J L\*:>t v^***m» c£J5r^ & *J^

w .. y t

**^ L5;^^ ^^ ^ ^i>-^;2 j£^"^ Qy»wJt ^.JLc $ l\-^ O^aJ

*£).*j qI/ U J^ { j^ — j^» «X_$3 &£*; *_j ( J&.*o [Cod. L&«] 9L-&*
5 lLfiil j^^vj ^lX-j ,3 L|i"ja Lio J, ^ q-jAjI*]! ^ D ^

f/6 yW uJil

47

change during the remaining years of his life. He was born
in 202 A. H. and died in 270 A. H. *).

Ibrahim In the year 218 A. H. there died in Egypt
ibn IsmaHl Ibrahim ibn Isma c il Abu Ishak al-Basri al-Asadi
al-Mu z talizt. a l-Mu c talizi, known as Ibn c Ulayya. He was a
professor of the doctrine that the Koran was created and
had discussions about Fikh with al-ShafVi in Egypt, and
with Ahmed ibn Hanbal in Baghdad about the Koran.
Ahmed regarded him as a dangerous heretic 2 ). The Ibn
c Ulayya al-Akbar whose name figures in the history of the
Mihna under al-Ma D mun, appears to have been a different
person, who was of orthodox reputation hitherto. Taken
together with the similarity of the names, the seeming
readiness with which Ibn c 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. In tne beginning of the second century of Islam
Historical al-Ja c d ibn Dirham, teacher of the Khalif Marwan II,-

Develop- held the doctrine that the Koran was created , and , -
mmt. at t j iat time, imaginative adversaries of the belief
declared themselves to be able to trace the steps of Tradition
by which the heresy was to be carried back from Ja c d to Lebid,
a Jew, whom the Prophet had declared to have bewitched
him and thereby produced in him a sickness 3 ). However the
doctrine came to him, Ja c d was put to death by Khalid ibn
Abdallah, Governor of c Irak, 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 4 ). The account of the

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

2) Abu D l-Mahasin I, 647.

3) Weil, Mohammed, 94, note 121.

4) Houtsma, De Strijd over het Dogma, 101 f.

<>aud^
48

historical development (of the doctrine of the creation of the
Koran) ') which led up to the inquisition under al-Ma mun
and his successors is given by Abu'l-Faraj ibn al-Jauzi ,
(+SQ8 A H.) as follows: Men did not cease to follow the
I Jood rule of the fathers of Islam and their confession that

- the Koran was the uncreated Word of God, until the Mu ta-

- zilites (freethinkers) 1 ) appeared, professing the creation of

- the Koran. This they did secretly until the time of al-Ra-

- shid Then they ventured to teach their view more openly,
-until al-Rashid said one day, 'I have heard that Bishr al-
■ Maris. 3 ) says that the Koran is created; now, verily, if God

_ give him into my hand, I will kill him in such a way as
I have never yet killed anyone'. On learning this Bishr
remained hidden for about twenty years during the days of
al-Rashid. (This would carry back his public profession of
the doctrine in question to about 173 A.H.) When al-Rashid

_ died the matter remained in the same position during the

- time' of his son al-Amin; but when al-M^mun succeeded,
some of the Mu c tazilites led him astray and made the doctrine

- of the creation of the Koran to appear plausible to b< - ).

O On this subject cf. Weil, Chalifen II, 262, note 1 ; von Kremer, Herrsch.
Ween des Islams, 233 ff- and chronological note 20, p. 127, in the same work
2 ) On the name Mu'tazila and the rise of the sect, vid. Sterner, D»e
MuWiten, 25 f.: Houtsma, De Strijd over het Dogma, 51. On the history
5 the lect,' Stline'r, 48 ff, ^y, Het Islamisme, 183, -*4- On their doc-
trines, Magoudi VI, 20 ff.; Steiner, 3 «-\ Houtsma, 55, 80, 89, 121 f.,
Haarbriicker's transl'n of. Shahrastanl I, 40. On the.r doctrine of the Koran,
Sterner 7^ff.; Houtsma, 104 f.

Tvon Ha^er, Lit. Geschichte III, 20 5 ; Abu'1-Mah. I, 647 and note 9;
Ita Chill. N°. 114; Steiner, Die MuWiten , 78. He is called by Houtsma,
De Strijd over het Dogma, 79 (cf- note 1), one of the leading Murjites of his
time. By Shahrastanl, Haarbr. I, 94, he is called, as the result of false
pointing of the letters, Bishr ibn Attab, instead of Bishr ibn GhiyaU al-
Marisl For his views vid. Shahrastani, Haarbr. I, 161, 162, cf. I, 2 4 3-
4 ) al-Makrlzt, p. 3 , 4* & >-9 *** *"' l/°> ^ '^ «* ^

49

A Pre- It is reported that the Imam al-Shafi c i, before
diction by his death in 204, had a dream, in which he was
ai-Shafiu 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 c i says' *). We may, probably, infer from

l\a£_JI or) A* <^l>o d ^aawLj 3 l^-il^ £jiyl!! vJLU?. j^JUs £j^*il

1) al-Makrizi, p. 3, Lf^JJj JwaS &a<?L *J j**J.ao ^a]! BjL&o ,3 J»Aa$
*a£ &iit LS-*°) te*&"*^\ W*-?.)^ ry-1 L ^"*"^ i J*^ qLa*J ^.c c^y-^

qLaL* ^.^ fc_A-^JI J5 ^j^WAAV (A^i *U^i ^t 8_A->^ J.aII £

Lis (^vir-fi ,JC> LaL« ^jl jjao J.*^ a^Lai) i^a-aJLc £~*V o*-*£5
l«A£> aJ c>i^ &JI ^ItfJf c>^^^ *£AC c^4.JIav i^J^a^ «♦*><> c^-JLw

**£> i^as ti ^JlS *a> Ojk3 ^ jl*i *j ujLa^JI ^5 ^aJo ^^ J^a5

5o

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,

Al-Mc?mii?i. The interest of al-Ma D 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
his own father 2 ). His ability as a pupil soon brought him

3 - O J

J * -

*y # ^Jl ^tw ^ Idle i^JuXj *J -£JLi J->5 p aJUl q^ JsLu*JLj
qL-j^-2 &jJc rj^3 ^fe^ LS*J^~?" f L5~^ L^'— ^ B.L&j s^iSs jUIaSJ)

5 3 ^3

^*sL£JI qI (jijjjj *j t^x^aj t j^J <jl& ti3j.5> o.U v-^.iJ5 q-jLs

<^ ;:> O^ ^"W ^rH H^ c^ ?*»*+& *^ A <A>U j»jj J^S" £ sijt

i) Cf, Abu^l-Mahasin I, 644; Hammer-Purgstall , Lit. Gesch. Ill, 26; al-
Suyuti, Tarikh al-Kholafa, Calcutta, 1857, p, 310; Dozy, Het Islamisme,
1880, p. 152. The notices of al-Ma D mun's character found in al-Subki,p. 144,
and al-Makrizt, p. 3, are in accordance with the accounts found in the works
just mentioned.

2) Houtsma, De Strijd over het Dogma, 13, says that al-Ma D mun first

to a foremost place as a theologian, but a mind ILVor,'.;
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 -
parts of his empire, philosophers and men of more liberal-
tendency of thought than had been found among the com- •
panions of his predecessors 2 ). Al-Ma D mun , however , is not
looked upon as a man naturally impious nor was his interest
in sacred subjects one merely controversial in its character. It
is related of him that he used to complete 33 recitations of the
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 ).
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-
panions at Court were wholly responsible for al-Ma D 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 theological views, which was so strongly advanced by the-
influence of the Greek 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-
ditieu, vid. Houtsma, De Strijd over het Dogma, 86 f.

3) Goldziher, Moh. Studien II, 58, 595 Von Kremer, Herrsch. Ideen d.
Isl. 301, note 15; Steiner, Die Mu c taziliten , 6, note 55 Al-Subki, p. 144,

4) Abu Nu c aim, 143 £, *_jLj£Uo! ^JLc \*A*.it JLftS ^L-o q^UJ' *i*3

liey^ t \>xy in theology, and for the consequent persecution
of me stricter theologians on which he entered. It would
appear to be more in accordance with the facts, to say
that al-Ma D mun himself found the atmosphere of orthodoxy

* oppressive and sought relief by surrounding himself with

* men whose minds were of his own liberal cast *). 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 2 ); but it should not be forgotten that before Ibn Abi
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 Rabi c I, 212 A. H. (827 A. D.) 3 ).

The following incident shews clearly the state of al-Ma D mun's
mind previous to this date. Yazid ibn Harun, who is mentioned
in connection with the incident, died in 206 A. H., six
years before al-Ma D mun publicly professed the doctrine that
the Koran was created, and twelve years before the beginning
of the Mihna. Yahya ibn Aktham related; "Al-Ma D mun said
to us, Tf 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. Abu'l-Mah. I, 733; De Goeje, Fragm. Hist. Arab., 547; Al-Subki,

p. 136, *u»LeLft*M J-HO. q*^"*-^ j^ q^-/oL*J (A-Lc L*£ixa qI/j
jJ ofjO j-jI ^ (j»iXi 8"^ f^XJ* ^5 ^^^ *.*&-? ^ {s** 3 -?.}

3) Tab. Ill, 1.11.

S3

should fear him ?" His reply was , 'I am afraid , -

it publicly, that he will retort upon me, and m^t , . e
at discord in their opinions, and thus there will come t s able,
to which I am averse'. One of those who were present then
said to al-Ma D 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 of the Faithful ! If you speak the truth ,
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 to profess that which they
have not hitherto known , and which none of them has ever
professed'. After this passage the man returned to. the
Commander of the Faithful, told him of the result, and
acknowledged that al-Ma 3 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, UJ Ji f£5l a J ^^ JS [ft 458) (jr*^ 1 $]
^jxirfcJ^ jjuoi &a£a,1 tj^- rj^r^ C?"* ^"-T 1 - O"^ ^^-jL^JL> U 12 *^ ^

^$W < (Ajjt j>t ^J j^b 5 ^X*Jf tt^jyb ^^i' ^*.*t q* t\JL3-

54

The, public adoption of the doctrine that the Koran was
i, cre? + cec j was conjoined with the public declaration of the
^superiority of c Ali over Abu Bekr and c Omar. Al-Ma 3 mun
.-was a pro- c Alyite Khalif *), even as al-Mutawakkil , who

- revoked the royal edict announcing the Koran's creation ,
. was an anti- c Alyite Khalif. The Shyites were , in fact ,
**Mu c 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
^-the orthodox Abu Bekr and his successor, even as it is not

- surprising that the ruler who revoked their tenet should
-restore to the orthocfox Khalifs their primacy. Political capital

- was made out of both events by partisans, but in both cases

- it seems to us that the intention of the Khalifs was primarily

- to effect a religious reform 2 ).

*• For six years al-Ma D mun was undecided as to whether or not
"~ he should make the tenet that the Koran was created obligatory
""upon his subjects; finally, when he had deposed Yahya ibn

cXiii ^L5" L-JLs Jl5 (j^LJl ^c %^f> % qI £\ jMcfe IsjLao \&JS

tiN-j i^oilj *-il ^xax^II -x-^t JUi-5 u>»^ o~^-^ xj«aiiii q-» n'— ^

cf. von Hammer, Lit. Gesch. Ill, p. 159, Yazid ibn Harun.

1) Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 97. Al-Ma D mun, who had hoped to effect some-
thing by political alliance with the c 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 c Alyite party and favorable to many of
its views. Houtsma, 99.

2) Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 99 f. On this subject cf. Weil, Chalifen II,
258 ff. 5 von Kremer, Herrsch. Ideen, 333 ff.

55

Aktham, in the year 217 A. H., from the Chief- Kadi's office *) .
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-
plication of the Mihna, or test 2 ).
Ibn Abi Ahmed ibn Abi Dowad, who held a position of
DowM. great power under the three Khalifs, al-M^mun,
al-Mu c 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
Hayyaj ibn al- c Ala al-Sulami , a pupil of Wagil ibn c Ata 4 ) , —
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 Wacil ibn c Ata cf. Dozy, Het Islamisme, 133 f . * Steiner, Die Mu c ta-
ziliten, pp. 25, 50. Houtsma (De Strijd etc. 103) says that Wagil ibn c Ata
does not appear to have taught the creation of the Koran.

al-Subki, p. 136, jltfajj fWi & Uo * ^ 3*1 tf <Ar* ^ytoUJt g k

*UU*Ji ji\ Jl5 L£U*aS ^L>j J^J ^J ^a! L ^ 3 XJiXxi! \j»y}s <A-=>'
a^sh\ Jai Lmuu. vo^jj Lo [Cod. no points; cf. Abu'l-Mahasin, I 475, 733]

t^-iL^I^ dtXJLfi ^k!i ^-a-J £ L5 J |j5 ^5^'; ^^vX-J> q-*j « 5 1
[Cod. u*-M q^ Abu'1-Feda Ann. II, 678, corrects as in text] 0-l.Ji.f5

56

He entered the service of al-Ma 3 mun in the year 204 A. H., on
the recommendation of Yahya ibn Aktham, and at this
Khalif 's death was warmly recommended by him to his suc-
cessor, al-Mu c 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 l ). 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
days before his father 2 ).

First Letter The first step taken by al-Ma 3 mun to secure con-
of al- formity to, the view which he had adopted was to
Ma'mtm to senc j a letter to his lieutenant at Baghdad , Ishak
Baghdad. ^ n it^hm^ cousin of Tahir ibn al-Hasan, ordering
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.
81 f.; Steiner, Die Mu c taziliten , 10 infra.

2) Weil, Chalifen II, 334; Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II, 58; Macoudi VI,
214; Ibn Chall. N°. 31; Abu'1-Mah. I, 733; De Goeje, Fragm. Hist. Arab.

547; cf. Abu Nu c aim, 1520, q*V^ *£^ qLaaqj i^jLaCj V\^*.^ J-*-^
iLi *JU £ s^o ^..J ^\ & J^JLj Lo u&JUjit ^yel liU jyb *!
,3 ^^■^T, Lj &-JL3?. v^^ V}***: 1 . d**z>} ^ls"*! 1AJ0 & w^x^ 1 .
J>!l\*j w y ^ ^ jI jXs>\ J r y. ^ & 0I5O ^J -jt ^1

57

creation of the Koran. This letter ran as follows ! ) : 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 insignificant folk, 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 D mun's letters in relation to the Mihna is that found in the Leiden edition
of Tabari's Annales III (2nd vol.), W — \\^- It has the appearance of being
a verbal copy of the letters, while the text in Abu'l-Mahasin I, 1t**v — Ifl ,
De Goeje, Fragm. Hist. Arab. II, flo, Abu'1-Feda Annales II, i$4f., 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.

S3

_ measure of God, to know him as he really is, and to dis-
tinguish between him and his creation, because of the weak-
ness of their views , the deficiency of their understandings ,
^and their turning aside from reflection and recollection; for
^they put on an equality God and the Koran which he has re-
vealed. They are all agreed and stand unequivocally in ac-
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
appointed as a healing for what is within the breasts and
as a mercy and right guidance for the believers, 'We have

- made it a Koran in the Arabic tongue' 1 ), and everything

- which God has made he has created. He says, also, 'Praise
be to God who created the heavens and the earth and made
the darkness and the light' 2 ). He speaks also thus, 'We will
tell thee tidings of that which went before' 3 ); he says here
that it is an account of things after whose happening he
producedjX., and with it he followed up their lead. Then he
says, J I, '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
there is one who orders and divides; and God is the one
who orders well his Book and the one who divides it, there-
fore, he is its creator and producer. They, also, are those

~ who dispute with false arguments, and call men to adopt
their view. Further, they claim to be followers of the Sunna,
^ while in every chapter of God's Book is an account, which
-may be read therein, that gives the lie to their position , de-
~ clares their invitation [to adopt their opinions] to be false ,
_and thrusts back upon them their view and their religious
pretentions. But they give out, in spite of that, that they

- are the people of the truth and the [real] religion and the
- communion of believers, all others being the people of false-

- hood, unbelief and schism; and they boast themselves of

i) Koran, 43. 2. 2) Koran, 6. 1.

3) Koran, 20. 99. 4) Koran, 1 1. 1.

59

ihat over their fellows, so deceiving the ignorant, until per-
ons of the false way, who are devoted to the worship of
mother God than Allah, and who mortify themselves for
Inother cause than that of the true religion , incline toward '
igreement with them and accordance with their evil opin-
ions, by that means getting to themselves honour with
them , and procuring to themselves a leadership and a re-
putation among them for honorable dealing. Thus they give
up the truth for their falsehood , and find apart from God ')
a, supporter for their error. And , so , their testimony is re- -
ceived , because they [sc. the ignorant or people of the false -
way] declare them [sc. those who pretend to be the people
of the truth] to be veracious witnesses; and the ordinances
of the Koran are executed by them [sc. those who pretend
to be the people of the truth] notwithstanding the unsound-
ness of their religion, the corruption of their honour, and
the depravation of their purposes and belief. That is the
goal unto which they are urging others, and which they
seek in their own practice and in [their] lying against their
Lord , though the solemn covenant of the Book is upon
them that they should not speak against God except that
which is true, and though they have learned what the
condition is of 'those whom God has made deaf and whose
eyes he has blinded. Do they not reflect upon the Koran ?
or are there locks upon their hearts?' 2 ) The Commander of.
the Faithful considers, therefore, that those men are the
worst and the chief in error, being deficient in the belief
in God's unity, and having an incomplete share in the faith —
vessels 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

i) cf. Koran, 9. 16. 2) Koran, 47. 25 — 26.

6o

only after fully obtaining a real possession of Islam, and i
sincere profession of the faith in God's unity. He, therefore i
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 his revelation , and who does not know God as he
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 his lying. Now, gather together
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
they believe concerning the creation of the Koran by God
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
'unity, and whose [religious] persuasion are not to be trusted ;
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 way of right guidance and of salvation , then , bid
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 oj
the Faithful the reports that come to thee from the kadis o\
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" : thful of what comes of it all.

ev€ :his letter was writen in the month of Rabf I, 218 A. H.,
^bre al-Ma D mun set out on his last expedition to the fron-
ts, 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 indications all point to arrogant intellectual self- -
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
: us threats or tortures, and blotting out the obstinate ones •
rom the face of the earth, when they were found incorrigible.

The Be in- Tilis letter was sent to a11 tne P rovinces * Tne '
ning of the copy of that which was addressed to Kaidar, gov-

Mihna ernor of Egypt, is practically the same as that
elsewere. w hose translation has been given, but it did not

E $yP u reach Egypt until the month of Jumada II. The
Kadi in Egypt at this time was Harun ibn Abdallah al-
Zuhri. He gave in his assent on the test as to the Koran
being applied to him, as did also the constituted witnesses
except some whose testimony was by their refusal rendered
invalid. Kaidar had made a beginning with the examination -
of the fakihs and c ulama, but had evidently adopted no harsh -
measures , when the news of al-Ma D mun's death came to him in -
the month after the receipt of the order for the Mihna. On „
the 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

:

1) Abu'1-Mah. I, 636, 637.

62

very slight ; and , from the way in which Abu 3 l-Mahasin's
record reads, one might infer that the order for the Mihna
to places outside of c Irak and Egypt came later than to thgse
places. If this inference be just the time of the inquisitjn
in these other parts must have been short, at least, in t^f
Khalifate of al-Ma D mun. It is to be concluded, too, that t\\
success of the persecution at Baghdad led al-Ma^mun to orde.
a general introduction of the Mihna throughout his empire.
Damascus. In the year 218 A. H., al-Ma D mun went in person
to Damascus, probably on his last expedition to Asia Minor,
and personally conducted the testing of the doctors there

concerning the freedom of the will (J<Ac) 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
al-Ma D mun, as well as under his successors, al-Mu c tasim anc

1) al-Ja c qubi II, 571, The Mu c tazila called themselves the Ahlu't-Tauhic
wa'l- c 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 onh
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 Divin<
foreordination of the actions and destinies of men as inconsistent with th<
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 polemi<
literature Ahlu't-Tauhid wa'l- c Adl has a much more special meanin|
than that indicated in the beginning of this note , generally standing for thos<
who believe, 1) in the non-existence of the attributes of God or their identity
with his essence , and in the creation of the Koran (iA.o^XJt J^'). 2) in th<
freedom of the will (JA*Jt J.^1); cf. Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 55, 92, 133
Steiner, Die Mu c taziliten , 30, 50 and note 3); Shahrastani, Haarbriicker':
transl'n I, 39, 42.

If Ja c qubi be correct, Houtsma's statement (p. 108) "dat hij [al-Ma D mun
niet den vrijen wil 00k 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 we, in general, do not fin<
Ja c qubi 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 Khalifate of
al-Mu c tasim, that Khalif wrote him a letter ordering him to
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
to the order it contained. Abu Nu c aim al-Fadl ibn Dukain,
a Kufite, who died in 219 A. H., said that he had met over
870 teachers, from the aged al-A c 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 -
(atheists) 2 ). Abu Nu c aim ibn Dukain was present at the ■
opening of the Mihna in Kufa. This fact shews us the ap-
proximate date of the event there, for this man, as we have
said, died in the year 219 3 ).

Citation of The result of the letter of al-Ma D mun to Baghdad .
the Seven was to produce, as we may justly conjecture, a
Leaders. f ee ling of 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 {£•>? &f^ rj* J^aJt *-otJ jJ Jai\JL Lo^

<^x.fw JUs -£•**££ Qt 5r» c ry? ^^ 0~* ^+^ ^ »l\a*mj _ ; aJI ji\
^UiJt OiJL^U ^jtji KJUii s<A-£.j jJb JiA->i c>— jL Us &-j^O ^^i

64

which would be Ahmed ibn Hanbal 1 ). Still, al-Ma D 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 going in his enforcement of conformity to his views.

Second He wrote a second letter to Ishak ibn Ibrahim,
Letter of the governor of c Irak , ordering him to send seven
al-Ma'mun.^ t j ie 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
of Ibn Abi Dowad , — at least, so the latter claimed 2 ).

Those now summoned 3 ) to the Court were Mohammed
ibn Sa c d the secretary of al-Wakidl, Abu Muslim the aman-
uensis of Yazid ibn Harun, Yahya ibn Ma c in, Zuhair ibn
Harb Abu Khaithama, Isma c il ibn Daud , Isma c il ibn Abi
Mas c ud and Ahmed ibn Ibrahim al-Dauraki. These seven
men all yielded assent under the pressure which al-Ma D mun
used with them. Having obtained his desire, the Khalif sent
the men back to Baghdad, where Ishak ibn Ibrahim, acting
under al-Ma 3 mun's orders, had them repeat their confession
before the fakihs and traditionists 4 ).

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

i) The Baghdad people had in the year 215, and even earlier, protested
against al-Ma D mun's heterodoxy touching the Koran, cf. Abu'1-Mah. I, 631.

2) Vid. p. 82.

3) Tabari Ml, text of letter not given.

4) Tabari Ml f. A biographical notice of Mohammed ibn Sa c d is found Ibn
Chall. N°. 656; of Yahya ibn Ma°in, al-Nawawi, Biog. Diet. p. 6285 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
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-
V from observance of religious duty when it involved risk
fe), but the real cause of their doing as they did was
r of execution if they had not done so. Yahya ibn Ma c in
ith weeping used to confess that this was the case 2 ). It
as unfortunate that the seven leaders proved themselves '
.o weak, for it is not unlikely that their firmness might have .
deterred al-Ma D 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

i) al-Makrizl, p. 4, J^cSj Sj^° !P ^ jh> l^M^ ld J ^ I> O* ^^ ^]

kjutft sA£> pfe ^y» Jjl p$ Jyb^ pZk*

2) al-Subki, p. 137, jCaSj 8^-jL>I *3 ^i !^%J» jpi' fidJo <— *^$

%JjJi\) KftjLb &jl:>li tjUi3 ^*&2 XjujuJI £^0> «sj <-jL:>t Uj SU^bj
Lax>I <jyb [al-Sujuti, 314, adds 8*^5] ^*^> rj-J 15^?. n^' CJ^J"

3) Tabart III, IHvff.

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 arch
the knowledge which he has placed within them, guioiight
him the one who has turned aside from him, bring tious
him who has turned his back on his command, mark cnn-
for their subjects the way of their salvation, tell them aboil e
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

6;

opinions and right in their minds that it has not been ere.
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 all things by his wisdom and
the creation of them by his power, and in his priority in
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
are, thus, like the Christians when they claim that c Isa 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
read) on a well-guarded table' 6 ). 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' 8 ). Also, 'That which came to
them was a newly created religion (S3) from their Lord' °).

i) cf. Sura H2; cf. Steiner, Die Mu c taziliten , p. 90 and note.
2) Koran, 43. 2. 3) Koran, 7. 189.

4) Koran, 78. 10. 5) Koran, 21. 31.

6) cf. Koran, 85. 21 — 22.

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

8) Koran, 75. 16. 9) Koran, 21. 2.

68

has / 'And who is a worse liar than the man who inventeth
thiie against 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 in memory, a faith, a light, a right guidance,
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
"^have 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 action by that description which appertains to
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 this view has any share in the real religion, or any
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, 11. 16.

7) Koran, 41. 42.

6 9

^x/ci — JAc or (A^Ui 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
Ja c far ibn c Isa and Abd al-Rahman ibn Ishak the kadi,
and cite them both to answer for their knowledge respecting
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^is 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 to be created, let them declare his testimony invalid and
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 ibn Ibrahim summoned to his presence a number
in Baghdad. f ^he f a kihs , doctors and traditionists 1 ). Among

i) Tabari III, W\ S, is followed throughout the passage.

7o

those summoned were Ahmed ibn Hanbal, Bishr ibn al-Walid
al-Kindi, Abu Hassan al-Ziyadi, c Ali ibn Abi Mukatil, al-
Fadl ibn Ghanim, Obaidallah ibn c Omar al-Kawarin , c Ali
ibn al-Ja c d, al-Hasan ibn Hammad al-Sajjada '), al-Dhayyal
ibn al-Haitham, Kutaiba ibn Sa c id, who seems to have been
only temporarily in Baghdad, Sa c dawaih, Sa c id ibn Sulei-
man Abu c Othman al-Wasiti 2 ), Ishak ibn Abi Israel, Ibn
al-Harsh, Ibn c Ulayya al-Akbar, Mohammed ibn Nuh al-
Madrub al- c Ijli 3 ), Yahya ibn Abd al-Rahman al- c Omari, Abu
Nasr al-Tammar, Abu Ma c mar al-Kati c i, Mohammed ibn Ha-
tim ibn Maimun , a sheikh of the descendants of c 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
al-Bazzaz, Ibn Shuja and Mohammed ibn al-Hasan ibn c Ali
ibn c 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-Ma D 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-Walid. him put the test was Bishr ibn al-Walid. 'What
dost thou say respecting the Koran?' he asked; and Bishr
replied, 'I have more than once made 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-Makrizi, p. 4, supply the name of Sajjada

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

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

7*

fore, created?' Bishr. 'It is not a creator'. Ishak. T 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 after whom nothing shall be and like
to whom is nothing of his creation , in any sense whatsoever
or in any wise whatsoever' 1 ). Bishr said, T testify that and
s'courge those who do not testify it'. Ishak then turned to
the secretary and said , /Write down what he has said'.
c Ali ilm Abi Turning next to c Ali ibn Abi Mukatil he asked

MuhatiL for his confession. He replied , 'I 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 c Ali and he gave the confession it required.
Then the governor said, Ts 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 c Ali 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 c Ali.

Abu Hassan. In the reply of Abu Hassan there is something
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 Strijd etc. 108 infra) seems to imply that this written
'credo', which was to be subscribed by those to whom it was put , contained
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.

72

him are created. But the Commander of the Faithful is our
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, however, you tell me that the Commander of
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, in harmony with the principles of
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 c im ibn Idns
ibn Bint Wahb ibn Munabbih, al-Muzaffir ibn Murajja, an-
other man not a fakih who happened to be present, Ibn
al-Ahmar and the c 0man 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 1 ). Ibn al-Bakka
Baku, 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,

JO,

on the one hand, something 'made' (JL*^U>) and, on the

other hand, something 'newly produced' (cx\.2=u>). For the
former position the text adduced was one cited by the Khalif
in arguing that the Koran was created (^$^^*), namely,
Kor. 43 : 2, 'Verily we have made it a Koran (reading)
in the Arabic language'. For the latter position the text
was, likewise, one cited by the Khalif in his argument,
Kor. 21:2, 'What came to them from their Lord was a

newly produced religion ( SS)\ Ishak asked Ibn al-Bakka
if the term Xx^\a were not the same in meaning as ^vJ^u,

i) Abu Nu c aim, 146 b &JJI iA-a-£ US' l\^1 .j_j ^.L^Aw LoV\_:>-

o

£ Lyn>l U JlS ^xAz&fi ~**/o yJ ^Jo J^> ^-j O^T^ ^

<Xi ^X=> ^ wX^I Jill lXax: j->\ X 3 SO^JLI r L_jl * D LLLJI Jo

i
UAi L.a_aJ ^.->» aJtll l\.ac j~J q!^5 qm«o? ij»\jj\ ^L LJii yca^l

A-J3 w*_&5 5 »Uxc Oj^lt) ^->b^l o^^axil Qi^5b (j^LiJi ^L

wdi j+xA ^j| jus &U uwiac l\S *Jt vi^diii &xs <mL 5" ^lA-il qaIH

O OS > 5

74

)

and he answered that it was. 'Then the Koran is created
(vJjtA*)?' said the governor. 'Nay, that I will not say. I

say it is something made (j^i^u)', was the answer.

After all the other cases had been disposed of Ibn al-
Bakka al-Asghar remarked that 'the two kadis', whom we
assume to be Abd al-Rahman ibn Ishak and Ja c far ibn
c Isa, should be examined; but the governor said they held
to the same profession as the Commander of the Faithful.
Ibn al-Bakka suggested that if they were ordered to tell their
opinion it could be reported to the Khalif for them. The
governor, however, seems to have been determined to avoid
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, 'If thou
wilt serve as witness L ) before them thou shalt know their
opinion'.
Fourth Ishak ibn Ibrahim then wrote to al-Ma D mun a
Letter, detailed account of the answers received , and after
a delay of nine days again summoned the doctors to hear
the Khalif 's reply. The following is a version of the letter 2 ) ; —
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-
- pie of religion a leadership for which they are not the right
persons, believe about the doctrine of the Koran, in which
letter of his the Commander of the Faithful commanded thee
to test them , and discover their positions and put them in their
right places. Thou dost mention thy summoning of Ja c far ibn
c Isa 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) &>l^*o U^vXac oJifw qI.

2) Tabaii III, WOE

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
kadis, even the same which the Commander of the Faith-
ful prescribed to thee, namely, the testing of the statutory
witnesses who are in their courts. Again, [thou hast men-
tioned] the sending abroad of letters unto the kadis in the
•several parts of thy province that they should come to thee,
so that thou mightest proceed to test them according to that
which the Commander of the Faithful has defined , whilst
thou hast put down at the end of the letter the names of
those who were present and their views. Now, the Com-
mander 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
him to bless his Servant and his Messenger , Mohammed, and
he prays God to help him to obey him, [sc. God] and to
give 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,

7 6

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 this or 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
and send his head to the Commander of the Faithful *). As
for c Ali ibn Abi Mukatil, say to him, "Art thou not the man
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
have left him [sc. c 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 D l- Abbas 2 ) ; and that, if he were a follower in the foot-
steps of his forefathers, and went in their ways only, and

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

2) cf. Tabari III, a*, 1. 18, seq.; De Goeje, Bibl. Geog. VII, VPV, 5 seq.

77

pushed on in their path , surely he would not go off into idol-
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 c Ali ibn Hisham what he did say, and ooposed him in
that in which he did oppose him. And v tat was it that
caused his change of opinion and brought mi 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
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-

i) This parenthesis represents a gloss in Tabari III, Sua, 11. 6 — 8, (line
7 read 4^ for f^^)*

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 c mar, 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 for the sake of God, and make a crusade against
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
ibn Shuja c , tell him that not long ago thou wast with him,
and thou didst extort from him that which he confiscated
of the riches belonging to c Ali ibn Hisham; and [tell him]
that his religion is found in dinars and dirhems. And as for
Sa c 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
c Ali ibn Yahya and others left in trust with him lies that
which occupies his attention so that he forgets the doctrine
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
[settlement of] questions for Ja c far ibn c Isa al-Hasani; so,
order Ja c far ibn c Isa to give him up , and to abandon reliance
upon him and acquiescence in what he says. And as for
Yahya ibn Abd al-Rahman al- c Omari, if he were of the

' * , descendants of c Omar ibn al-Khattab, it is well known what
natu. '

he haa woulc * A answer - And as for Mohammed ibn al-Hasan ibn
1 ibn c Asim, if he were an imitator of his ancestors, he

^ Hout;d not profess that profession which has been related of
him 2 ). He 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
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

i) Callous patch of skin on the forehead produced, when genuine, by oft-
repeated religious prostrations; when an imposture, by rubbing the skin.

2) Tabarf, III, Nt* 1 * read ^*&=> .

3) d. 218 A. H. Dhahabi Tabafcat 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 of the Faithful and deliver them up to those
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, if they do not give up their view and re-
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- iat
[v. above] about that which thou hast done, not waiting' " e
the other letter-bags, so that thou mayest tell the Comma n ?- w
of the Faithful of what they will do.

Recantation On this letter being read all of those mentioned
oj the in it recanted, with the exception of Ahmed ibn
Doctors. Hanbal, Sajjada, al-Kawariri and Mohammed ibn
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
availed himself and was set free 2 ). The following day, also,
they were brought from the prison and given another op-
portunity to yield, which Obaidallah ibn c Omar al-Kawariri
Aimed and embraced and received his liberty. Thus Ahmed
Mohammed and Mohammed ibn Nuh alone of those cited to

ton Nuh * , .*.....

Refuse to appear remained firm in their faith; the others
Recant. Ahmed always excused on the ground oftheTakia

i) Variant ^-Ayi adopted in the translation.

2) Abu'1-Mah. I, 738, says Sajjada 'stood firm in the Sunna 1 .

8i

as supported by Koran, 16. 108, 'Except him who is forced,
though he have no pleasure in it, while his heart rests in
the faith ').
and are Ishak the governor now wrote a letter giving
Cited to the results of his examination of the doctors 2 ).
Tarsus. Shortly after this, al-Ma D 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 Ja c far 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
he had said, to maintain the integrity of his faith 3 ).

i) Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 69 and note ; al-Makrizi, p. 4, lXac ^._j[ 0^"~^

LXxc^jt <jl3 j*S [Kor. 16. 108] ^Uj^Lj { ^l2A xJl^ »^t ^y> ^M ^L*j
jJLj jj LM loli VjJ ^^3 Ky-f \J^>^ *y* Os.^ M ».Tj *Uf

2) Tabari, III, \\W .

3) al-Makilzi, p. 4, p^j-}\ ^ ^L^bJ £,\ q^oUI vjLX-^ J>^ ^J

^lJs! p yi o^Lj *ji c y o^ ^^ ^ ^ 3 1 J**^

[al-Subki, p. 136,^1x^1] ^Li^t ^a*> ^t j,l 8l\JLmo l£)V^ O^ J*^
^ IJL* ot^t o ; a*5 cy^f ^Ut il J^l J.^-i Lt $ *-Jt

<^>^>t ^xi alijji ^j jjjiX&j (j^Ui' 5 (jA *^3t os5^ &J vi^.^ ^Uc

6

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 D 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-Ma 3 mun had just died at the river
Bodhandhun [iloSfi/Soyi/] in Asia Minor , after leaving as a last
"- charge to his successor to prosecute vigorously the Mihna *).

J^-^Ji qU JlXJj ^^ j-*A^ (j*UJt cr vJ&> o^x*J ^^ f.J

1) Abu Nu c aim, 147 #, 147^, (al-Subki, p. 139, cf. al-Makrizi, p. 4
infra, a fuller account), q-J «-X^^ Lit ^>_L*^> qL**c ^-j cX^J Jl5

tsJjdiiibt *jLj c>o^ ii^ £)*•> ^J^Sjili *j!i U^ $

£)Ls> ^.jJ jl& ^cjLL^JI fL ->j LiJlc „ ._:> ^ c ; -^L ^£j *.li
^^^ O^^ 1 V-5)^ o!^ ^^' ^^ *^K ^ c ^ '"^ ^^ sLdL&^S

a j^ ^Si JJJt ^ Jj^l v^JLiJi ^^ L. *Ulj JI5

83

Al-Ma'mun Re- I n the meantime, al-Ma^mun had received
jects the Plea word that those who had recanted had done
of Tapia Offered so claiming the Takia as a justification, in ac-
y tie octors. cor( j a nce 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 1 ). 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

*fj*\ *Ut 3 oU cXJJ ^^ ^ *UI ^LS C) I J SJI «JLit i\_*-c LU

( ^-jl-a-^-J,) [Ahmed had previously prayed for a Divine interposition to
» demonstrate that he was in the right way].

J o

[147 £] Uj gJCs Jwdii u5^:> ,3 (iUij LgJLo LaJL>^ 5 £535 ^ Liyo Lis
(^jAJt JlSs J3-ta ^ vjLJt cr Q^Li> ^-^ J^>> LuaJb L^jL

^lXJjjj &Ut xj\ -y ^j c\*^u> ,cV»> oLjL*j LLo UAi ^xm*.^u>

1) Tabari HI, M^l f.; De Goeje, Fragm. Hist. Arab. II, 465^; Abu '1-Feda
Annales II, 155.

8 4

ibn Ibrahim to tell Bishr ibn al-Walid and the others who
had pleaded that their case was similar to that of c Ammar
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
and 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
Hwu Minor. The following men were therefore sent
after Ahmed and his company: Bishr ibn al-Walid, al-Fadl
ibn Ghanim, c Ali ibn Abi Mukatil, al-Dhayyal ibn al-Hai-
tham, Yahya ibn Abd al-Rahman al- c Omari, c Ali ibn al-Ja c d,
Abu D l- c Awwam , Sajjada, al-Kawariri, Ibn al-Hasan ibn c Ali
ibn c Asim, Ishak ibn Abi Israel, al-Nadr ibn Shumail,
Abu Nasr al-Tammar, Sa c dawaih al-Wasiti, Mohammed ibn
Hatim ibn Maimun, Abu Ma c mar, Ibn al-Harsh, Ibn al-
Deathofal- Farrukhan , Ahmed ibn Shuja and Abu Harun ibn

Ma'mun al-Bakka. They received the news of the Khalifs
and its Con- death when they arrived at al-Rakka , and , on the

sequences, order of c Anbasa ibn Ishak, the Wali of the place,
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 2 ), 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
to themselves were Bishr ibn al-Walid, al-Dhayyal, Abu°l-
c Awwam and c Ali ibn Abi Mukatil.

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

85
„ , . To return to Ahmed and his companion Moham-

Ahmed and * i_ 1

Ibn Nu$, me d ibn Nuh. These two were now sent back to
Ordered dackzl-Rakkz where they, also, remained in prison un-
to Baghdad. ft\ t h e oath of allegiance was taken to the Khalif
al-Mu c tasim. After this event, they were taken in a boat
Death of from al-Rakka to c Anat , at which place Mohammed
Ibn Nuh ibn Nuh died, and Ahmed, after performing the
offices of the dead over his friend, was brought back in
bonds to Baghdad J ). At first , he was imprisoned , as it ap-
pears, in the street al-Yasiriya for some days. From there
he was transferred to the Dar al-Sharshir near to the Dar
c Umara and lodged in a stable belonging to Mohammed ibn
Ibrahim (brother of Ishak) which had been rented as a
place of detention. It was very small and his stay there
was short. He took sick in Ramadan, and was then trans-
ferred to the common prison in the Darb al-Mausiliya 2 ).
Among those who stood faithful in the inquisition during

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

2) al-Subki, p. 139, vi>£*i \Cs^&a oIlXxj ^f ^J ^Lo £-^-*° $-*

JJLS *.S b* Us Jo lAJLt j*&j&^ ;^-J u^> (*-* L-*l-J £_y*LJIj
[marg: Copy ^^U] '&^jtt V;^ v3 *~*\jA\ (j*.*-^ il ^)J<3 (X*J
j aJLif t\*fi j*J <j^a> j'uftj UL^U*t q-J &**=> ^3

<^J<3 £ y*~S^ ^La^ ,3 u^y^ ^-^-^ LT-*-^ vS O^ f-A-^;r^
^yj 1^3 ^:?uJi £ c>.^*i X-^UJI ^j^ i' civ> >^ ^ 5 U"^

£Si:> q* *k>-j ^j^« 0^-5 ^A-*-^ *4&*5 LT"^ ^-^ li^ *^j-*

*yJ^ B^lAflJi 0^5 <-^^t

86

Others who the Khalifate of al-Ma D mun, but whose name has
did ?wt n ot yet appeared , was c Affan ibn Muslim Abu
'Afffa*ibn c Othman, whom the Khalif and Ishak ibn Ibra-
Muslim. him his lieutenant in c Irak, in penalty for his re-
fusal to obey the order to recant, deprived of the stipend
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
stipend from al-Ma D 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 and a friend of Ahmed's who had much influence
with him J ). Another to whom the Mihna was applied in

i)al-Makrizi, p. 13, c^-a^ ^L^uJ ^J J^^> <jLft5 ^**x qJ O^ ^
yfi Uc Jlfis \-JLc WOOj Lc 5 XJL^ £ f*?^ o* v -*^ u ' ^ JS

I i! *colj Uc ^^UUi x6 toli [Cod. K'i^l] £s^ ^1 by^p. q^I
tiU^T. J qI 5 y>t ^Jlc «jSl£ (i)J3 J5 ^L-i iiX5^ tj^ Q^Ji j^ib

lc\0 ^L&M oJ^-i \£>~J>I ot [Kor. 112] Ol>I aJUt y-$> ^ *xU

87

Abu Nifaim al- this Khalifate, and who did not yield was
Fadlibn Dukain. the Kufite, Abu Nu c aim al-Fadl ibn Dukain.
When al-Ma D 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. *).
c All ibn °Ali ibn al-Madini is classed with those who sur-
al-Madim. 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. 2 ).

Lajf ( ^^ <gJJLc Lx£i5 ^aJL^JLI j-£-*\ &*& xJSaJS qL, &Ldc i^ff:.

3 _ y — OJ30 .w .. w «o

[Kor. 51. 22] qjiX-Cj-j L^^ f&jj *U**^ <3$ i^ *W JS &! ^Xsb

JLas j?^o v.. aJ! jus u*t^ ***$ J*>«A» qLmo! v^t ^ c J^ <J^S

1) al-Makrizi, p. 13, XX^if 0*L» U Z+jJ* .J qJ .& ^jI -lo^Jt JiS^

chilis jOl-JiJi *J J*& *-ou U vJlJI (jao^j ^j lXJTJ A jlS *5^C!t Ai

^^ Jfe^ &jy ^j i>^>t ^2 [so Cod.] JcLaJi\ ijyto j-$> Uit tjl& xJ

IlXP (yi <__^ c Q}^ Abu Nu c aim al-Fadl ibn Dukain was a Shyite according
to Shahrastam , Haarbriicker's transl'n I, 218.

2) al-Subki, p. 185, vJiJb^U <JJLH &\ V^r"^ rj+* jc^A^ <^ c 0^5

#Jt v_Aa*JI &a.&:> uJ.J>t [Cod. Lg-S'] U.3t &it L3l\x£

88

Ahmed in In the common prison Ahmed ibn Hanbal was
Prison, confined for a considerable time, the whole period,
from the time of his arrest until he was set free after being
scourged by al-Mu c 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

89

any that might follow would strike him. With this assurance
the remaining anxiety of Ahmed was completely dispelled 1 ).
Another Cit- ® n the I 7 ih of Ramadan, 219 A. H., that is, four-
ation before teen months from the time that he was stopped
Isk&ip ibn when on his way to al-Ma^mun , he was brought from
Ibrahim. t ^ e common 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

i)al-Makrizi,p. $,fKjt ^^ 0^\ ^U^t ^c J.*a£> ^\ ^L^uJ Jl5

ax U Aili Js.ac j._jt <jl& vJLycaJtj ^ws-xil £ si^-jl vi^.-^ aM ^^5
vs*£*.*l5 J6 vjiit (^aXj ^ J*£5? J^L^j %aj ^Jl*il uL^>l til

f?u\_s*t ^^Ju *KL3 q^ q-» q) wLa-3- viA-J<A^U q^xaaoj Oux^

a
Abu Nu c aim, 147^, adds KLJJ] ^La^ j-g-& £ j^-a-^Ij-J ^J ^L^uJ

90

— 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, finally, there were four chains upon them. One of
the discussions which Ahmed had was about the Know-
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
insult upon the messenger of the Khalif, he refused to with-
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
i^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.
Afyticd Or- On the fourth night after he had been removed
dered to al-to the house of Ishak ibn Ibrahim, the messenger
Mtftanm. of the Khalif al-Mu c tasim , Bugha al-Kabir, arrived
after the last prayer, bringing the command of the Khalif to
Ishak to send Ahmed to him. When Ahmed was brought
in to Ishak before going to al-Mu c tasim , the governor ad-
dressed him, reminding him that it was his life which was
at stake, and that the Khalif had sworn that he would
not kill him with the sword, but would scourge him stroke
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

9i

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.x> does not, nec-
essarily, include the meaning of >JJJL:>.

Preparations were then made for bringing Ahmed to al-
Mu c tasim. 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
is no 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
any lamp to enable him to see at night 2 ). During the night

i) al-Mu c tasim D s palace was in the eastern part of Baghdad (vid. Ja c qubi,
Bibl. Geogr. VII, Voo , 1 7). The general prison , if in the Darb al-Mufaddal (but
v. p. 85, note 2), was in the same quarter and Ishak the governor's residence
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-
stration against the Khalif when Ahmed was flogged.

2) Abu Nu c aim, 147^ f. iX^I q-J (J^ j»*> q-J ^X^-^° U..l\_>

U^ j%& £ IS U *M *^ ; ^^-J JS J& vV*a> tf ^T^ q^

9 2

he is said to have had a vision of c Ali ibn c Asim . and in-

^=>s r»y. J^ i5 (V* ^-^j—t <-*■->*•> «AjJb l\-JLo Li^ p*&j-}\ ^

by loLs ^^I^JbLxj^ ^-jLJIXj [Cod. r^^"J al-Makrlzi *l^UL]
*U &iil$ \J\JL slX-P ^c vi^Jl^^i &-J OiAjJis cX^i^ i*-^ lJWj^
jjiaju £ L.4*-A\_£>J [Cod. ^Lfts] ^ JUi jLsl iCx^t J^ £ ^L-^

c>i» O*^ 8 M r lx JLSS *Ui fk* a c *jJL^ 5 Jb £kS & r U.^I
J^ q* 2U* ^^vj I^ (^JcJI Jj-*-J! i JUS o^ ^3L:f L *I

^UjtJI Juw *2uuJ r JI [Cod. adJ] XUII v^Jtf U13 *HJI ^ ^ $

a

^ <^a£*j im^ *—>*/& l\*j Lyto (s*^.j-a13j ^} uAjy^JL-j ^JUSj ^& qI
Lil-S sLaJL*> Li I ^L*j a)Ji (JLS <A'i (j^xJt {j^^JI au6 ^JS *i j^.-*

]^3t JLfis ^JL^s! [Kor. 105. 5] j^L^ wjuax*' ^x^i &JJi j' — ^

Jl5 ^L^^avI J./i q* <U-AVj5 ja*^M ^*^ (c 3 ^^ qLaam.aJJ vU^ uJ5t*i!

93

terpreted it as being of good omen , assuring him of exalt-
ation (Jle) and protection from God (SUa^c) *).
Trial be- The next morning he was led to the palace in
fore al- his chains and brought before the Khalif 2 ). On this
Mittatim. occasion , there were present with the Khalif Ahmed
First Day. ibn Ab i j) ow £ d and ^is companions. It is said that

^J,x^\h ^jJI ^ c^> ; >? -b&l ^ L-Jj^o LIS l5 -j1 jLS *UI
[Cod. c^j] c^wwJoj *U &*» -diL l3i loli Ux£ ^bl ^^J C*X\)

j^i o^^ sbL*aU ^Lg^

1) al-Makrizi, p. 4, k\?\ *U^ ^c ^1 i^^ tf Ufla^Uit ^ J-y^ <3^

2) Abu Nu c aim, 148 ff. With a few exceptions which are indicated, the
narrative is now drawn from this source until we reach p. 1 1 1 ; cf. Abu'1-Feda
Annales II, 168. There is a short and mutilated account of the proceedings

before al-Mu c tasim in al-Ja c qubi II. 576, 577. j^, J| £*£> c^-^A^ LJii

i JL55 c>JL *ju Oj.3j UU L^JL^Li koU yjJ|j *jL£Pi £*^ ^3

3*.. , > )~ 3 0300 50

94
when al-Mu c tasim first saw Ahmed, he said to those about

^t <jl& JLuw 5 &As. &UI ^-d &Ut 4^-^s &.*Jt (cJ> U ^t c>J-jj JbCj

^lX-j! jLai dJL Uj^Li £._/>! jJLwj *Jlc *U» ^ad &JUi j^ ^
^ *UI « aJI S 1 jbl$jfc J8 jJUf *Jy^ *W j,* ^L. ^>l U
I^Lxj q^ o^aa*. tt"*^ «l— ^j-J^ ^XjUj B^LJi J$^ &Ut J^— w^ IcX*^

j?— *l JLwj *-^- c *^' c^ ^ &y- M j ^ ^-^>A-5 U (j*-xftJi <Xks.

tX^c ^ JUii &+1? ^J^r^ <-^ y <j& J> ^.di^ v$jJbLi jlS >J JlS
c^£*o *Ut Jlc vS- J^5j Lo *J vi^-Ljj j'o Q^t vJ J^fij Lo Q5"jJt
£Si Jf «v\0 (JLTt^ !<Ju3> <> ^13 ItX-^j lvX_$> <^J£j Jot^ ^1 JB

J 3 l> ^1 ^^.jl c3yle Jl5 »U [Cod. omits] Lo x-J J^lSJ JLwj *^J.c &Ut

jj^-^T. Lo u>— JjLj Lo^ JLcl ^N-ib iL-Jjlj vi^Jjti *J vj^JLiis JlS ^.Luw^
^JL^II jj^tl b iJlilj _^-P ^l 5 ^t ^-jf JLJLs JiS A^lc <-^^V.j *^Lc

95
him repro achfully, 'Did you not pretend that this was a

J**K> ^ % js qx^ j^ jLi _^j? yjj^ti ^i y D y_ ) iuj

*UI Jb" <JUc L^i( i J 3j ^i^ ^ ^j^ ^ j__^ J5

fl ^ a y^| ^ran „. ,] ^ Vj ^ ^ ^ ^£ £
[Koran 3 8.!] /*B ^j ^ ^ ^« *UI J& *} ^^ jg ^^

ttaU« ^1 J^J Jj ^ ^ ^j, ^ ^ ^ j^j, ^ ^
^f «M. *Sl * UUi Js J^, u p J^l, j^'jg j^, u ^ ^
4UI it wy^ ,lw> b V L~. ^^ ^ oUi , A JU . jj ^

j^t j^; ^ d , ^i ^ jj^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Jb „

U tf O^Jo [Kordn 46. 24] •<> > J*XJ JS Jo oJS JS ^

6*^ C^ 0'^= >^^> ^ Jytf L*5 ^^u JLiLS JS m oy
iA* ^Ja /jjl ^ ^ ^, JLg . ^^ ^^ ^ ^ ^

* jyi v>- uu ^ ^ ^ ^1 ^ ^ j^j, ^,

**«fc <S ^5 a^U o-, o^l J^_ £ ^j ^ ^ ^
LTj ^o^J, tf l5 o 4 & J JI ULo ^,- UiJ^ jo^i ^ >j jl
^ fXjizj, js ^txjt a, 3^13 it ;L.*l, LwJL> g^II )Jv.p £

^ 4-^t yvi^l ^| b a ^J| ^ ^ JLiLi Uob a ii ,JJ

* aJjU rJ X, y> 5 ^ jL ^Jt ^J. ^ ^LL ^ -^ ^

^ at, ^ t j,^ \^ ji^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^.

9 6

^LJb^ jb j^5 *«9 *J \^ A* ci^W* 1 q-*-*3 ^ ^ ^ *V-
J I k^sAj j$ jiS ^AJL^ \Jt £2^p>} \Ji£ qIW[$ ^5u\x-j s—a-c

jjJL^xil Lo jli LJLs ^L^ *aU *IJI ^jo &UI Jy* ; KJU« 3 I *)JI <->U^
^jOL>.j ^ \>3 JS &.-o v-aJJ' l5<-^ £*^ ^ OlX>^3 j.Us j^co
u>1^l> £\ ^^-J v-jL^PS ^ o ^ (jJtiLwJf ^>Lao L+-P3 L*JJ>L*-**

UK ., B^XjLjt f-V 1 ' L^^ J^*^ c^*^>$ q^I* ^-*-=^ (J-*k Lg-?^ £

xUi 5 o^o 3! ^_jt i Jlas *_j JkJSJ jc> JLw 5 kAc *Ut <}jo *IJI

a^Jlc Otis jy£ Lo J, j»,ftj yS vyto l\j« vyto ^! v^ft-ywJ^ (j*jj *U|j

&

v-*>J ,Uc ^ c\ri ^jJ oy^ *J$^ l5^h« >* ^^ vm^j L^° 1^

JjiLi o^*j J ^^s *jy^> <5 **v^Jj3t ^lXJI [Cod. Jo^JI] J^>jll

iOxj 5 ^5^0 Uxi v^b:^ j.^ ^Lv= ^ ,3^1 Jbf x)La«, jtjj ^li oi 5 L> ,3!
^lX-^-j liLi^ v^a^Ij (<■>! ^^ l^^^^ uy-^i' j^^ ^-^ «3yv. ^hs

IlX^J ici^ Jx ^(5 U^ Q^ Il\^ *L^ Q^.IJ^ Q^Jl^AJ \j),X^

**) Cod. oJji» , but if we read J->yJ the correction is obviously necessary;
i. e. 'pointing to the man in whose dwelling I had been lodged'.

-y

97

13^ uJ) LaaJIc JL5\±i J c>.^>^J '(31 (^A/Ojlt r-^-' ' li O^^^

ftl^CJu} vi^oAii ySiXJS vdl^i SU/o Jo>^ JuJLs ^ilxa-^5 ^L-x-L-c J,t
*Jj? aXaaojj ^bu ;dK j} 5 * £ J^sj 1-4.-3 aJ oJliB <jl5 [Cod. &1.^ju]
*JUI \ja^ JUs [Kor. 4. 12] £ja&^ i> J^-^i y"«3JLJ +~SS$J L ^-i

ytf jJU^J IJ^j jJUb vr>J^i>I Lite ,3! J6 ^^>Xw*i LLiijjo-i ^

^xi ^.^Ji *-*-*! Ij M\$ Jyixi c>J 5 J> ,3* ^jl (j»y^ J*>j^ jlafijt
u>A*aS »Lo>> oJt xaLo^ *Lop ^j' KjLo ^/o Jt w^>t ^ <$)ul:>t
iXuu; <3 ^L>5 *Liiilj gU3 cXxj ^,/ol J ti)J<3 q*. *Jt xkiS £L£ Lo
Jyb ^Ui3 j^> &•> jty^ c^ [Cod. UaJ] LLJL-a-j .jiX^ui eT*^'
UJi f^XxJ lT^ il ^>^ ^^ ^^ <V^ ^^ <3>^ r^ L ^' Jj-c«Aj
^L>3 a-*-* k^jS ^lXj! «jto^«JI j,i ojo, 5 JS yJL^uJ' Uj JLi?

j$i v3 20 ^t U* _^£U L ^Jx ^Ixtaj s^y*. ^ILs^t ^3 ^ UU j^tf

5 ' ° 5 0^

i=L=^ ^JLaJ j^' & ^ U-^o ^* ^ ic xJLy [Cod. ^ajLj] (3^'Laj

t-j o^lX^o ^iLj^Law q* [Jf& ^>^t^ 0.-J0 A-'s^ Vc"* 1 L5r /0 ^
u qK ^ (jia*^ u>Jlai *-*Jt v^^^>^j ^1 L-^-j L^Jlr' oLxJj^l

7

9 8

oAcL, oUfcM L^j ojiXii Jxd?. J^L^ Lkc> i o^I ^ JJ'j.JI
^ytjli ^yat ^ p^ £>l\:£Vj i '**£*/ 1$****^ ^±$f» i$ *&M

J3ol ^.Lt^ ^a52I> j^ftjl^ Jul* v-JL>of i£*Jl£jl j^JI £ qK Lis

lit ,5^> 7-^-^ r»^-^ SUxjj UjUj JcXs ^ybuU J*-jL+_j t^lxs
Lj ^.$ A JL-S-i ^j-i^ ^x**^ ,3 ^ &-*>•> j?U=*i J ^L«%

^c ^Xaa^b ^SL* i^Jlc ola^ ^3 *,J£_a-&-£ i^Ldc &UI^ Lit cX.^

o o

»M.<^aJ ^La^" »ytJi3» »^l\> ^a3 <&Juh vi^Ji' lXsJ xU! XJucJ ^aJLc

[Cod. ^ISxjI i JlS] (jolft*JI JB ^ <-/.*li> ^S c^x^Avi OtXiJS J6
qI^ Js..^ ^t JUs iaL^dlj [read ^fcjUbJL ?] ^Lku ^^^ JaLl*dlj
^ 1+£J*_ao9 aJL*^ *jJIc &U j*o 1$^ ; xJ " O** qL-juxXv .—SI .La

q* -x-& ^a1& [Margin, variant fcik^] li^AaAA^ >j ^ J^j*^ ^^ ^° i'

(ijl «jl5 &ac 8y:jit Vj^ ^ ^ <3^ C^:^ii*Jt ^j vi^^l to <-a% 5
XaS qK' ^"AJi ^xJt uuJ ^jii (J^^^ q-^ c5^>° **-J^ v^^aaI2. ;
^j!j *5 f^^-S i^Xj £ l5^"3 C5^*-^ OvX-Sj ^^Uxit ^jn-j j^
^ JLas ^g> ^Awo JLaJB q^*-^>' u»^3 *w^^ j^c jjfe O^^ ./

99

„ -j o - - - ., . 3 w £

A.Ji U-^xlc l\^5 ^^^ r^y*^-^^ l5^ vX-5* ^-JlXw Q.+/0 qUo!

JS a: yUAii <£L~x>t jjj 00A-& US e^A-j c>*^^ J3 JS U ^ii
UUu ytf JUL3 JjL*J* il J^ I^olXJjj ^p^LsUJ Jl5 Jf ^
,J*if&3 »Os&j& «AXi &Ut jtk3 t\-^ x- tot Jfe >S ^^Uj Jf ^Lj.^«

o -_o^ , - 3 _

SUaxj J**^ J5 ^A-ju ia)J.c oUL-W </-*-=H viL^bj (^Lav^j JJCsj
3 > - 9 - > ~ a -

^j ^L^*«f j**>s J6 (W* *%$ v Jju* I A-^j u^ &***« fjl&

ww O- ' 5

Jou [Cod. ^^L>] \S&> yzi\i Jjj ^ J A\j *Uf £^ <^-£ *-to^
Jf ^iAj &Ut *Ja3 lX.w &I JJb ^Pj ^^UXj^, ^i^_*« ^f^ *£&=>
^ ^^J! Jut Jw*^ j^JU^J Js^t Lj JjSj Jot^ XjJIAJI ^Jt f l5

*^>^ jj^ duJy lit A^«> ^^0 ^Uot ju» jUs^i ^.c mik*

100

l^ \<r^ £ ^ ^ "^** ^*^ Vj-^ i V^* w^*sj J^Lrs? Jo

fc^o «-XS vi>^& ^iyto ^->o (J^y**-.-! j^-Jtj vi^xL* K-cUa* ^jJ JLfls
Jbxtf ^t .Las jJLd jj> >5 o*X**» Lo u^xaj &;> y>^ *.ax adJ! ^ . ^.c
oLs-t^ yycajl ya.o ^i ^^UsJt q^ J^y ^1 \>^ [Cod. omits J!:?]

to J?y* v^Jt v^yto ^ v-^jt ^x&S aJJI^ Ul JUS x^!l -fetJLS L^ju ^JIrjj

w J O -

^' *w*LX5 q^^ &aL> iy* xAz. jj>- lXSI !<A_S> q-> l\XvI Lyto ^-u')
vi*X*J Jf Xvto -xp H^ f cf - Ta J al- c Arus] ol^Pt ^ tXJ^ J^-Ijuj

*L=s2 mLSI q^ Ju,i Ux£ LJ>L$ D l J Jl5 ^ alii *L& U *£L*j.
^-jL_a3 ^-^ *-x_* c^t^J &*k£j 5 Lgj *^\1H 0^*j Jot^ HlXjcX^

J^aaaJJ ^\ Jl5 « aJJ« *T, Sy D * ^ «^ £ LJLo yytolt _$t J^
JJ OuX^J., ^^-^ai q-, L>j^Ut c>.a12£:I l\aS aUU, Jyb ^.j! v-ot^
*>l ^>|j Js^aJI ^J JS i ^ ^le ^ IsUtf ; x^t tX* ^ ^|

^U>^ ^>t ^i[i jLiii lXxj i5 f L> J^ Jai} ^.^w l\S v^ol\> uo-Lo /
vi>i*> iA5J ^^j (5^*^ i«A^>! ^>-s»^ U ^l-Si «A^c ^.jI t Jx &LII j
^L^ ^oi xlJI lX->wc LL j»LxJx!Li UaJI \>^j Lo ^i^\ J, *J Jj-sW

Jl5 *-Jlc «<->. ^' K£ajL$> ^t Jh.0 »lX>15 .^Jli^ *Lo n.£.b L>l\j5 aJjUi
q^ 2>u5 ^-P U 5 jJXlajt^j c^ii ^c ^T"*^ 3 CP ^' VjX^lJ vi>Jl*^
% I LoLxb jkjJl »^»|t (M- (JL^>^ ^j^^iJt c^/5 J^aaJt }-$ JlS tW

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 , a 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 c tasim 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

d^j Sfr>^ dO.3 ^ic ^X5l ^JLs *l$t rn\J> £ {$fr£j ^ Lft^j

(j*^\3 xui &A.&5 *XcL£U& J*JL* QiLs \<\z>\ qI ^^b lc^ &*K

1) al-Maknzi, p. 55 jjUXc £kj& fi} jyu *X*.*w *.*2** Ji ^l\ pi Ui

102

God. 'If this Knowledge', say they, 'be uncreated then the
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
al-Shafi c i had taught him about the ritual washing of the
feet, and Ibn Abi Dowad, in great astonishment, exclaimed,
'Behold a man who is face to face with death indulging in
questions over Fikh !' 2 ).

One of those in the room recited a tradition of c Imran
ibn Husain that God created y\XJ! and y"JJI is the Koran;
to this Ahmed answered that he had the tradition from more
than one authority in the form, 'God wrote -*JsJI\ 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

i)al-Maknzi,p. 6, ^tfl al &A& ^ ^ *UI ^ ^Jl <A>x <X jl&

&£ fie \ K *UI a t ^dj y^ tiU^oli Jlc "^ *U!

2) Abu Nu c aim, 144^ a&dJi ^^ic Jy.ir> ^ «A^i J3o* Jjb **&

it l\t* ^;i ^b^ vJUc t^y*> tytf 003 a^JLe yy> ^tfj *&Jji
vJLoJl Vj^ (**& lwy> ^ ^j^ljJ o!^ ^J ^1 JLai ^m,JI

<&$&!! £ .bUj

103

did not apply to the Koran — a construction which is ad-
missible x ).

Someone introduced the verse, 'What came to them of

Id 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 J\3JI'; so yjjl is the Koran but there is

in that other (So) no article. Here the argument is to shew

that .JJsJt and the Koran are identical in meaning, but jS 6

without the article is not identical with the Koran. Con-
sequently, no argument can be based upon the declaration
that Y<3 was newly produced.

The words were cited, 'He is the creator of everything'.
Against this Ahmed quoted , '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 the Koran and the Tradition. Ahmed's defence was to
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, *Li! oil:> U^ C>yx»*A ^\ vi^JiA^i ^Ic \y&£z>)j
[Kor. 2. 256] ^*»£.l\ SuJ £j% Jas$ fjoj "^ 5 A.*** ^ Jj ^ &*:> q*

O 5 /^ *UvJf_5 .Lilj &jJp. j-JLc oUii «5j Li J CJA.JI& *m ^^ ^ JlS

\fi\ JL* jib J 3

104,

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
interference, Ahmed did not answer him, and, when al-Mu c -
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
Ahmed, in which al-Mu c 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
to learn his views or their vindication. Abd al-Rahman, how-
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
answers, al-Mu c tasim then exclaimed, 'Surely, this man is a
fakih ! surely, he is a man of learning [ c alim] ! and I would
that I had men such as he with me to take part in managing
jmy affairs , and to effectually answer the advocates of other
/religions'. He, further, professed himself ready to suspend at
once all action against Ahmed, and to support him with
all his power, if he would but give him the very slightest

i) cf. Dozy, Het Islamisme, 152.

2) al-Makrizi, p. 6, &£\U q£ ^aL&( 131 *Ji!t ^ zi'J l\a£ jjt Jl5

<A*£ jl\ JIS K^b Ax$ Jv^t q* *i-r:S <^>*wJ i*>l£s xJIKj "# a-aaXxJI

P^bG^ ^UJIj J^>l ^ 0^0 ^1 ^ qI(j *UI

ios

Imission as a ground for doing so. To this Ahmed made
a lnswer in harmony with what he had said before, asking for
^ome 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
follower of al-Shafi c 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 D mun had written his name
among the first seven who were summoned, but that he
had been instrumental in securing its erasure 1 ). To all these
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 c Ammar , was , also , sent to
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. 64.

io6

stubborn silence. He carried this practice out so thorough!
that his opponents complained to the Khalif that, when
ever the argument was in his favor he had his answer ready,
but, on the contrary, whenever it went in their favor he
simply challenged the testimonies which they adduced. It
seems to have troubled him that they should have insisted,
as they sometimes did, on the letter of the Koran; and, to
shew them that they ought not to be too slavish in their
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's portion shall be the
portion of two females'. The man replied that the text re-
lated specially to the believers. Ahmed then asked him,
what would be the rule if the man were a murderer, a
slave, a Jew, or a Christian. To this his opponent made no
answer. This argument Ahmed apologized for using on the
ground of their annoying manner of argument with him;
r and it would appear from this case that he was prepared
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
Dowad, whenever opportunity offered, took an active part
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
"similar being to God (dualistic view) 1 ). His reply was, 'He
is one God, eternal; none is like him and none is equal.
He is even as he has described himself 2 ). At the close of
this session a private conference between the Khalif, Abd

i) Steiner, 77, cf. 90 f.

2) al-Makrfzi, p. 4, JULSa* ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ °^ C W cM*

107

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
went, and the two men who had been with him before
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
disputed with him, and then followed another private con-
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-
ble one, asking for some ground for a change of faith ad Q

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
Aimed away and flogged. The flogging then ensued. Be-
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. He said that it held two hairs of
the Prophet 1 ). On learning this Ishak ibn Ibrahim saved

1) On hairs of the Prophet as charms cf. Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II, 35 8 *

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
for him, 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 the Khalif to put Ahmed to death. When bound,
Ahmed complained to the Khalif that the punishment he
was inflicting upon him was unlawful according to the dec-
laration of the Prophet, who had said that the blood and
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 to weaken out of admiration for Ahmed's spirit and
/courage and from the conviction wrought by his arguments,
— reminded aI-Mu c tasim that, if he yielded, he would cer-
-^tainly be said to oppose the doctrines of the former Khalif
~~al-Ma D mun, and men would regard Ahmed as having ob-
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 1 ). As he was bound
to the whipping-posts the lictors, one hundred and fifty in

i) al-Makrizi , p. 7 , U ^*S& [$sM*^ (j^-J olx>} all! ^*c j.j1 Jo

lX-a-c ,3! O^o j^AOAJtil ^L LJls adJl u^iL ^A*>lt ^ Ij «^J.vXj
X-X-SL q* 0I3O Jjl ^-jt <jr*^ ^ ***** cj^ O^ J***-^* *^*

4

r
109

number it is said , advanced in turn and each struck him
two strokes and then went aside *). At first , with each stroke
Ahmed uttered a pious ejaculation, concerning the exact
tenor of which the accounts vary 2 ). There is an apocryphal
story to the effect that, after he had been struck twenty-

QV*Ut w*&\* v^iy *iW J^ iCC^jj q! c^y-*>^ t**' l* J^ *a^

(j*A:> Luw^" v^^JLb^ iiU<3 ic>lp ^0CaJL3> c-dle \J^ ^Js oIx^U^

#J1 ^S±&& JS J? au*^ Jjfi auL^Pl 3 o' 3 ^J ^ j.fe 5 *A*

1) al-Subki, p. 136, Lit v^-j]> JS *£*J Lr^ji^^ j*^ ^' UolX>
[J^> o-d ^ Vj-^ O^ O^ • • • • ^jf** [Cod. ^3] O o>
Jul — «5 ££**+.> i«*^ij XLAit liXAj J, LaacO J^ ^.A^iAjtii (^lX-j q-u

t-M^V. > sjt [cf. Abu Nu c aim, 150J, ql\JJ _jJ a! JLfij a) <->^?V tj J?

[*Jb3i Jlss

2) al-Makrfzi , p. 8, Jl5 ^IjLM v_jy£ Lis A! I *.*o Jl5 Lb^ v-yi? Uii
^ *Ut r ^ yjt JI5 *&JL*5t u r ^ UU aJIJL ^ 8y> ^ j,j> y

o.ir bails uj^S' juu&L>- aLs^Lw &£j c^L^.5 tby* ,.«j--&Xj &jk*mj iu-Ans

*J j-^i w^X^J axLmJI villas [read &?)*£?] JOCilfi v^ JojIywJt jjJLs

q< ^ c**»\j q\.S Us *jw&& J--Si-^ *L*JI _^ &_s--.b &UI cV.-j.fi

Jl5 odS ^^-w ^13 ^AXaii (iL.^* <I^JoU ^L^^wJt j.^ (^-i— b vi>oti ; 5

no

nine strokes, Ahmed's nether garment threatened to fall to
the ground, but that it was miraculously restored to its
place and fastened securely, in answer to a prayer which

j'5 QM./oLii ^ &UL ^t By> ^j tL> ^ JlS jjyt J, 5 .1 JJ^-. »cXix s^S.

cX^b} *UoJ ^ *— »J C^^J (J^ L^- c J^Lm*^ V-iySyO tiki' (JV^?^ ***\ b

^U»*Jf ^ ^*wtj *i>» <A£*i LoL (A.ii! ^.jIlX.*^ x-j^^^s ^_j (j*b^$
[Xjf* *^i \ilCo q^ _-*j ^J Vj^^ ^^ J^t^ ^ ^ *^} {*$ ^^

Ill

he uttered. Some of the accounts go even so far as to
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 -
fear of the multitude on the part of al-Mu c 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 it. Subsequent to this, he was removed to the
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 2 ). Ahmed
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
Scourging, prison physician and treated until 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 his wrists, which was brought about by
neglect to take hold, as he was advised to do, of the upper
parts [lit. teeth] of the whipping posts. When he failed to
do this the principal weight of his body was suspended
from the wrists. After the scourging, al-Mu c tasim brought

1) 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
J to his body. It is said that if the Khalif had not caused this
S 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-
Mutasim 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
prisoner. As matters stood al-Mu c 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 *).

i) al-Makrizi, p. 8, cl-A^Sil iAxj aJLc all! >cto\ & /*— ^ ^*-r^ d*" 2 *

qlVJI f^ 9 3& LT^' [i- e - tLook ye at him. Thou, Ishak ibn Hanbal, Is
he, Ahmed ibn Hanbal, not sound in body?' Ishak, thereupon, nodded as-
sent. Supply after &-JI , \JslS\m*$ J6 ^ and after q<A>J' , /*xi **«^ JL&]-
&aJ.*v yXi JlS Uls X«0 J* jO& *$ Jfc oJ tiUi ,J**3 *o! ^ ^Jj

J^LST. L>!^> cc jl ^1 G l^ lyC<*,j ^LJi UJ> { yX*JI g*& f£JI

(^y-*»I j&d l* <3yv.5 *3^LW j»^^^ &JUt l\.>£ ^jI ^j^a> Js^ *&aM

«X3 l*J t«LJ3 ^ j-J^ ^ jd?. ^1 ^t IcXj <A^T. ili *UI c\*c

H3

It is related that he remained only sixteen days at the Camp,
and during this period used altogether as food a rub c 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 *).

Mifyia 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 letter from the Khalif al-
al-Mu c ta?im. Mu c tasim ordering a renewal of the Mihna. Al-
Muzaffar tested the doctors in pursuance of the order he had

_ y>|^ H^wudj$2 Ui>^ IjUwJLJ^ Iaox^JJ^ *J&a-<o ^.AaXxii &-*j£ ff^5

J.i*-^ (jd-Jf &.XA} aJiJL/0 ^\ 1*23 (j^^vJt V!5j^ l ^— *—^ *-^ (^^

— ^Lxli iXju i^-jj ^3 ^^c^ »*-*— > Oj**j j^-j J^ La-a-jIj v-k^uJ

*u juiL, s^LaoU -^

i) Abu Nu c aim, 142^ f. l\^I U.S ^l5 *A^ ^j C£r*^5 ^ \JX\&>
^M UaXw ^L> Lo lo}-J -Av.fi &**« &uli>. i\...a. c .&*otj|j ^t e>X./o

&aX5l\> 3 ^L:>0 **i$y A oj'i9 j£"^ **"* *^*$

8

*

H4

received , but it brought him only an increase of the troubles
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-
ernors commanding the revival of the inquisition 2 ). It must
have been in the examinations which followed this com-
mand that al-Buwaiti was cited to answer for his faith 3 ).
Ai-MuHa- Al-Subki is, probably, right when he asserts that
s* $im and al-Mu c tasim had not the learning which qualified
the Mtjwa.\ii m to decide whether the doctrine of the Koran's
creation was right or wrong, and that the prosecution of
the Mihna by him was due, in great part, to the charge
y which was left him in the testament of al-Ma D 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.
Al- Wathik After the death of al-Mu c tasim and the accession
and Aimed. of his son Harun al-Wathik, Ahmed became a very
popular teacher, and was much resorted to. Al-Hasan ibn
c 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-Sujuti, Tarikh al-Kholafa, VTi

3) Abu'1-Mah. I, 686.

4) al-Subltf, p. 145, CT L^ L5;^ ^ o^ *& £*> Oi^jfl ^
y>Ut «U>J ^ ^sjLJg ^\ <J&&. JjgJI L Js* ^Uil &? jJUJf

yM^ sL^&i [yt cf. Weil, Chalifen II, p. 334.

H5

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 i ). It is reported of al-Wathik in relation
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 all parties, he took the course of asking
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 Mi^na.Q Ynors f the provinces to apply again the Mihna
for the Koran has been already mentioned 2 ). It was issued

i) al-Makrizi, p. 8 f. vj&'tjjt ^J> **ji L5 -J^ ^AaJLx-tt oU LJj
&\*p ^t ^t i* olcXib ^ytolS cXx^JJ J^fi £jJ { j^.A. u-Ax^-i ciAJi

vid. Weil, Chalifen II, 340; Abu'l-Mahasin I, 69 l. 2) vid. p. 114.

n6

in 231 A. H. It is said that he gave this order, notwith-
standing the fact that he had withheld his father al-Mu c ta-
sim from the application of the Mihna 1 ). 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 al- this Khalif was Ahmed ibn Nasr ibn Malik al-Khu-
Khuzcfl. z £ca 2^ f rom the city of Merv, who was of one of

1) Abu'1-Mah. I, 6835 al-Sujuti, Tarikh al-Khol. 346.

2) v. Kremer, Herrsch. Ideen des Isl. 243; Weil,Chal. II, 341 f.; Dozy, Het
Islamisme, 156; al-Sujuti, Tarikh al-Kholafa, 346; al-Ja c qubi, II, 589; Tabari, III,

/ w

IfWff.; De Goeje, Fragm. Hist. Arab., I, 529 f.; al-Makrizi, 10 f. ^ iA^' Lol3

»Lc<3 8jtV^5 i*T- lt/C CJ~t LS^' ***" c ^55*5 8 -£^5 (J**-^ cy~* ti\Jlo ,.--^
J*£j V:^ ^^ V/ 23 * y^ iS~^ oV^ 0*.t^U jJiJf JJ \JL±\y\

Su^ £ JJ3 Ui tjr^-^ /^ o^ '^ O^ ^ J**^ 1 o-J f^l;- 1
y^y? vi>.*^ Qj^Jt of<AP LJi &Jaa^. ^ *j jy%, iA3 qL5" 5 (jjjji

1, ),oj - 03* s.*~. ?>- oS y -co o£ 5 i = » " "" ^ <*—*-<

\JLc^ *Hf .^i (iVJ<3 tXxj fc-A-A y* (^lX-L-S- jb&3Lj [Kor. 29. 1]

.££ JlS l**£j »Xl\ JotS Lo C>J^5 _Lj X*l. J.C5 ^-aXv/^ (j^lA-A-wJi

, ll 7

the leading families of his tribe. One of his teachers was
Malik ibn Anas and of his pupils one was Yahya ibn Ma c in.
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 c Amr ibn c Ata saw his
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
occurred on the second last day of Sha c 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-
est indication of decay upon them 2 ).

1) Abu'1-Mah. I, 719.

2) al-Subki, p. 142 f. q! ^L^UI &.*J$ £ ^1 sU U^ ^5^3 oJl3

vi>„ot3 L^-j <jj_i {JdJ ^.c «y*-^ wLSJls iAxAaX-j „.--. £> *Lo^t (J* 2 *^
*jj3 £ Ul.x_,o ^ ^> [Read f-^2?] j>&£ <*Jf$\ & xiULc {Jom

ii9

Ntfaim ibn Nu c aim ibn Hammad was another who held out.
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 c aim ibn Hammad studied
Tradition a great deal in the Hijaz and c Irak 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 *).
Abu Ya c kub Abu Ya c kub, Yusuf ibn Yahya al-Buwaiti, the
al-Buwaitl. pupil of al-ShafTi to whom he entrusted his cir-
cle of scholars at his death, was imprisoned for his refusal
to acknowledge that the Koran was created, and died in
prison 232 A. H. One of his fellow Shafi c ites, al-Rabi c 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
what was created 2 ). By God ! I will die in these thy chains, that

a j lX^I ijJj ivX* f-o-yt ^j>\ aiH * r ^j jj> WIS «y» o- j* 2 ^

1) al-Makrizi, p. 11, ^&° 3^-* J*-^ CT» O^ ^ CT* f^ ^
& LgJU \jaJ&J&] jb ya^> jjj Jf \J^^5 j^F^i vi^JiAs- o* *A*^'

2) c 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-Shafi !, and the latter in turn with
Ahmed, as far at least as the Koran was concerned (cf. p. 49 and Abu'1-Mah. I,
686). The discussion of c Kun' in Houtsma, De Strijd etc., 129, seems to look
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 him'. From prison he wrote to
al-Rabi c ibn Suleiman entrusting him with the care of his
circle of pupils , and bidding him be faithful to them *).

The remaining history of the Mihna in the reign of al-
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 of to ransom 4600 prisoners from the Greeks, when
Prisoners Ibn Abi Dowad suggested that they should ransom
from the only such as admitted the creation of the Koran ,
Greeks. anc | {hat these should each receive two dinars on
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 ).

1) Hammer- Purgstall , Lit. Gesch. Ill, p. 200, N°. 1050; al-Sujuti, Tarikh
al-Khol. 350 j Abu'1-Feda Ann. II, 132; Fihrist I, 212; Abu'l-Mahasin , I,

686 j al-Makrizi, p. 11, i-XjJi -Jaj^Ji icti^?- it^ ^-^^ VV^V. ^ ^°!$
^XJoi ZXm> 0L0 qJ it g^xj^li *—LJLa6 qU*^ oLl^. j^-S-Ji xJL/O
^JxjwJI vi>jjj .-seL&Jl ^^-l/o ^y^l/M ^ l^i^ d^ (^jy^°$ (^^i
XJLaJLw <Axfti^ JotJ^ (j>-J$ *Aa5 ^S*k>\ \&$ »}— £ &ft-*-c ^ J*-*-? J^
xUt vjOLi> L#Ji J^-5-J ^-^5 iLl^ Oy^y ^~Hj5 '^4 3 ^^ uXjl\^»
Uili> Ij^L^ qL5o &^JL£° ^ ^&J6 IjU [ c f. Kor. 6 , 72] ^<J \J&&

O w

w 5 O.C-

2) Tabari III, 1^1 ff.; De Goeje, Fragm. Hist. Arab. II, 531; Abu'l-
Mah. I, 684; al-Subki, p. 146.

121

Al-Wathih Stir- 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-
KorMs 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 step was the quotation of Koran 5.5, 'This
day have I completed for you your religion and perfected
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.

1) v. Kremer, Herrsch. Ideen, 243 ff.; al-Sujuti, Tarikh al-Kholafa, 347 f. ;
Abu'1-Mah. I, 691 f.; al-Makrizi, p. gf.; 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
invited men to 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

not 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 relative to the Koran. Other accounts say that al-
Wathik changed his view before he died, and, in the con-
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-Mtitawakkil Al-Mutawakkil began to reign in 232, and
Abrogates the the Mihna continued to exist for two years
Mfyna. i n n j s reign, being brought to a close in the
year 234. The whole term of its duration was, thus, from the
last year of al-Ma D 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

1) Steiner, 78, says al-Wathik brought the Mihna to a close. But the truth

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.

123

pain of death l ) to profess the creation of the Koran. At -
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. v. Kremer, Herrsch. Ideen d. Isl. 245 ff.; cf. Dozy, Het Islam. 163;
cf. Ibn Chall. N°. 133; Abu'1-Mah. I, 691, 695, 702; al-Sujutl, Tar. al-Khol.
3525 al-Ja c qubi II, 592; al-Subki, p. 143, JLbj JCLAftJ* sl\P -*l jub cXfij

&AA* ^i ^Ajloj S-.&.E qL*S' &AAM ^$> .tf^jJ SCLwAjt BlXS 5 Q-» ,4.^)5 IS*-.**

MjLfcjl & l^bj *J vjilii *Tj&^ fyi ^Mt £,\ ^Jju w^ 5 ^t

^-j obcXAaJi £1 ji\ &ibte *Ulii fiSSS J5 ^^ J *a^*aJI 5 \4 c

jU.*Jt *La:>I £ J^aIIj ^LEaii »^>. ,3 Hj-*Si iA_a-£ ^ j^Fj aOjJt

(J^A-& \xlfi *&U SL*L*Jl \^K& lASj J^^^ VlP^ O^ (jwlxji V^A^**}

jj^i 1 q^j ; s! vJL&^jJ ^lA-3 &_3l [Abu'1-Mah. I, 714] L&X:>i
K*aa* ^ *<Afis Uol5 LJlib .J^ L^-A-JL-fi L*-i|j »j-A-*°3 *£jJL* l\->'

£^L3 Ljl-JI jju U J* v^iJ^ JJ&Si J^ ft ^b u"^ ^*

&aaX£3 ^j^Ij *JOjAi2» Xlib J ,£>w/*uXas ^vo ^^Uaoj *vi L JSj t\LJi
[Abu'1-Mah. I, 712; Fragm. Hist. Arab. II, 546.] <J>La\5^ \JzAaO j£>^ *Xo

124

Getieral Taking a general survey of the inquisition x ) in-
Surveyof augurated by al-Ma^mun, and carried on by the
theMifaia. 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

^JJJ Q^JUit ^La-s *^ao t yU ) v£y> 5 ikJiJfy q* (j^UJt £-003

al-Makrizi, p. 10, &-x~v- »AJt JbC J^S ^ g^i >$l JailL Jl5j
sJCwi X*i!t «iUj v^ftAi'^ KJUJf 20 \M ^blj ^ajU^, ^'^5 lijy^"'

^ J xftl3 *UL£iJf JyL» SjaoJI ^^15 cC ^Ji O^ ^-j fA^

£JL*JI j^^^ ct\Jt ^^—^ <X>^!s> **^

1) A short account of the Mihna and its issues is to be found, Dozy, Het
Islamisme, 154-ff*

2) Houtsma (De Strijd etc. 106 f.) appears to make the motive for the re-
sistance of the orthodox theologians to their rationalistic opponents one of
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 that it may have been a secondary, though not a primary one. The
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
faith at all costs, and feared grave spiritual consequences should the doctrine
be given up. The honor of God, the Divine Legation of the Prophet, the
unique and ineffable dignity of the Koran, and, finally, the everlasting well-

-~J

125

as bla^ f w hich Ahmed was the leading representative » _
wou not win their way in the following generations of Islam _
P/as not because they had been killed out by persecution , _
if 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
people could not bear amid the practical concerns of every-
day life; and because the system rested upon casuistries,
which, though deductively perfect, were false in their prem-
ises and could never have satisfied the untrammeled com-
mon sense of men. The inquisition only retarded the devel-
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
life and 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-
ment was no more unsound than that of his opponents x ).

being of their own souls and the souls of those who looked to them for an
example — these are expressed motives for the orthodox apologetic, which
in some cases became a defence of conviction even unto death. The faith in
the Divine and uncreated nature of the Koran lay at the root of all their
arguments and actions in this defence. In the historical instances of such a re-
sistance as this the personal element of conviction, rather than any considerations
of religious policy , has been the moving principle of the defence which has
been put forward.

1) The statement of Houtsma (De Strijd etc. 106) would give the impres-
sion that the orthodox when in disputation with their opponents had no ar-
guments worth mentioning to offer, and were quite incapable of dealing with
those who stood against them. Judging from a modern point of view nei-
ther side had very strong points; but, judged from a Muslim standpoint, the

126

They had, on philosophical grounds, declared the 3 i n -

as well as the attributes of God, to be created; but, w. e

they opposed him, they sought to convict him of error ou

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.

— As to al-Ma 3 mun, he evidently disliked the slavishness of
" 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 finds it
difficult to credit with earnest convictions. His first master,
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. Ish&k 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 MuHaziliten , 8) says that the Mu c tazila used the Ko^n inter-
preting it allegorically and giving their reasonings a philosophical cast. Houtsma,
(De Strijd etc. 80) speaks of the Mu c tazila as being, in general, men lacking
in earnestness and given to dialectic trifling in disputation.

127

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, as we have 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
will see differently when he has had time to come to
himself. This account, be it remarked, occurs in al-Sub-
ki's Tabakat (life of Ahmed ibn 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 D 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 x
not been for him the Mihna would have lapsed for want ^
of interest or from positive distaste on the part of al-Mu c ta--T
sim or al-Wathik.

For al-Mu c tasim's part in this movement we have nor
much to say. He found no pleasure in the wretched bus-
j^s of persecuting men's convictions, and clearly shewed I?
F Ahmed's case that, had it not been for obligations which ^.
K 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 he, too, was dominated by Ibn Abi Dowad. The re-

128

corded cases, very few in number, of those whom he tried
for the Koran evince cruelty as a feature of this KhaliPs
character, and that of Ahmed ibn Nasr, in particular, is
positively brutal 1 ).

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 c in that the sword
should have frightened them into surrender of a doctrine
which was felt to be the truth. It is the fault of an jige_ol
cont roversy 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 whom a 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_polenikL whic h was going on^ abo 1 ^
them. The surrender of it might be a victory for an c iad
nent, but it was worth making for the sake of one's "l d
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.

129

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
predecessors, unless his hostility to c Alyite movements be

counted as of a religious character '). We are justified, in my t

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-—
ligious bigot 2 ). His connection with orthodoxy was, because —
free from any immediate and violent display of persecuting
spirit 3 ), hardly from a political motive. Counter persecution

i) On this hostility cf; pp. 140, 152; Abu'1-Mah. I, 712.

2) For a different view cf. Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II, 57, 66; Dozy, Het
Islamisme, 163.

3) Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 113 infra.

9

130

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-
Mutawakkil was, apparently, a Shafi c 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 In tne earl y y ears °f al-Mutawakkil's reign
and Ahmed there were those who sought to injure Ahmed
ibn HanbaL vvith the Khalif 3 ). One report, in particular, was

i) al-Sujuti, Tarikh al-Khol. 359.

2) Nearly all European writers impute political motives to this Khalif, as
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 fact, which appears to be well established, that al-Mutawakkil was per-
sonally orthodox in his theological convictions, as well as the other facts
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
orthodoxy. His antagonism to c 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.

3) Abu Na c aim, 150 £ ff. (This source is now followed with a few ex-

- o jy

ceptions which are noted)- Jk jjy &XL£Wj J^_JC_II wLx_S l>^. 5 5 «3

*3*

, that he had charged with Atheism the predecessors of

;*

qj J*ax*J «•*$ lX^.^ 5 Us j^Jis t\*£>t ^2 jk^ lX*^ 3 ^^ ^**^ui$

*J »— aj15^ t5>^^ O""^ ^j*^. r>^5 - ^r*^ *-a>Ijo 2uuo y 02 ^ y^ 1,
rJ U^*^' j^ <c^ V*^ ( -^-* j^y *^ <*^ JyM j^ *^ J^ ^. j .*
^Xi3 J*£> ^JUQI ^t *} JlSj [cod. jCCaIL] ajiJlk [ Cod - ^* c ] ^<AXc
[Cod. t'jjt] jjt *)Jt *7j ^i ji D ^ v uJi jixs ^ixii r li jjs J^

* v Utfl aJlc ^y> Lis *Ui jfcwj XjJj J^ ^Ax3 5 vJJI ^i ^X&
Ja&JUJIj yuJtj y~*J 5 £ *^U? l^ J,^ \<A£ oy^ lo ^1 <ftJ JlS

*jjl ^5 ^ il &>$ fS^ O"^ O^ 5 ^ O^ ^■■^-5 Cfr*^*^ h- c ^3
(i^ r*y J- JjJ ^ ^ Jj-J "^ xcL*:> ^ K*4-> i' ~ -^ "^ ^^

[Cod. &al>li] \al>li c^aJb> (^asLsW .J JLiis v^l^te ^Jlb dtXJLc

«,,*-** [Cod. JoJLb] '&Ak> [Read aA-JLi Lo?] i^lXac Lo U&LUIjj Mi

. t 00'

\ Ovj I J6 >* 'L^lc [Cod. sAac] klX>^ I ^t )yA)\ <3*MZ> \&*xd\

Juia Al& tiU.jl Jj*^5 J^ UtoL> vj^5\j J^>02ftii ^ji jl5 tjUjA^c ^j£.Aii

^IjLxj^^ v.l>v-CvjC3 ^* vi>^.^ l£»xJ6 ^L^vAi U^jw ^IjL^oi^ (^OL^Jt ^jl^

132
the Khalif — a report which the latter did not appear to con-

sJlJ c\^-b ^Uci I^olXS oAJI Js^i ^ (AJj iu «-Ay Li i^o*Lj
[Cod. v-jJbtj] v'^V. Cfc****^ -A*^ ^W *"?^ £&} ii)o 3U.#-&j >J c5<-^

}\ Ji*jL»*'J ^ &JJt jJlilS ^»)r>L) ^^oljj 3jjL--> ^JW^ 3-^OjJLj (^Ji^JtH
ft ~ - * o _ J

^sjo <A_5 Jyv.^ j.iU^Jt t^LJLc ULj (^^i' j-yo^ aD' <Aaji Lb *) Jl&

lX—Sj is^jIcAj ^Uj^ ^j^ 'J**-^ o' v****^ <-*— ^ ^.X>Lw £LJL5
b*yo Lg^i s'lXj ^r^l5 <£).&* ,J^ xSyw j5\o o^' S-&£ tiLJI ^y^>^

1$jl& Jf l-f-JI ^^Jb f.JL.5 L^ jfl^ JLJlj ^Up ^Su ^ _^f

s 3

Lb &J jlij A.-^JLc: *:xj Lo ^.-c -J2JJ L^-^ 1^-^ <->> £ t a! jliJ^ v-J^Sju

v-jJtil lXJLc ^ UJi H.c\Ji fj^c. L^O^ £l.*£s:> [Cod. KjL>L] &t>b
"^£^ \J£*p L5"^) ^ c LpjXAai (iliAxc L^jxo slXS> t\i> J.L0 b JlS
AI*d b JUs *JI OcXjtA^j v-^iis iLo b ^oUj j.2> 31 _^L* qK' UJIj
q-o vi^ JLw Jyb j.-^5 Jvaj J**^ &.J *1 villas »A-S> ^LJ o^J Lo

il 3 ^>Ij c3 o/^. l^-^ o^- 5 ^ ^^5 JI5 J ^Loi^^ ^.^L^il

L^j M\ &JL> ^ ly&z Lr Ji\ (jiaaij Lgls" Ipi j^> Jj-j ^ ^L»

3 ~ . s
XxbS c^^-^13 vU A;i L?jO j^iac' X-j J b jliis *5 ^j *L^ *JLc

133

sider very seriously, for he is said to have ordered the man

^Juslj aoy> U^ (JUL LXr' £^J ^ ^^> J-** *A3 *jt (j*Uit jjr^, L^j
Low 3 blli ^ «. ; >f J J,*mJl jA JS < <> L ^J>C^o i JUS JB

.- a G a ?

^& ^y tiU* ll*o b Jl5 j^i' £, ^l Uis olbUJI ,^U* (j*^

yl J§ l?y l?y ^LLcl5 jftbcl J6 ^

&u.f £ a^LaJI jAaiij JliJj Xw**JJ i' ^^>^-> j * <^-^ y 2 "^ J^ 2 ^'

(3 &_J <Jjo f > c^-^ &-J* HL&fi <j***i> ^LVkrt ***\^ d L-S-j ya*JI
^Jl »>> 3 J? ^Aii v-^a*j LlJ JlS ^LjQL ^o Lj^o uJi ^</^.*jI

J^> a J Ju»t ^B *%$> to JS J JU*i 5 ^Uii i* ;& UU ^jJI

Xajj *^LmJJ ^^kyij JI& juiyp q_j ^^^ ;L> u <\xi x?j\ K^i
j.-ji <jls ^a^ j^au^ *M v^« ^ f*^ o' l?***^ ^^ l^' o^'

;ry ot r <] ^ lXs JlSs jftil j ^fi *T=s? Jjul ^J U <J Jjit J^ail

(j^xj ^c \xaao! «.^ ^' v^jouto-' ij^* JUi vi)A^\j Ll^Ip ^aSj viyijj
^>5 ^' (^Ai^ iiU^\j 0^3-i Lo%, eL^oij ^UavI (j^xj J JlSs wLx^t
u^iasLwi ^5^^^ L$Jl\:>I oyixj Lx^iLajJ ^X^^j ^t jJu Lo ^-a-J!

JSj—J ^-/OO JL-aw^ ^.aJAj ^AOXIj *«iA«J UJj-^l q1£ q^ Jl_ft-5 ^s-JiAs

134
who made it to be flogged for trying to injure a good subject.

«£a.5 S^maJJIS y^_>J ^-,a-jJ. Lo <w <j>Aa5 <j^^. H^**.aA5 ^13 '^^JXi^

qJ i JB J> id— ^U:> J, tfJLS! Aac _^l jA^Ms t Cod - omits ] V*-"-*^

w^-5._j' alii lX-a-c Lb JL& iA.*Jl q-, e5 ^^ ^t J? SUlc L$3L» j?jl>

.Lwli &l\£ cS-J Gt2~A '&*.*» .-.Xv.-C &%»*»«.> q-* j.^* sAax: a) j^i tXs
Jl5 s^**a13 *j Lo aj c^d-JLi H^wMjLi'i [Cod. (j**.aJIj] fjt^Aj i^" iKf&>

OJ_0 _ O . «_5 w - 3

pjLx£iz> l^JU jlSj uji._XJt J.C uaaXs2 [Cod. •^^ J ] (jA^* L £-£^ s r.
%L£lxJI [Cod. (ji2*j] (J^*^ J°V V*"^; >** [Kor. 20 « 57] |*~3^£*J ^*2

jX*II qL^», Ji>o q^5 JU*Jt j.;.^ *L>ot ^^ »A-o »A-i>l3 ^-^T.
1A4J ^ jl& *Jt j»ASJ ^^ O^ ^h J^ & D^° L5T^ ^ C ^'

d.^\>

^AJi ^t ^Lxo Lis ^iyAJt J b^A« ^xlc ftLfe &i' ij$«A:> I^jL^ L\*i 5

135

7 (jr LAAW>' L* jjb _^Jj ^y= __i>l J. L5 tit ^y^ &L- ^^
&^U-i jJa V^V. ry+i \-fi-fi& *^LiLlI !lX-P JS-: ^.3>0 q-» t^-*i.A«

^£> ^di J<-\Jt q^ sLi.x2>l *_£ a^wjULiiji ^iAac vi^Sj} l^x^S' ,j5j-£$

^axX^xi -JjL ^_j l\*^ it KVi^ t_>Jo I JUs p-Uj'i v^-iLy U^s

^1 &>j5 I4JO0 Uxj ^ J^lt j-oLi KxJs. Uaa& .tiXJI «l\-$ q*. i
(Jw-Sj u&-£^ S-V^ P^ SlXjLa Lli ^5^.^-t^ Lg-jdt .L»-.3 J*\l> .P^U

w O ff

k— ^i' lik-Ji ,~c &w*ii --5 1 ' ^5-A.kilj, (j^x^lSJ (^L L*Ji (^^Lit
, . . . . <*J &.a_/q ^x *-*vJu ^iiJIj

__L-a-J ig\Ji l\*j Jj^t* f-3 £>^' J^ iS JaftJ 8^~ae ^*:> t^AX+5

J ^aj _ii. 8lX^> lit l<3 y^> ^ J*Us l-Piy. ^ ^JCJ j^A^t
q»-jLj &-A-JJ ^_^.-j *fc-j J»_^ jc—Jj s ; iA-/o , c -^-c ^ju_u» &3-:>

O- )

^L &ife [cod. J.^] JwS. ^20 J^L IjoLc lyi U^ li' ao^li a -j'

1jLw.LjId^ 5C-fit.L> ic*^. ** ^-"^ *-*^2*s ^j^^^ ^^-wJIj *--^-?T. J^^j

^xI^lXJI ^ (j^L^.3 J.AJLJ ^-^3 ^a^. X-aJI .Las Ljj ^

1^-

i3 6

\

O 3-3

o.)i gJljo (j iJULs yj> LaJ [Cod. c5y^j] ^X^j a * J(^ yo^

J^ ^aLc! jl-JLi «j;.Ui v_a^>Lo .J I .LaOj £i(A3t ^^O JlAJI (jy&
J^xlt Jwav. ^Ux:>2 ^-x-Ji "i .i^Uis S*\jL«Ji ,JXo ei'bS' XftlS -£&
_^-£ Oj5^ *^' [Cod. Q^.AAa-o] q^laoaaS «_a-3- ^-c aj^JIs^o A-u'b
^V^ q! O* *J «-^ ^S *UI <Aac Lb qJ^V. liVJj J^L> J^ v,_Jiax*d

g 3

j>:>j**J ^ Hy^lil u£lj J^L>ji i JL5-J qIXaj Lg.A$ [Cod. b' AXAaJIJ

MM {jy^f>^ T^y°' ^ ^t^ IjU l^*^' JLft» *L%- vA*Jt q-» qI^ Uli
i^ ^.Jl vyV^ O^avJJ ^J ^_£ tik^d lXs j^a-J^ ,»^IawJJ ^xlc

g)Jv3 ^ ^Jljt l\a^, J^^-5 j^Jj-joJI

' lju-^-ft xJUS ^^x:^ (3 1 jlS

I^avoI qJ>\^ U. j .W. i^' ^' J^ ^J [^ or - J 7- 3 6 ] "%<^-* £^ O^ti

w w - i 3 30-* 3C5

^yl) 5 ^^ ^Ajt LoUj LajAs> c^A>l ^ J>l [Kor. 5. 1] ^ft*JLj |^ 3 t
*I Ulas <pil a «j ^c fL> 5 U> ; <^o IuXj>I a><a.x. ^^vix^l ^ ^JLJI

? , - w «

QyArf-j Uil J^j ^lXj J^-xi' 3*^^ o^*^'; ^"^^ ^^ *^ ^ ^

137

jjxlSt |*«J«Xit v*"**" o^ ^*"^ ic^t^ lXJLS' tiA-£> im*£&£ i±Jl\:>J ^5

w - «i i „-

«j>^.XjO jJjjA^ [jjja IlXjiA-w Ux>£ uAxtoj J»A.*^. i*j**N (jSs+A* _^
J>i.> q^ t^Ai' ^M £ Ojtt c^^JU-j AJU ^JJ^ jyb Jot^j ^iJJ
SLJLJu: idK3 qI(j LiAJt &JLX.9 *A$> q! ^tjj Il\_£> £ c^il (A.+Jft
^Aj i3 . tf^.a3 i^itf jJ JyV.j «A_j £uLa£>! *a23j Jwx.> y5 f^J.AJt

^ 3 -JLJI J^. J^JUJ JUL Ui y^. AJ3 JX> £ Jfj alls* ^
[Cod. fcXi-j] qjA^j £"%-£ ^ J $JU t\j-j Lo |*aA*3 &^U£ |Jju.

3JL/0 J*jjjt ^ A.AOAX Ji ^&j j$ $J <jl& «-v^' l5^ r^£ ^^^ L^ c
slXAc xJLJf l\-*-c v^aL^ J>IlX*j ^1 o,l\^J ^' Jf Js^aJ! ^J JS
£l> Lo oJLftj slXJIc c>«i^ ^cJt (3^J f L>3 *L\'i As' *U' Aac t6l3
^Xtf" j^Xili [Cod. gj&l ^y^ ^ gJLJ J^Jjj y^t ^ Jls Jo t^X-j
J<A^3 w *^o*y>i Lo ojiAJuJ Lo (^-of q-» c^JL8a*J j-5 &-JJI3 L ,^-s 1

*JUt i^JI c^xa<5 JyJaaJ! j.-J J6 *L>^I c5t-^-3 U*j^* ^-^ U^ri

mo>I j^p^ ^^ *JlJt *^o *Ii^: ^t ^aXi *UI A-a-c i J15 Lo

ujl^^ji ^n ^^Jl^ ^tiJI ^jlX^V/o^ 8 5; jL/o Jf ^ c f-5^ iikXx'flc sAil
^^.x) L\-^>i ^job ^ aJLJI A.a.*J -^1-5 [Cod. ^Aif] ^JJIj ^JI

1^ ^yj L.^.5 U^lP ^x^ lit ^<il5 ^4^.5 \s/^ j^ 3 ^. o* £L ^;

^5! J^;^ JlcL, ^i> "^1 q-^-J ^5 ^Ui>l qj^aJ fy& t*W ^^-^T.
bl_i ^^Lto, j—^-5 viU>l "^ oo' (5^"^ ^ [Cod. c^»^'] vi^^ii ^t

138

J!5 <aub' j 5 «JLJJ £^3 m£jJU: *X*JI 5 J^a-3" "^ ti^&i J, J*x^\j
^JI *lii j*.^ &-x-s y\5u *k£\ y>( vltf' ^\ 0,5 ^ J^n&JI jf
^U*' *£?$ *y»^ <^ c £3^j [Cod. i^^t] ^X>i(c: aJJl ^^.5>l f-P*;^

t^Lo ^JJI J^=vjI J, I^Las SUle l£tH.2> |>LxJLs i^bci Ui U0LP
IxXou I &JU' J^Is f^* 5 ^^ 8L M S p^:^ !>*^°5 !A^*5 *.V*

fcUi *7^ ^Jlc -^LJI^ ^aJlrS?. Q I adit ^5 f&^o ^jJls jjC^il
..-* U>.> Uls !<A£ ,.^c j-^V>o *£i^b ^Jl ^L-X-^ ,ac l>j 5 *™3

o -

{ e*°^ J^aail _^ji js LjJ ^x'ii U Ji" 5 u^^ { 5 h-AjUI k&***j JL»*xN

l«A^ q^ aJ Aj-^ ^ suX-^5 *Ui ^1 *JI ^ ^ <^^J *■>' <j?-^
nJL^ qjJJI ^Hc «;£^ \JL<^I o*^ L5^^ 1 -^ ^;' ^-^;^ «^* £
\J^>i ^ *clLS ^ ^^aojIj [Kor. 9. 33; 6 1. 9] ^-5^-^.JI yJT ^Jj

^^L-^'l^ Lj, *JL!Ij c^^°; ^-^ <j^ ijr* 3 ^ ^-W ^LcU> I^jS=Uxo
^j xJLJI Jc*.xj ^1 ^^5*3 Lx>i jj^ 5 aulc JJI t3 io lX+^Wjj Up
^Aa^/O ^3 ^LLjJ ^j^*^ { j^h ^^\i j^-U q^^J U^*I' Ow^
^y^ 5313 ^JLSt ^L^ I J<\$ *.U ^ j,c *I Lo ^mitf JIS UxS
JJ' J,m> ^ L\r< [Cod. i\] ^1 ^5 «A>x 5 g*-^ L Ms lc^ cI

139)

First invitation An invitation from the Khalif to Ahmed to
to Visit al- visit him was brought to him before the end
Mutawakkil f the year 235 A. H. by Ishak ibn Ibrahim %
who on this occasion asked Ahmed's forgiveness for the part
which he had taken in the scourging under al-Mu c 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 occasion. Ishak then proceeded to ask
with Islah ibn Ahmed for his own private satisfaction about
Ibrahim 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,
cited Koran 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' y»^l , in controversies of this kind refers to the
eternal and heavenly Word of God, just as does 'Kun 5 , 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-
swered, " Ja c far ibn Mohammed, who said, 'It is neither a creator
nor a created thing"*). 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

v-a*^. y$ c\£-w iA^ ^} ^.a cl_5^ ^.*j f\*> By£s£ lJ&i ~fo

t J*>^> ^j <\+^ ^j tXJ'i LajJ alii Axcj ^JLaj

1) Ishak ibn Ibrahim, the governor of c Irak, as well as Ishak ibn Ibrahim
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.
It is altogether likely that a suspicion of c Alyite leanings in
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.
Ahm d Ac- * n ^ e Y ear 237 A. H. , information was given to

'cused of the Khalif charging Ahmed with having sent one
c Aiyite In- of his companions to meet an c Alyite who was

tngues. 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 2 ). The searching of the premises, too,
revealed nothing to substantiate the charge against him.

The result was reported to the Khalif, and a day or two
later , there came a letter from c Ali ibn al-Jahm 3 ) to Ahmed
saying that the Khalif was fully satisfied of the groundless-
ness of the report, and that it had been fabricated by her-
etics with the design of injuring him. The letter of c 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 governor. On theologians keeping to their houses
cf. Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II, 94. On the similar practice by the so-called
Ka c ada (still-sitters) cf. Houtsma, De Strijd etc., 26 f.

3) c Ali ibn al-Jahm banished to Khorasan and killed there by al-Mutawak-
kil's directions, 239 A. II., vid. Ibn Chall. N°. 473; Abu'1-Mah. I, 730; Abu
'1-Feda Ann. II, 190.

I4i

Second invi- visit him, and advised that a messenger was on
tation from the way with # a gift of money from the Khalif.
al-Muta- The day following the arrival of the letter the
messenger, Ya c 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 (b':jl:>).
Ya c kub then went away, telling Ahmed that he would re-
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. Finally, he made up his mind to be rid
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, c Ali 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
too^long. Arrived at the camp, he was first lodged in the house
of Itakh ! ) , and word was sent to his sons from the Court
that an allowance of 10,000 dirhems had been appointed

1) v. p. 144, note 2.

142

to be given them, in place of the money which had been
given away by their father. It was, at the same time,
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
Ahmed Objects °f al-Mu c 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 tip his Sovereign. And he vowed a vow that he
Teaching, 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 in 237 A. H. , and took upon him the vow in order to
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, Tarikh al-Khol. 357.

H3

The interest of It appears to have been some time before
al-Mtitawakkil Ahmed was summoned to the Palace; but, in
in Aimed. t h e 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 ml h
disturbed at this time, also, over his prospective visits tc^
the Sovereign himself, and the charge he should have as \
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

H4

did, nor have we any evidence that he actually had the
charge of the Khalif 's son. Al-Mu c 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 longed to Itakh 2 ). On hearing this, he had a let-
ter written to Mohammed ibn al-Jarrah, seeking that al-
Mutawakkil 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 pl ace was hired for him at a rent of 200 dirhems.
at the Luxurious Here he was grieved at the luxury with which
Provision Made the house was furnished , and , leaving the
for Him, finely furnished apartments, contented him-
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
Fasting and down in the vestibule of the house, where he

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. I, 702.

145

themselves to a similar condition. Ahmed at this time seems
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 from Ahmed an expression of opinion regarding
AM 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 1 ).
Proposal to After a time al-Mutawakkil proposed that he
BuyaHouse should buy a house for Ahmed, but the latter ob-
for Him, stinately 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.

Aiimed again The Khalif now began to urge that Ahmed
Urged to Attend should attend continuously on him , as had been

on the Khalif hj 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 all obligation to appear before either him-
self or his successors, and from the wearing of the black

i) vid. note 2, p. 56 j Abu'1-Mah. I, 719.

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 1 ). Now, at last, he was
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
a direct refusal of the Khalif s mandate, but by persistent
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.

Correspond- His two sons, Salih and Abdallah, now returned
ence with to Baghdad, and, after they had gone away, the
his Sons, fine 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

1) al-Makrizi, p. 10, Os?\ p-& J-*-^ ^ vJL^I c>-**w Ufyj^ 3

Jl5j sLpj$ «y>LJ is&JLii ^ Jy>v\-Jf aIL**-^ kX_&L£ ^m^JL> q^}

f w it

w P £■

^lXcLJuo y<? yjJ& fix* (j-^U^ Jtttf ,SU^ j*\J\ aL^(j) *j<ri q*

H7

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-favor with 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 l ), 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 dinars, and that he is to be credited in what-
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 It was not a great while before Ahmed again

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

1) Abu Nu c aim, 153*2, (The narrative now follows this source for a time.)
JU5 Jodc »j\ J^as Ju& J^ycil J.*"i L^Jt ^^ ^b ^> ^^Sls *J

*Jt J^! *M ^^ L* *J o.5Ji «Aa$ <iy> £ qj^j ^ u>l &JS*

s_aJI juwj aJLJI lXxxc *U> *Ja 8->.3-li J^JJI Uk^r £ *£p- q-j Jx:
v^aWt 8»A^j <aU ,/cl l\Sj its£J ^ot tX_S (^.^o^X^ _jwo| ^1 jUs jUj^

&\ ^JLJsi j|>-> *J wvJCXs ^ vJL^i j-fc^.5 [so Cod.] i^-Jt ^_c
-^Ihjt ^aj L^-o UJLc *L\JLi «l\-PLxj^ iu j, aJUl tAxc ^_j c\*.2S?

JJ^j ^ «cXj>Lj ^U ^yl tiA£ [Cod. clXj] cl\j q! u^>f jLi <^J
J'liLi i^X**s t5>^-^J ao 5 iA>lj L*Jt *X.it o-dx lX-JLs tc\.5»-i auui

\^jS \X£} jl\cJ ^3 ^0 ^Ufi j&1 *JiSt ^ jmjJj (i^XfidlS^ ^ajlX^

[del.?] a £ ^e J^\j D ^ *UI ^3 ^yoL jJixX* dya* j^ftS i^UJI yC^I
alii qJo q^ ^>^ A j&X* s&*tf uX-i 5 *J ^jaJLJ ^' »l\5xJI «l\-^

149

distribute it in alms. At the same time, he gave him
leave to return home and ordered a pleasure barge to be

U JUs *.'i. x:>lj ^jJL*i dill l\a£ JjUJLaj &.AAJ3 (c-*-^ vW^ '-V*^ ^
*ju D L£ Jj*i t* JLSs A J6 U JJU *J JJ& AJI S3 ^i 1st <j^i

iAi>t vi>-wJ *UI Axe Lb jl& ^jJx ^3*lX3 U^w *j\\:>i lol **lfi lo 5

*<£— & <*ta^ i' L^-x./) J^-^-j q' LaJj^j

■n q(£ ^tXJl S^-t^ i' ^L^ii j^>l3 Jc>l5 &-*.c ^L> ^ 3j^ UuJt 2^
^L^vs L^JLo ^ ^xol <jl& »^ qLa^aaS\ ^j3 lXJs^ ***£?$ rs^ 8«x»«

^ [J^S?] $ j^J ^i? ^5 ^ C >J ^U^i *J J<5 «J" wJlSj j^Jt

<Ar>)., \j\ Ljf 5 »W^ *fiU:> ^j^y* ojj^ ^l\-P *J Jv5 od& \y^*

lXJs jLai *&>• jaxj ^s 1 **^ ^^ 0(A>l (;^>.^ «-a-aw iCoLJiii *^_j

2^xi t^V. p iL:> lX^U^o v^I — -3»^ . 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 to take him to Baghdad; this last favor how-
ever, Ahmed declined, preferring to travel by land on account
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 ° f his retUm t0 Ba S hd ^ d >

Family Receiving the story of Ahmed's life is little more than
Stipends. a record of his differences with his family —
in particular, with his sons Salih and Abdallah, and his
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
support of their families, and vigorously dissented from his
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 as two or three months together he would have
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 friendshJ-
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 it was all to no purpose that Ishak tried
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

i5i

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!' *)

1) Abu Nu c aim, 153*, u - r ^ £1 M *?j ^ V°^ f 5 J^H j^ $5
U5y Q* ^— & J*-C L*"*^*J *& Q* *--S-Lfi r»j*J.5 ^£^0 0^^* *u~^

«L\j>f iei^ i>^ <— >Ia£SIj liy** J-^5 UJi &J <£kj^i>t -*t v±;l\> Ii5I

fyof O^ LM <5^> L* JUs *_*Jj t-jj J? X_fiLrfw [Cod. 203Js.-j]

152

Again Suspect- After Ahmed's return to Baghdad (the date
edof c Alyite* of which we do not know) some talebearer re-

Intrigties. 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
al- c Ukbari relates that, in the year 236, (which appears to
be a mistake, for the circumstances point to the time of
the second accusation of harboring an c 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-
side that quarter of the city to prayers. So Abu Ja c 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 the same 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 c far asked
a man who was at the prayers about Ahmed ibn Han-
bal and why he had refused to answer him. The man re-

jJU J jyu £l it Jfaztt ^ <Tj> 5 Jy«J| 3d JS 1 L*! S ^

OJ ^j J^y' c^***:> tXSj hUL o*j &aJI c^>5 (iU^ QUy> q*
&Lxa* J^3 JJsIj ^0<9 jl& ^ *4* **Ju qI \&JPjf) tojo

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. Fon this reason he avoided speaking to people.
The police had, however, found nothing to give substance
to the suspicion which had been raised. Abu Ja c far, then,
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 *).

i) Abu Nu c aim, 142 0, L3 12UL0 qJ jft*:> ^J lX.^1 yo y>\ LoW>

,J*AOJ r*f-^> ]^Jt& KxC ^.-3L-a*_5 Xli^/0 £j£. zXzah$ q.aS"^Sj c^»w

^t-> Jf£>- [so marg.; text JlX-J1] uj>iAJ <«jL ^ aJ ov**Ls? ^>J^
Wy-b Ljyto^ L^U^v qL-^5 *X*JI ^JLfi Jyi ^JLfi c>«*^«5 &.+'&

v_*&3l <jL3 5 &&JL> A*3j &*sJ> _^aj ^jIj I3t y.iA-Jt .-£>\ Lib Lis

w 0-0 i

iX^U*.* \Sh ^^Ju.% JlS *l)t disk v-*&M J'JS auJlc i^*aju& *JM disk

^c &sL£a ^.cj J^> ^-j lX^I -c ^xJl^s J-j>j ^^ j,U^i

^jl^UwJ UC JlS ^ CT £N**wJt tcX-£> <-Jl& &5UJI piS ^ f^UlS

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-

The KhalifAsks tentions *). Among the evidences of the Kha-
for AfrmetTs View HPs interest was a letter written by c Obaid-

asto the Koran. a llah 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 Obaidallah , in which he said 2 ) : —

i) Abu Nu c aim, 153*, J.XJI fcAlUj $ $j JfyjJJ <j^ a % 3 JI5

- - - . . *- >

^> [Cod. »j&x5\ XA^iJ ai\3*bi Sdsj [ ^y^ „m*as &!L> ^c *X±m*ji}

IgkLufi (^5<A- J J, (tf*^*J rj5 j.-J alifj jk-ft-J [Cod. no points] s-5l\j
2) Abu Nu c aim, 153 £ ff. aJJ) vAxc L>La y\!?\ ^_j qUaJLv LSW^

ij-xAajj jojoo XIsmvo i^-J^ ...L^Ua! "sUUm*.^ *i qIjISI -a J ,-jC <g)JLJ

LfcK ^yO^I ^ a *vi! Lf U&U& *Ut a /*s^t fA£>,Jt Q^ *M (*-**-*

&Ui ^j£>. tiLJI osaa5^ lX5 **5%J B.:>^ LolXJI 8.1X* ^.JLc *-*>$

i55

Ahmed's I as k 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 until the Khalifate came to the Commander of the

Faithful, and God banished by means of the Commander

i^U3 *X!f o*ao8 [Cod. <j*JL5\tl] u^jL^I ^J&jJO} <jiAit q+ *a3 }y$i
«JLfi aJLil ic^s (j*^ r*-£ *JJ^ <•***■£ i-t-c -^<3 l\5s &aJLc j.£> Lo ^

J. <gL*Jf *3y. iiL-J3 qIj {j^^lo ^a22*j &JLM <*Jj£ ]y*f*£ *$ <jl5 &it
qI iOc xlit ^.toj [Cod. 3«*c] j*£ q-| aJJ' *Axc q_c j-^3^ ^J^ii
*Jt 5Ua*J JLft-5 j*.JLv^ &JLc &ll!f <J^ao t^viJI v^H l*^*> ]>^ *r*-*

^UJt wO> &£>$ (3 j^-Ss Litf r-j^s *.J._**., iujulc *JUf J.*o aiSt
k^Jo L4.it {J&u* Jwgoxj *jj| \*JjJ± l^jyoaj q^ A-Jjvot IlX^oI (JLii-s

j^JJI (j^ul ^^ £ L$>ls> Uq fX»J f&t Il\0> JJU J, f<JL$ ^t

rj c c5>)5 ***£ I>£*^ ^^ f*-%F l5^^ V;"^'-3 *-? [^JU-cli w p^V*^
jjlwj xJLc alit Jjo (^v-iJt ^-c [Cod omits] &a.c 5)] I ^^ "j-^r^ <3v

-jwoI U JLfis (jjjjl ^C &U^wJ ^= J ^ J"^ ^^^ *^^ ^^j v^ 3 ^
*UI^ villas ^Ia£ ^t JLfij l«A-^3 ItXy 5^Jwo q^^ ^ ^ C^*^^

i S 6

of the Faithful every heresy, and took away from men the
straitness and humiliation of the prisons. God has, thus,
changed all that, and removed it 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

JO o

ujLSL y> lols o^>y=^ (^jOL^JLt ^t ^a>! JLai ^^ J,b'i [Cod. LM]

Jj>yi JB L+_/> ttt*$y (^lXJI U JB) ,3 iU£ ^A-o t\>l5 J^xjl>

Lo { J^^ i^aJjL^U 1^4-AaJL^Aj [Cod. *bS] U (J^^ ^»^.aJ^j ]}£££?. U
^-^ (j^UJt l^jtf^ u^ \ «JU! 3 «j)j_J *JLJ JS y^iij ^aJU^.
qI^ jlS aJLt &UI ^y^. &1J1 lXxc ^-^ ^jL> ^^-c lS3>3 ( ^H ^^r*

d—^j CT J^ J^^-5 n^s^IIj ^LJf Jx jumJij Qiwu ^Xxo ^vjjl

aJLIi J,l |>*>-J q-J /*•&' /*JtLo aJLSt lL-jw. JS JlS -xfti ^«j j*-*- 1 ?"
^ *lJt ^Axc q.c ifet>2 c o!^ ti^ *"*" /0 ZV** ^+* J^^i \^**J

bj\ [Cod. omits] aJx &Ut L y^ V^ 2 ^ £r* J^ CT^ <-^# ' ^ f^

> - 5 3

^AaJI ^**^\lt J^>. JlS «wuto|yj Vjxxab *L5* j»^L^ qU*JI 1l\-$ jib'

157

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
which he is engaged. Now, it is related from Ibn c Abbas

*Sj-5 _J £-j 3 Ljm JII3 «CiL-^aJi JS IJcJ> Jjs 5^KI [Cod. J^f]
J^a^Lj Lgili oL^.*aii 8l\5>5 ♦S'Lit **1ao ^aJI ^ji q£ s^t ^1^5

, ^Li oLc^aii V L^?I JB s i n^.^t vJ^ J ]>^F *i f*U *UI
<Qy ; *j Lo jn_x.j |*£*Jx ^wAj 5 (*.£aJ^L-*o £ ( *J^.am.^xj ^1 ^^ot ^

J w

u£J<3 fab Lgiliy^Us KjI Jx [Cod. byo] lUb q^ c^^> ^-i' O-J**"

X-xiol £ ^A_*AA£>i J^^oi ^b pAxif J^-^l q* J*->^ jJ^J^ *J
M^aJJ ^jI jli < J.ftjLXJ^ -i^t oLoya^lJJ Uxc »Jop ^*> q-^o jJj*ii

i 5 8

that he said , 'Do not smite God's Book one part of it with
another part, for that casts doubt into your hearts'. And
it is told from Abdallah ibn c Omar that he said, 'Some per-
sons were sitting at the Prophet's door , and some of them

[Cod. L£] z^S <JUcy>Ju J (.yiJt t l ytiuJI j*-^! Jl5j <JJLutf

> ^ —

q^ ^bu aUj Jl5 JvS; L^lX-xJL^Lj L%3j-£6 db "Jf ^J Q.xJUJt
[Kor. 9. 6] idJl *^iy *«*j*o -^> »j>b d.L£\Ju«i ^S' -/ft.*] J ^-a c\:>f
yc^j JB jj: sJiJL^Jb ^>li [Kor. 7. 52] -^3 vjUbsJ* *J ^1 Jl5j n
\JUI:> q^ (J* CT^J^ Lf^' J " ^5 v-3ll» ^ -wQ*^ q? ^x3-L$ >
O-* oV^' O 1 L5 JL *-' ^ U K° r * 55- 1, 2, 3] D LJt *+X& Lmj^I

O > _w - S.- S - - •» S* J ? - »0,. „ O - O - -_

f*^xL« £wtf L5 ^> <^baxJt ^ 5 L>^xii (^fi {fJ°j^ yh Jb% xjr
tf)£b> L5 JJ! <A*4 ^^t vu*sujI ^ t^J^JI y «JJt ^J^ D * JJi

— — <m -- O X no — — — — O ..Oi* « Ut

JLj^ [Kor. 2. 114] r -^-AaJ ^ ^^JL, ^0 »Xi\ ^0 (iU Lvj JLxJI ^. I

^ of — ^ - . — o 3 — «* -•*-- »« ^ - — o<o > 5 ^ w «o -> o»5 o -

— — s — — — -

O O > <w..O$ - O -«w* - G* *— O — O) O^ ,- 05,-

-^-^ A-Pfl^t vj^KAJ^ Q^J U 1 ^ *M* ^^ f*^ 2 *^ b°_2 f*-^"^ ^f^

JLS3 [Kor. 2. 140] ^xJLbJ5 ^J |jl ^t jjlxii ^ ^5U>- Lo lX#
O*o d^L> Lo l\*j *P£|^Pt v^jtjjl q^S^ Wj-^ UX> aUJjJ! $Sx

iS9

were saying, Does not God say so and so? while others
were saying, Nay! does not God say so and so? and the
Messenger of God heard that, and went out — and it was
as if pomegranates J ) 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 of the Prophet, from the Prophet that he said, 'Do
not dispute over the Koran, for disputation over it is un-
belief.' Abdallah ibn c Abbas said, 'A man came to c Omar
ibn al-Khattab, and c 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 »y: 'Some of them

I 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

with each other in rapid reading of the Koran, but c Omar

piJt J$> ~^Lo 8cT> ^JJI ^ ^ J*b oL£N sAJP &, *IUt pie
a c ^ l\3j ffJUJi y* *i)*L> ^uXJl lXju fts*^ c^*Ajt ^^ aSyiJ

«i^+;£U .ac s.as *bl£St q!3

1) i*)L*Jt ^-^ " tlie seeds of the pomegranate", but often "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, '0 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°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
Naufal al-Ashja c i said, T 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

i6i

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 c awia ' ibn Kurra , whose father was
one of those who came to the Prophet said, 'Beware of
these disputations, for they spoil good works'. Abu Kilaba
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,
T 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 £]^0^5I Js.£>t .
These were a class of men who were not prepared to accept the religious
systems of other persons, except as their own 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 l desired' to
take. The name AhluVAhwa c 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

l62

not hear what he says'. Then he said , 'Run ! Run !' c Omar
ibn Abd al- c Aziz said, 'He who makes his religion a butt
for disputations is the most unsettled of men'. (Abu°l Fadl
said, 'I found it in a book of my father's in his own hand-
writing, Tsma c 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-
him al-Nakha D i said, 'These people shall have nothing laid
up in store for them until there is 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

(*L) the Koran , he created man , he taught him the explana-
tion' (Koran 55 . 1, 2, 3). Thus God tells that the Koran is from
his Knowledge (jjlc). He, also, says, 'And the Jews will not

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

1) cf. p. 119 and, also, p. 139.

1 63

of knowledge (^c) 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 (JL), in that

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 (jjc), 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,
or from those who followed them (Tab c 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-
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

1) "Passions" in these passages represents the word tD Ahwa' found in the
name Ahlu'l- D 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 KhaJc&n tention to himself. The result of this was that

to Aimed. t he next day Yahya ibn Khakan came with

a great retinue to visit Ahmed, 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 from The m ° n ey was finally given to Ahmed's sons.

Mohammed ibn On another occasion , Mohammed ibn Abdallah

Abdallah ibn ibn Tahir besought Ahmed to pay him a visit

Tahir . anc j strongly urged his request. This invitation,

however, Ahmed also declined, offering as an excuse the

Khalif's dispensation. After these incidents he took upon

himself a rigid fast, 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 ! *)

1) Abu Nu c aim, 1550, X-A-*«L-*/£jt i3j-*-» $y^ t^**» iJ^ 3 ^' >?' $>

L>.L> iXcfc 13^ r^ri <A-x-J q^ UIs ^.Ix [Cod. without points] &>Ju
[Cod. jJa-rfJi] Ja+4$2 *L> <A3 a $L£> ^j ^l*? 13) Joa ^ Q ^

JLwo (j£-*3» vW^ c^ l5^"^ jAA^itj X/oUx^ f-?-^ £ Lm*.5^ &a!c lXeJS

i6 5

Ahmed's I n 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 1 ) ) Ahmed was taken with a

*X*Jt liUj-iioJ (^*>H j**\ \0$> aJL> ^ c *AjLa*j *H*> d^h **^-
u&Jb c^-^JJ l\-5^ <iV.JL> ^JujS* \i&»J6 g vi^-^ ^J^ l^-^-^5

LL *J JLSi &>LS. J.-0I J.fi l^Sjftj Ai ^Lp ^* (jr** *-^ ^
»/t Lo J^ ^ J,ULct jl_S 3 ^UJI a _c £L&* c^Ji £ ISl *L^
Lb JL& !J^ ^U^p ^ *Ulii «UI 0^ LLj JUi *f\ U* IAJ> 5
j$ 3 ^ yjjl il ^Lao LJLs ^Js .>' a) L*>i .<Li5 j, vjJbl? *L|^j
vil Ij-ao 'Lli **i jlS Jjuj o^ iiW>i>t (j&ju tiUJt &^>3 ^ l«A&>
vi^Jiili Lg-ijajj ^.aJI LgjtJoi q' ^*^>^ j*-' * S^ ^-* & j**^^

^;> &Jlf: J.J3U ^Aj' i^^aJ! ^4.1*^ ^i [Cod. j£*qj] j^*^' [J <—*.:> >

--UU2J q\ t\£?^ «^ U^> !»A0j 8^1 U* tl j\JL^li ^A-/ot ^Lft-ct AJ3
^a^IjI Jflj ^ Jjt^ C^ U.J ^-juaji ^ot l\j5 ^ (jr -jl5 *-aJ5
fj£t&JI J^l ^J6 \y%& aJOo J^b^ ^lXj ^J- A \>3f^. ^^ <)^ O^- 5
A*« ^ &^.ai J^ Jot^ l\_3 qK a-J! (ii^S^A.5 J.^^ pyaif ^b^

^* (^OijUj ^-i*^ £-X-A* iC-X-AV J(^aII i' J^5> q!^ tili3 J^ftJ jj^

Juub Mohammed ibn Abdallah ibn Tahir came from Khorasan, and was ap-
pointed over c Irak in 237 A. H. Abu'1-Mah. I, 719.

1) The sources now used are the following extracts; al-Makrlzi, p. 15 ,

1 66

fever attended with difficulty in breathing, and became so
weak that his limbs would not support him. A physician
came to see him, and prescribed for his sickness roast

jj>} \-Jui£ vj>Ip>l\5 ^ +S> (jy^3 Ck*?;^ L^^ £-a_*y j^!
^ JLss io^LJi oJasi Lo J.C ^>.1& SlXjA^ 1-w.ai (j^^JLaJ f}*-^ 1
^t .Lo Lis 8l\a_j oAi>l3 ^Axj c\j> jla.3 *Lx5ii J>U J? blSL sLq

L jlili iP^U ( Jl^j^ ^^XiJs K-e-J »_Axb£* <jJ (Ja5^ ...^JLaw./O &K

fciLp*! \ljt lAxC (jlxvO ^ ^ (s£5vilA./0 £ L^*** ^ ^' ^J^ C>J& ^JLo

Jl5 (j^UJi y^ U^x^s? lXx^UI ^-J J.fij Jw^-w ^^ f^^ ^5
q^)L>lN.j y^t^ SU liJb t^U q^ciAjO <JU q<31j c^li ^-j ^^i ^Is

J^>yi l5;^ J>t jl& ^^2i> <A.'i LjJ!^^ q-, Jo^ ^L>5 ^fcJi ^L

L ^jj Lk&o *J >-c^-J J^-N iS*^ ^ »yli XJuwJI q* Lx.w c^r^:?

Lg-*JL^ q!^, Ls^iS^ *^>^ ; -*&l>I i jls Jf HlX^L, ^*j ^ t5$-^

^-Jlc vS ^° ci^ \-PJfo L^jijfis ii)J3 J^jj

^wvLJI *.+£>! iUxil r»y, q^ Uli { j^j r ^ *^j &LJt \-j olXa^^ <jl5

i JS iJJt tXx-c «AJj Jlil *wj^-x> lXJLc t*5s.J3 \.j J,*ai B-*xi ^c J^
g^j^o! qJ all! Axe ^UJ" ^ r-^-^' *~&-^ <3v c5^' & ^t^ i5 ^'

1 67

pumpkin, with the liquor of the pumpkin to be taken as a
drink. Ahmed asked particularly that this might not be
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,

c^Ji vj^jJ [Cod. repeats <£aJ<A>] ^£oA> ^c LsJ J. <jl& L^A>y>!5
[J^ 1$^ ^ *-+** L*-S {Jo*l\ »3 ijz^ 8 t^ O^ L**»^Lb qJ X-^UIiJ
£>\ &\ kjo-j* J, q\ &Zx«w U-s ^ ^ t*LJ3 oL&i alM &j\ olo

OjJW L\A£ idjjt JJl£ J_$> /Jjl l\a£ JXwwj J^J

i JLfti »vA-aj jaXIXj J^xr^ [Cod. a^Aoyi] ^a^3 LJL^ *ju j'5 &ulxll
J? \xjLot LUILs? j^JuLa^ yjb> Jkftj _^£ v-JLSs jyb £ /c^ c5* ^J^
HyiXft ^Jo"i tik-Jj^ *-*Tj-J &W slX^aj jOCtl** q* oUs b\Lw^5I <i)._j
j^-jt ^-£> 5 ^jOolo*) ^jyt-jj^ (^i-X^l &-a.a« Jj^M *^ q-, ^-d*^> ***i

q-X OuXfi^ *a!c S^LoSlj *.AA&£jj *AA*C ^ J*.*25 &UW (jytAAWj K.AAY

*J>^S LajLc j(y^ Q^ ^ j^-J I— i ^!Lo 8(AJj jS *JyO **J JU

wLo l^s J-oLl* U^xvo qIo^Ic i«Lju-* 5 au>L:> -j^L-fc ^-^ j^/o^t

„yot qI *J JJSj *^LmJ1 j^o \JLJjt <*j c>^-3 xtat-LS Ltol> ^A/0^.11

jl-5 wftjLai vi^lS ,5 »Ui^ *.dc juW^j ii)Ji JJU juJle OiAsls a^lSa
<JLl:> ycXJi £ £*£>^ f*^ _*-H £ ^ *b*c* ^ cx\J U ^j^jii

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

(-A/oAftj* tfj"*^ £^3 L^JLs ^U-^5 oj^ks* L-LxJ! LLr^ j^Lt ^-J
qJj^s L>^s' ; .>-0 qwUj Ujlo ^l\j |^*.^ v\iJi ^o \^S Uli

£-*°}y& o^ L^ *^o r^" *"^2 *A^U^ i$ O^ l*+-> q- LJLiL Lo

v «.Jf <_£JI ^j/o j^ 1 ' ^.2 I3li o.j>^ o.^W/> Lfc-3 (j^UJl o^ 5 ^aJI

^JtL &c*; ^jl <j ! Sj) »L./>i v^aJt ^juu« ^— o \y& ff*^ ij* c ^jj-^5
^j: BblAalJ \xj (j*UJi v^ft'i^ t^<-^ f^V^ f*"**** r)f ^ J»$j-^ o'
y*UJt fJ&i uAJI KjLo jj^*i>5 v_sJ' ^aJt *l&o iJ-ji J«^> ^j iX^f

U.^xlfi C>-*Iam.5 iM^t? U.£jJx^ v' - ^ ^NV^ ^ & oLjcXaoS ...Ia*0

s'lJ^I q* ;As>l & Lxjj, J^£> q^ lX^S »;U> byn> [Cod. *L^U^]

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 to have borne his sickness with great for-
titude, in which he was supported by a tradition of Taus,

^*+xl\ <X*.2? ^j-J ^a«> Jl5 ftXJl J*_$t J*C ^*Li^ 2uL*JI J*A.A£>

^^11 L-&-J nV^*^ J*~s-*-> q-^ 0&\ tfjl— *■> v3 u*^' oiA^^
J^t ^te ^*JiJt j.t Joot ^1 *L>j ULt u^JbCo j^+A^Jt ^, j.^\ JS

Al-Subki, p. 1 34 f. JCl-x-J <$dlt l\a-c jjt o^-^ *^c ^ is*°) L5;5"^ d&*

(jJjJi Q UCi ^1^1 V L o0£t J J^M v 1 ^ ^Ir 51 o 1 -^

q-Oj <JUaJ J^p-j fcfiLJI |ji2*J J*i2*J ,J>^> lX^Laa-I^ cy^_&Ji ^

Jj: IjlXxJLs ; La~>^I LjL^Pt *L:> 3 vJiL~J L^ *Jlii j^5o 3 ;5 <Ait (ji-JU

r ^L^il tiL-yj Ja^JI Q t JLfii ^LL ^jJ u->L> *L_j> 5 vW* J

»y t l^wO ^Lsci (j>.JU^it -jy^tj «^t U* IlXP J*-*- ^Lj ^t ic-g-J^A 3 . fy

BLcaiiit ^ Jj *L:>5 &aJLc Q^y-J 1>^*^ ^ c t^>A_s A_*tL$> _^aJ
L5^ Uh* *4^% j-^l Jtfs ,^a«& ^Jlfi J"^><-^ J&1 O^. jJ^ £jfc*5

170

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

*Sy> jiJJ^ q^ ^Xs lXs Jw^ tiAP Jlas

o5r^ er- i5-^-^° ^

SS\^ \jul\ KjL*Xw X;>L.m4L y*UJJ -.jplJL* ^a^ Lg-^ fi s^LaU (jrtUJt

(jOu^tl l>iAc £ J^ ^Vi XSyRXtl ^Slo*^ oljWI (j ^ Lc ^yw
5 ^tf ^-^ (^v-^ v^a-JI SC-SUS^fc^ ^Jl v^s-ii LiLT J-^ jju^ xJli

v_«J>3 (^JJt f-fc^M ^"f. ^ yot J^Ctt ^i ^Al J Ju*: 3 . ^J M o.*-f*
XjU.mm^>3 oJt L5^^' A^ <^"M "-^^ c^ c l^*° ^tP* (j*LJut &jJ,c

^LJ Jls c\?i ^1 ;]>> it cr 5 ^. c/ ^5 r^ lt 3 ^ 1 0^5

L.£j (3-aj S_£-*-4 xjL_£_£> (C^3 -tf^-XJI Ul^Uw JlS o^! 8y&£

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 of the last devotions in which he took part.
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
him in the rak c as. One of his last charges was that three hairs
of the Prophet which he had in his possession should at
his death be placed, one on each eye and one on his lips,
and this was actually done 1 ). So he died. The date of the

^ibJo L-Jac qI^C u*-a^ Sy&e *>*y> ft* fh»\ £ *%' |*^ $ *j*&

1W/.JL5' 8-XCsC ("V* 5 _^^ 1 *'J , -55" I )

Abu Nu c aim, i$S^nS^^ &>b> o\J I3li &.*X>- &\ J-A^L jjjt \^jS^
^ JIaoj i3jj jj 5 l^b jy jdl &JLUI & "^ ^1j jj 5 wLJ <SjS?, J.*>_5 *yils

^ u^^* *LJ 8j**c Jy&i ^**^- **J qI/ Lte LXjIS xUic Jjj jjj tgJJo ^c^
i) cf. Goldziher. Moh. Stud. II, 358 and note 5.

172

event was Friday, the twelfth of Rabi c 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 over the city of Baghdad, and even in distant places,
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
in crowds to his grave in the cemetery of the Bab-Harb 3 ) ;
so much so, that one man who attended the funeral, de-
clared that it was 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
the day of his death 4 ). In the time of Ibn Challikan the

1) cf. Ibn Chall. N°. 19. 2) Magoudi VII, 229.

3) cf. Ibn Chall. N°. 19. 4) Ibn Chall. N°. 19.

173

tomb of Ahmed in the cemetery of the Bab-Harb was known
far and wide and was much visited *). At a later time, the
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 ).
HisBiog- Among those who are said to have written of
raphers. t h e Manakib of Ahmed are Abu'l-Hasan ibn al-
Munadi 3 ), the Hafiz al-Manda 4 ), al-Baihaki 5 ), Abu Isma c il
al-Ansari, the Fakih Abu c Ali ibn al-Banna, commentator of
al-Khurki, the Hafiz Ibn Nasir, the Hafiz Abu D l-Faraj ibn
al-Jauzi 6 ), Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi and al-Hasan
ibn Mohammed al-Khallal 7 ) 8 ).

IV.

His Family. The immediate descendants of Ahmed ibn Han-
bal 9 ), 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.; Dhahabi Tabakat 11, N°. 55.

4) Dhahabi, Tabakat 13, N°. 29.

5) Ibn Chall. N°. 27; Dhahabi Tabakat 14, N°. 13.

6) In his book J^jlXxxj)^ _,.^u), Chapter on the Manakib of Ahmed ibn
Hanbal. v. al-Nawawi Biog. Diet. 143; cf. on Ibn al-Jauzi, Goldziher, Moh.
Stud. II, 186 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, ouaaoXJIj auSlJL* £*j^ y* K.cLj> O—il \XJ£^

yjt M^ 3 ^ij& z Jjb lijt j £* £\ ^Jlj ^Lai^l ^L^i)

•j^y* r**> ^ ! o* o*>" ***3 oq>£ cH s/J' & &^> ^

^il i ^x4S^\ ^Uc «W KS so > ^x 3 S&£ 0^.^ a > a ^

9) al-Makrizi, p. 2, jj£ J^l ^J *3***j gj^fl ^[j JxJ^J j^

174

were men of eminence, were not remarkable in their time.
His eldest son was Salih, surnamed Abu D l Fadl, who was
born in the year 203. He related Tradition from his father
and from Abifl Walid al-Tayalisi and c Ali ibn al-Madini,
and had as pupils his own son Zuhair, who died in 303,
al-Baghawi and Mohammed ibn Makhlad. Salih occupied the
office of Kadi of Ispahan. His mother was c Abbasa bint al-
Fadl. His death occurred in the year 265 1 ). The second son
was Abdallah Abu Abd al-Rahman 2 ). He studied a great
deal with his father, and studied, also, with Abd al-A c la
ibn Hammad, Yahya ibn Ma c in, Abu Bekr ibn Abi Shaiba,
and many others. He was a man thoroughly conversant with

{$£*»} jj***^- &<*>** (cip* J-^iaaJt o«^ JCwL.c &*^>;,; q-» 3^9 qI^aaoI
^L^ jJ^ cr*^ t Cod - *1] ^ J^M. *^r** cr» "X^*** ***' ^5 ^-^l

oJu L^JU jj^ ,^ma2L Ju^wt r^!$ vX*^ &4^J cXJj l^JU &-J} &-3*£II

Jin) aJJjj &Jbli Lg.4^w! vi>Uj aJj U^j^^ ^a *-**^ ^°3

1) Ibn Chall. N°. 19, says 'Ramadan 266 A. H.'

2) Abu 'i-Mah. II, 136. cf. his relation to the Musnad of his father, p. 24.

i75

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 KxxkaJt = the
quarter of the city or the plot of ground in which his house
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 yj in the year 290 A. H. *) By a con-
cubine named Hisn Ahmed had a third son, who was named
Sa c id and who became in time Kadi of Kufa. By the same
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
of Esteem, was held will assist us to place him in the posi-
tion which he really occupied in the estimation of his
own and of following generations. His pupil Abu Zur c a

said he had never met with any one in whom learning (^Ic),

selfdenial, knowledge of the law and general knowledge
(XL*/*) were so combined as in his master 3 ). This is one
opinion out of a host of similar ones, all of which are ex-

1) Ibn Chall. N°. 19 says , l 8 th day remaining of Jumada I , some say Jumada II'.

2) cf. Abu Nu c aim, 153 £, ^j^j ^ ^^ (*"* f^*° &**^ ^ $

i

#Ji *j <-a.&313 ^ J5 ^m^^JJ ^ Lo Ja# The D Umm c Alt here referred

t« may be the Zainab or Fatima named above.

3) Abu Nu c aim, 139a, iX*^ q* c\+:>f ^ <-W^ ; £-J jit \i r *-z>\

176

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
ages which had preceded him, — Sofyan al-Thauri, Malik
ibn Anas, Abd al-Rahman ibn Amr al-Auza c i, al-Laith ibn
Sa c d and Ibn c Abbas. The regard in which Ahmed ibn Hanbal
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
al-Nawawi, biographies of c Ali ibn al-Madini, Yazid ibn
Harun, Yahya ibn Sa c id al-Kattan, Yahya ibn Ma c in; also
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 f o suffer for
it in the eyes of people generally *). A noteworthy testi-
mony is that of al-Husain ibn c 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

- ° *

1) Abu Nu c aim, 1400, vi^-. *-- *—*> (^^-XoLO ^wil ^_j ^.c) JS

U.^yCai Ot-*/^ iL^JLLe ,5 J-*-* ,5> The force of the passage is clear. For
c Alkama and al-Aswad cf. Dhahabi (JmxS ^_j &*£lc Tabak. 2,1; OywbSI
^yJejJ] ib. 6; Abu'1-Mah. I, 280, 1. 2.

177

like people who tried to kick over the mountain Abu Ku-
bais with their feet *).

Ahmed as As a fakih he bore a great reputation among his
aFaUh. companions, as well as with others in his own gen-
eration and the generations following. The reputation of Ahmed
in Baghdad at the time of Abu Ja c far Mohammed ibn Jarir
al-Tabari (f 310A. 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 2 ). The opinion was given out in his
own day that he was a greater fakih than c Ali ibn al-Ma-
dini 3 ). One traditionist in speaking of Ahmed's authority
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 4 ). He was credited with extra-
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- jf
eral reliance upon the Koran and the Tradition cannot be
^discredited from a Muslim standpoint, and was a safer course ,
! ewed from that point of view, than any setting aside of such

3) 'idences in favor of individual judgment could have been 6 ).

it his principle of slavish literalness and his incorrigible ar-
^.rariness in the interpretation of his evidences was that

a ) Abu Nu c aim, 141 a, jS*X-j> Q«oAJt ^JLa (^^vajuLjCJI) <LjLj

,^H». o 1 a^ty era* 3 <i* ^ oy*t& tf ^* ^^ o* tX * ,J>!

4) '

2) cf. Goldziher, Zahiriten, p. 4 (from Abu'1-Feda Ann. II, p. 344).

3) al-Nawawi, p. \?f. 4) al-Nawawi , p. Iff.

5) cf. p. 28. 6) cf. Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 95.

12

t.;8

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
will always 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 ibn Hanbal, with a passing

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 and
found his store of food to consist of two pieces of breac'^5 v
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>i W

1) al-Nawawi, p. Ifo. \\ jx^

2) al-Makrizi, p. 5, (^lXJI J*£*ijJ l\:>U f*&Js qJ ^L^uJ ^ot. -
AjS q^o f L £»&$ O^b **? ^' L * *"^' J^ ^ ^^ ^ jLi 3 ^ *j9

179

money for himself. His happiest moments were those when he
was left without a coin in his purse ! ). His needs were few and
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
learning he always shewed the liveliest interest 3 ). He was
a man of gentle nature, but capable of being roused to
vehemence at the sight of injustice or wrong done to men
or of impiety shewn toward God 4 ). 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 ,

i) al-Nawawt, p. tlpo -

2) al-Nawawi, \ff^ cf. pp. 141, 164.

3) Abu Nu c aim, 138 b, ^ «A*>f L3 <A*>t ^ oU-JL« L&A.=>

(JXj jJ*J! S3 t«5U Ukxii j*\ yA fjjj^ kas ijay<?, Lx> ^Z

4) cf. pp. 73, 150.

5) Abu Nu c aim, 141 a, ^J aM i\*c US* qawv.1L jjl L3 ^ US*Js.>

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 c yan, 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 ).

v£aj.L* & [Cod. UxaX:>li] U*aoa:>I5 qUaa^^I/o qLj'L./o! pc\Jlj ^x-j

oULkilj {j*y»Jo jL$>l *J si^stX^ y JLS5 ^o\ ^ J,l3 ^

i) Abu Nu c aim, 140 a, ,.*-J ,.*.<w.rs. Lo l\*:>I ^J ...I^aI** LoA>

Jujj Lr J^° J Lo jlS jyu jJL-w ^ v_a!.:> c>*^ Jl5 ^4-xil j,c

q^ J^> q-j <A-».>i ^x^ixxi lul+z*** *^i cXj:j r-f*' 05;^ o^

^a^ US>L3> <A*^i q? jsyUlct *i| jL's^ ****> (J^c s<A-u ^-Jj-J
2) al-Subki, p. 134, (j-JLa^-II .I-a-jJ ^_j l\*^° ***:>■ jjty JL-3
KiyoLo £aj£U J^>- i»yJ j^UjI'

Religious An indication of Ahmed's character from the re-
Character. Hgious point of view is found in the following ver-
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 is a Watcher; And do not think that God is
indifferent to what 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-
k c as, and that, even after he was scourged and his bodily
weakness was extreme , he reached the number of 1 50 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
pray formal or extemporized prayers until the morning 2 ).

l\-4^>^ ^.\j toy

1) Abu Nu c aim, 155 a, ^^ii l\*.=^ ^ {j:***^ (J^ ^ L&\>
y^jS JLjS ^^SV-iJt ^JlxS jc*^: 3 . Q-> <^<*^>* ^' [Cod. L £j£\J r Ji-]
J*2aj a-x-3 i jlfti ^aJLc c^A.i>tA-S J"*"*^* Q-* <A*>t i^J \J ^_a_>1

J./.a> qJ L\*:>f ^iX&oli *x£j! 5 ^Oj*^3 ^j^aJI j, &I c^&
<V^>J JjLc JJ ^^Jj &jJ> <JJ£ ^U Uy, yPcXJI o^Jl:> ULM '
( w*£XJ *Jlx ^aj^G' (^5^' q 1 5 'if* 12 ' ^° J***V. *^ ^a**^Vj ^ 5

2) Abu Nu c aim, 143 a ., ail' <A>.e US* L\*>f ,j_J qUJLw Lo\\>

182

When at home in Baghdad he is said to have perseveringly
kept to his house, so that none ever saw him, unless it
were at public worship, at a funeral, or visiting the sick 1 ).
He was scrupulous in his adherence to Tradition and to the
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

Lo'iA-:> < ^jJU^Jf q~^ Vj-^ o^ *"^—S **^j ^x^.^3>5 KjIo Ki-J^

S.>^ ^L&c jc^aaj XeLw q^$ j^fc*^ *^ao L5r^ ^W £t^" J*-*' i3
j.clXj^ (c^^^ —U^aSi ^Jl *Jb *S XaxsL> &o^i -.La

1) Abu Nu c aim, 143 £, J^c (j*UJI ->-ot ^jI o'"^ *^' ^^ ^^

US* l\-*>J LaS ^—jJ Ux\-:> .... t^t^Av^i £ itf^*il *-& 0^5

La*L*q Lp.x) LS'bl-S ^^\> U*«*:> ^n-^> 5 La-XvL^> q+aJ1 ^.t _-3^
LSI ^1 Ley. L y>^l *\P J, *^-it ^ ^ftj D ! O^s^i ^j ^
l*-o alii &+>>. r"*jd SA^JI ^fi (j*Ul.SJ jk*o\ q^ &x.#Jl ^ tv^
i^ &cUv U ^i rr^ 3 - d'"""^ »*A>JI ^c j**2J rj&i *J ^ iM^

2) vid. p. 171.

i83

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 l ).

V.

His Views, Ahmed ibn Hanbal was a man whose peculiar
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
were , to a certain extent , the springs of such a life 2 ). His
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 by^
which Ahmed ibn Hanbal directed his life. His testament,
which has been given in the foregoing pages 3 ), 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 c Obaidallah ibn Yahya, in an-

i) Ibn Chall. N°. 19; Abu Nu c aim, 138^ u^-Aia3^ *JJJ c\ac JL_3

2) Abu Nu c aim, 153 3, Z-J L *! o.)^ *Ac o^fli *J1 K^l^>^b

3) P- 147-

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 belief 1 ). The conversation
on the Koran with Ishak ibn Ibrahim is fully in the spirit
of Ahmed's life, and lends us an interesting view of his
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 light on Ahmed's opinions and the
individual element which they contain 3 ).
TheKoran. First, Ahmed ibn Hanbal's 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 it noted, however, that the distinction between
the written or otherwise presented Koran and the heavenly
and essential Word of God is clearly drawn 5 ). This, too, is

P- ^S* 2) P . 139. 3) p . 93 ff.

4) p. 101. cf. Goldziher, Zahiriten , p. 138 ff. The Word of God was said
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.

5) cf. von Kremer, Herrsch. Ideen d. Isl. 2275 Steiner, Die Mu c taziliten ,
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

i8 S

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 1 ); certainly,
not as belonging to the visible Koran, but as belonging to
the one eternal Word of God. All God's words to Mohammed
and to the prophets are the Word of God; all those which
were spoken to c Isa 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 a large number who sympathized with his opinions.
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 latter being not an equivalent but infinitely more extensive than
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 c 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 of God 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: 1^ the Visible Koran; 2^, 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 t ). 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 3 ). The human acts in relation to the substance and
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.

This Koran doctrine 4 ) 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 it — coming to manifestation; just as the moon at its
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.

i) cf. Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 101.

2) Zahiriten, as in note 2, p. 185, especially p. 141, 1. 18 ff. ; cf. present
work, pp. 32 ff.

3) cf. Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 117 f.

4) cf. von Kremer, Herrsch. Id. d. Isl. , 41. On the whole much like the
doctrine of al-Ash c ari, Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 118,

i87

The Divine We are now prepared to consider the doctrine
Unity, f 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
attributes 2 ). 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. morphic attributes given to Deity in the Koran 4 ).

i) 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, 124; Shahrastani,
Haarbrucker'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).

Puzzled by philosophical arguments the untrained mind,
though resting on the analogy of perfect human being, and
holding fast to this as the undoubted ground and explana-
tion of the Koran's anthropomorphisms, asserted its impotence
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

i) cf. Dozy, Het Islamisme , 136; an argument of the Sifatiya, Shahras-
tani, Haarbrucker'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, Haarbrucker's transl'n, I, 97, H4f.). Refusing to
accept the figurative meaning of the anthropomorphic expressions, and yet
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.

1 89

seems to us. If Ahmed had believed differently from the
Koran and Mohammed, its human author, the case would
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
terpretation. HanbaFs principle in the interpretation of the Koran
is not a great one ! ). 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 ft, 106, 139, 162 f. For the freer
method of the Mu c tazila , v. Steiner, Die Mu c taziliten , 79.

190

where the literal method had to he given up the interpreta-
tion handed 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 Ra°y was generally
opposed, but admitted where there was no better help
to be found i ). His monumental work, the great collection
of traditions called the Musnad , had for its declared purpose
the furnishing, in all conceivable instances, of sound tradi-
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 ).

1) Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II, 217, note 4; Sachau, Zur Aeltesten Gesch.
d. Moh. Rechts, 17; Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 91 f. 5 cf. Goldziher, Zahiriten,
20, note 1. 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 c tazila and implies that the Korin
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.

3) Ibn Khaldun, Proleg. Ill, 6; Goldziher, Zahiriten, 23, 1. 25; Sachau,
Zur Aeltesten Gesch. d. Moh. Rechts 15; cf. present work p. 16 f.

4) Abu Nu c aim, 1500, vi^diS UjJ ^ ^ v-aJL^O JwtoaJt y! jfe

When the author of the Hilya relates that Ahmed was angry
[a.U tvutec.] with those who weakened under the test in the days'
of al-Ma D 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
pretation 0/most rigorous view. A provision for relief in ex-
Traditioft. ceptional cases he often made imperative in such

J,> £ jlxzA a! JUS Jd^i\ J*aaS it *U> ^U>j \ <jS*b J

a

lie ^4i X-j^jl slX^j ^)jr* {tS -J JL$ pLJ t\xi yLS UIs M^JLt)
^P loLi iPjA^aj ^j o^ais [Kor. 42. 38] *JUI ^^Jlc »— >L5 ^JL^1 5

°

1) Abu Nu G aim, 147 a, ^ O^ CT^ ^^ CT^ ^*^ U&A-J>-

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 f Tradition was the most natural thing to be ex-
pected of him. The same belief explains his persistent applica-
and for ^ tion of himself to a life of ascetic rigor and fasting 3 ).
Manner of His love of the ascetic life , in its turn , throws light
his Life. U p n the 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) cf. p. 164 and note 1 infra. Houtsma, De Strijd etc. 85, says that the
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 Abi Yazid al-Azdi,
containing a reference to his ascetic life and imitation of Ahmed ibn Hanbal.

£

4) al-Makrizi, P- 18, ^Lxj *UI 1^ ^1 v-ALJI ^ ^ ^ JJSij

U^ifi jdJt ^o } J^-L> j i\+s>\ fU*^ £axA£> ^ AJM fLUI £
cf. pp. 92 f. , 82.

5) Abu Nu c aim, 142 3, ^.^ 1X4.^^ ^j [Cod. inserts i] M

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 *).

Foreordination To one holding such views as those of which
of Events. W e have been speaking, the belief in a pre-
destined order of life is the only explanation of human events.
Ahmed appears to have held that there was no contingency,
either in the actions which men do, or in the events through
which they are called to pass 2 ).

The Doc- The doctrine of Faith expounded by his friend
trine of Mohammed ibn Aslam was , apparently , held by
Faith, Ahmed ibn Hanbal, likewise. That is, that Faith
is in the spirit, is expressed by the lips, and is confirmed /
by the acts. His declaration that discipline and trial would
serve to increase his faith favors such a view 3 ).
Ahmed's Atti- ^ s attitude toward patronage and favors on

tude toward the part of rulers was that of an extremist,

Patronage. but there can be no doubt that his high con-

jls c\+^ yh *-Ji oLc Lis c^s &*£^ *— £ v&od 0*.-:> (^lXac

^lc ic^ J^-w l\& ^^iL (j^*aj ^ A^^° LjL

i) Abu Nu c aim, 144 a, te*^ f-+" ^y^ B-**v <A_^>L ._jl v^a—jL^

Marg. L^j ^^XamsJ *j-XSu ^' *UJI ^-2 I^umjU} &a*a£ J^c Lj**aj]
w^> ^ L^Iam^j j^Lwj *aJx aUJ Ju^ ^aJ' KxAa'i iA:>t t\J5 |jOuj.^

Xg^>jj &jAj *j ^m«J) cf. p. 107.

2) note 2, p. 109; p. 151.

3) al-Makrizi, p. 12, BoL-j; (^Aac w^J3j J^t ^.=>WJI ,3 v^^wx*^

^' «i^r <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 compromise as possible 1 ). Surramanra would become
his prison, he said, were he to stay there and teach while,
at the same time, receiving the fixed salary of the Khalif 2 ).
Ishak ibn Rahawaih he said he would rebuke, if he ever
saw him, for his truckling 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
principle presented a crowning obstacle 4 ).
Aversion to Sys- The character of Ahmed as a traditionist,
tematic Theology and his aversion to generalization and deduc-
and its Result, tion , prevented him from leaving behind any
system of opinions. We may formulate for him in these
days, but he would not have been willing to do so. Hence,
the uninfluential character of the Hanbalite school. Their
master's teaching was unsystematic, and much ground was
lost ere his spirit and teaching could be put before the
world in such a form as to accomplish any powerful effect.
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.

i) p. 112 infra, p. 141; cf. attitude of Malik ibn Anas toward Harun al-
Rashid, von Hammer, Lit. Gesch. Ill, 101 , 102.
2 ) P- J 42- 3) p. 145.

4) On this whole subject, cf. Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II, 39.

INDEX.

c Abbas, the client of al-Ma D mun, 75.

c Abbasa bint al-Fadl, 174.

Abd al-A c la ibn Hammad , 174.

Abdallah ibn c Abbas, 157, 159, 176.

Abdallah ibn Ahmed ibn Hanbal, 20 fif., 26, 28, 146 fT.,

150, 173 f.
Abdallah ibn Idris, 46.
Abdallah ibn Ishak, 140.
Abdallah ibn Mas c ud, 102, 160.

Abdallah ibn Mohammed, known as Buran, 88, 147, 148.
Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak, 11.
Abdallah ibn c Omar, 158.
Abdallah ibn Tahir, 18, 194.
Abd al-Malik ibn Abd al-Hamid al-Maimun, 26.
Abd al-Mun c im ibn Idris ibn bint Wahb ibn Munabbih, 73.
Abd al-Rahman ibn c Amr al-Auza c i, 176.
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 AfTan ibn Muslim, 86.
AhluVAhwa, 161 n. ! ), 163 n. ').
Ahlu°t-Tauhid wa D l- c Adl, 62 n. »).
Ibn al-Ahmar, 73.
Ahmed ibn c Ammar, 105.
Ahmed ibn Abi Dowad, 3, 4, 52, 55 f., 64, 93, 102 ff., 120,

121, 126 f., 142.

196

Ahmed ibn Hanbal , his greatness and influence , 2 ff ; his
biographers etc., 5, 173; birth, family and early years,
10; teachers of, 11 ff. ; performance of the Hajj , 14; at
Mecca, 14; at San c 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 apostasy of his
companions, 64 f.; cited before Ishak ibn Ibrahim, 70, 72;
referred to in al-Ma D mun's letter, jj; refuses to recant,
80; ordered to Tarsus, 81 ; 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;
discussions before al-Mu c tasim, 101 ff; ordered to be flogged,
107 ff; set free, ni; relations with al-Wathik, Ii4f.; in-
vited to visit al-Mutawakkil , 139; conversation with Ishak
ibn Ibrahim, 139; accused of c 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, 147 f.; returns to Baghdad, 148 ff; objects
to his family receiving stipends, 150 f . ; 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, 181 ; personal appearance, 182; His Views,
183 f. ; on the Koran, 184 ff; on the Divine Unity, 187;
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 Abi 3 l-Hawari , 26.

Ahmed ibn Ibrahim al-Dauraki, 64.

Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Hani al-Ta D i al-Athram, 26.

Ahmed ibn Nasr al-Khuza c i, n6ff. , 119, 127, 128.

Ahmed ibn Rabah, 90.

Ahmed ibn Shuja c , 70, 78, 84.
I Ahmed ibn Yazid ibn al- c Awwam Abu D l- c Awwam al-Bazzaz,
70, 77, 84.

c Ali (the Khalif), 54.

c Ali ibn c Asim, 92.

Abu c Ali ibn al-Banna, the Fakih, 173.

c Ali ibn Hisham ibn al-Barid, 12.

c Ali ibn al-Ja c d, 70, 84.

c Ali ibn al-Jahm, 140.
. c Ali ibn al-Madini, 12, 26, 31, 87, 174, 176, 177.

c Ali ibn Abi Mukatil, 70, 71, 76, 84.

c Ali ibn Yahya, 79.

c Alkama, 176 n. 1 ).

al-A c mash, 63.

c Ammar ibn Yasir, 84.

c Anbasa ibn Ishak, 84.

al-Aswad, 176 n. *).

Ibn A c yan, 180.

Ayub ibn al-Najjar, 46.

Ayub al-Sakhtiyani , 161.

al-Baghawi, 26, 174.

Bahr ibn Asad, 12 n. 3 ).

al-Baihaki, 173.

Baki ibn Makhlad al-Andalusi, 26.

Ibn Bakka al-Akbar Abu Harun, 70, 73, 84.

Ibn Bakka al-Asghar, 72, 74.

Abu Bekr, 54, 123.

Abu Bekr ibn Abi Shaiba, 174.

Bishr ibn Ghiyath al-Marisi, 48 and n. 3 ).

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 Daud, 26.

Daud ibn c Ali al-Zahirl, 46.

Abu Daud al-Hafari, 46.

al-Dhahabi, 176.

al-Dhayyal ibn al-Haitham, 70, 71, 76, 84.

al-Dhuhli, see Mohammed ibn Yahya.

Divine attributes, The doctrine of, 39 f., 90, 187.

Divine Unity, 187.

Duhaim al-Shamf, 26.

Ibn Abi Dunya, 26.

al-Fadl ibn al-Farrukhan , 70, yj f., 84.
al-Fadl ibn Ghanim, 70, yj t 84.
Faith, Doctrine of, 39, 193.
Abu'l Faraj ibn al-Jauzl, 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, 107 f.
al-Haitham ibn Jamil, 29.
Hajjaj ibn al-Sha c ir, 26.
al-Hakam ibn c Uyaina, 161.
Hammad ibn Zaid, 11.
Hanbal ibn Ishak, 10, 26.

i 9 9

Hanbalite School, Origin of, 4 f., 194.

Abu Hanifa, 30.

al-Harbiya, 175.

al-Harith ibn Asad al-Muhasibi, 41 fT.

Ibn al-Harsh, 70, 84.

Harun ibn Abdallah al-Zuhri, 61.

Harun al-Rashid, 47, 48, 50.

Abu'l Hasan ibn Abd al-Hadi al-Sindi, 21.

al-Hasan ibn Ahmed, 175.

al-Hasan ibn c Ali, 114.

al-Hasan al-Basri, 160, 162.

al-Hasan ibn Hammad al-Sajjada, 70, 78, 80, 84.

al-Hasan ibn Mohammed al-Khalla.1, 173.

al-Hasan ibn Musa al-Ashyab, 12.

Abu Hassan al-Ziyadi, 70, 71, jj.

Abu Hatim ai-Razi, 26.

Hayyaj ibn al- c 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.

al-Husain ibn c Ali al-Karabisi, 32 f., 176.

Abu'l-Husain ibn al-Munadi, 173.

Hushaim ibn Bashir, 11, 50.

Ibrahim al-Harbi, 26.

Ibrahim ibn Isma c il al-Mu c tazili, known as Ibn c Ulayya, 47.
Ibrahim ibn al-Mahdi, 12, 26, 76, 80.
Ibrahim al-Nakha c i, 162.
Ibrahim ibn Sa c d, 12.
Ikhlas, Doctrine of, 76.
c Imran ibn Husain, 102.

Ishak ibn Hanbal, 3, 10, 88, 112, 145, 150.
Ishak ibn Ibrahim al-Mausili, 139 n. 1 ).

Ishak ibn Ibrahim ibn Mus c ab, 56, 64, 70 fT., 83, 84, 85, 88,
8 9> 90, 139 and n. *), 140, 178, 184.

200

Ishak ibn Abi Isra D il, 70, 84.

Ishak ibn Rahawaih, 12, 14, 18, 46, 145, 176, 194.

Ishak ibn Yahya, 63.

Abu Isma c il al-Ansari, 173.

Isma c il ibn Daud , 64.

Isma c il ibn Ibrahim ibn Bistam, 12 n. 3 ).

Isma c il ibn Abi Mas c ud, 64.

Isma c il ibn Ulayya, 11.

Itakh, the Turk, 141, 144.

Jabir ibn Abdallah, 160.

al-Ja c d ibn Dirham, 47.

Jarir ibn Abd al-Hamid, 12.

Abu Ja c far al-Anbari, 81.

Abu Ja c far ibn Dhanh al- c Ukbari, 152.

Ja c far ibn c Isa al-Hasani, 74, 79.

Ja c far ibn Mohammed, 139.

Abu Ja c 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.

Kalam, 32 and n. 2 ), 41, 55.

Ibn al-Kalbi, the postmaster, 140.

Karramiya Murji D a, see Murjfa.

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, 10 1 f., 187.

Koran, Orthodox doctrine of, 184 n. 5 ).

von Kremer, A., 7.

Kubaisa ibn c Okba, 12 n. 3 ).

"Kun", its significance, 119 and n. 2 ).

201

Kussas, 24 n. *).

Kutaiba ibn Sa c id ibn Jamil, 12 n. 3 ), 70, 72.

Lafz al-Koran, 32 and n. 3 ), 34 f., 46, 186.
al-Laith ibn Sa c d, 176.

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 c mar al-Kati c i, 70, 78, 84.

al-Ma D mun, 3, 6 f., 19, 47, 48, 50 ff., 52 f., 54, 55, 82, 83,
84, 105, 122, 126, 130 n. 2 ). His letters, 9, 56 ff., 63, 64,
65 ff, 74 ^, 83.
al-Manda, the Hafiz, 173.
Marwan II, 47.

Ibn Mas c ud, see Abdallah ibn Mas c ud.

Mihna, 1 n. ! ), 19, 47 ff; in Egypt, 61, 113 f.j at Damascus,
61, 62; at Kufa, 63; general survey, I24ff

bn Abdallah al-Makdisi, 21.

bn Abdallah ibn Tahir, 164 and n. '), 167, 172.

bn Abd al- Wahid, 21.

bn Ahmed, 175.

bn Ahmed ibn Abi Dowad, 56.

bn Aslam, 36 ff, 193.

bn Hanbal, 10.

bn al-Hasan, 29, 79.

bn al-Hasan ibn c Ali ibn c Asim, 70, 79, 84.

bn Hatim ibn Maimun, 70, yS, 84.

bn Ibrahim, 85.

bn Ishak, 140.

bn Ishak al-Saghani, 26.

bn al-Jarrah, 144.

bn Makhlad, 174.

bn Nuh al-Madrub al- c Ijli,

Mohammed
Mohammed
Mohammed
Mohammed
Mohammed
Mohammed
Mohammed
Mohammed
Mohammed
Mohammed
Mohammed
Mohammed
Mohammed
Mohammed
Mohammed
Mohammed

119.
Mohammed ibn Sa c d, 64.

70, 78, 80, 81, 85,

202

Mohammed ibn Sinn, 161.

Mohammed ibn Yahya al-Dhuhli, 26, 46.

al-Mu c aiti, 31.

Mu c awia ibn Kurra, 161.

al-Muhtadi, 122.

Murji c a, 37 ft.

Musa ibn Harun, 26.

Abu Mushir, 79.

Abu Muslim, 64.

Muslim, 26.

Musnad, 5, igfT.

Mu c tamar ibn Suleiman, 12.

al- Mu c tasim , 3, 6, 23 n. 2 ), 55, 62 , 63, 85, 90,J?3Jf^i4, 127.

ai^MutawakkiF, 4, 6T7» ift 54/ 63, 118, 122, 129, 130 ff.,

163, 169.
Mu c tazila, 2, 6, 48 and n. 2 ), 62 n. J ), 187 n. 3 ), 189 n. *),

190 n. *).
al-Mu c tazz, 142, 143, 144.
al-Muttalib ibn Abdallah, yy.

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 Haflz , 173.

Abu Nasr al-Tammar, 70, yy f 84.

al-Nawawi, 176.

Abu Nu c aim, Ahmed ibn Abdallah al-Ispahani, 8.

Abu Nu c aim al-Fadl ibn Dukain, 63, 87 and n. 3 ).

Nu c aim ibn Hammad, 119.

Ibn Numair, 12.

c Obaidallah ibn Mohammed ibn al-Hasan, 72.
c Obaidallah ibn Mohammed Abu'l-Kasim, 26.
c Obaidallah ibn c Omar al-Kawariri , 70, 79, 80, 84.
c Obaidallah ibn Yahya, 154, 183 f.

203

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 Othman ibn Sa c id al-Darimi, 26.

al-Rabi c ibn Suleiman, 119^
Raja al-Hidari, 82.
Rationalism, vid. Mu c tazila.
Ra D y, 190.

Sa c dawaih al-Wasiti, vid. Sa c id ibn Suleiman.

Sa c id ibn Ahmed, 175.

Sa c id ibn Suleiman Abu c Othman al-Wasiti, 70, 78, 84.

Salih ibn Ahmed ibn Hanbal, 26, 141, I46ff., 150, 151, 164,

170 f., 173 f.
Salih al-Rashidi, 104.
Samsama, 118.
al-Sari al-Sakati, 45.
al-Shafi c i, 2, 13, 27 ff., 49 f.
Abu Shuaib al-Hajjam, 90.
Ibn Shuja c , see Ahmed ibn Shuja c .
Shyites, 54 and n. J ).
Sima al-Dimashki, 118.
al-Sindi, 75.
Sofyan al-Thaun, 176.
Sofyan ibn c 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.

Ibn c Ulayya al-Akbar, 12, 47, 70, 73.

204

Wagil ibn c Ata, 55 and n. 4 ).

Waki c ibn al-Jarrah, 12 and n. 3 ), 13.

al-Walid ibn Muslim, 12.

Abifl-Walid al-Tayalisi , 26, 174.

al-Wathik, 4, 6, 55, 63, 114, 115 ff. f 121, 127 ff.

Yahya ibn Abd al-Rahman al- c 0mari, 70, 79, 84.

Yahya ibn Aktham, 52, 54 f., 56.

Yahya ibn Khakan, 143, 151, 164.

Yahya ibn Ma c in, 12, 16, 31, 64, 117, 128, 174, 176.

Yahya ibn Sa c id al-Kattan, 12, 176.

Yahya ibn Abi Za D ida, 12.

Ya c kub Kausarra, 141.

Ya c kub ibn Shaiba, 26.

Yazid ibn Harun, 12 and n. 3 ), 26, 29 f., 52, 176, 180.

Abu 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.

Ziyad al-Baka c i, 12.

Zuhair ibn Harb Abu Khaithama, 64.

Zuhair ibn Salih, 174.

Abu Zur c a al-Dimashki, 26.

Abu Zur c a al-Razi, 26, 175.

INDEX OF NAMES OCCURRING IN ARABIC
FOOTNOTES.

(Names occurring only in Isnads or as names of Rawi's
are omitted).

^*^jji p+$y\ 158.

^xjLsJI a ^j^JI ^j cUj>i 168.

*V u^ o* **=*' 52, ss» 56,
97 ff., 102, 104, 108 f., 112,

114, 115.

jl+G ^J «A4J>t 97.

a L

O*

ouj>i 82.

^Ij^Jl ^AOJ ^j lX«^>I Il6, 1 18 f.
181.

65, 81, 86 f., 98 f., no, 112,
131, 178.
J^o> ^ oL^uI 89, 112, 146,

H9> 153-

^'; a- O^** 1 H, 18, 146.

^a^*' l^ j a^ 9^*

&.J.C ^j J^Ot**J 12.

^x^Ujt O^^l 176.
OU:> a J J,c^f 174.
uSUe^l 63.

■if I8l.

^/yji qslXj^i 123.
a ^i 49.
U-Jl 30.

^Lal^l 173.

t/^ 1 ^ 133, I3S.
^La^UJI yyj 157.
^L?\Jui ^ ujyj 46.

33> 35 ff.
vi^L^\JI ^j ^j 182.

L ^o :J JI e^Lc ^ yio 49, 169.

206

-Ax&t Uj 92 f.

^Ji 174.

XcUa* ^ £i y! 15.

***£ <3 ! c^ ^ >•* *74-
^kjAAoii ^^ 43, 123, 124.

J%*$ J 73-
^Li^l jkx> j.J 81.

UF^J' g*/J ? /*> y) 153-

^y^x]! l\*j£U .^j j^> 169.
&a*j^UI 40 f.

j^x^L^vJt <xJ j e^l^vJI 33,

44 f-

<i)Jlo ^j d^L> 42.

a UJt ^ j&kXs* 34, 158.

174, 175-

(^iUJi) 174.
i3^oJ J >~^Ji 156.

^♦x+xJ! ^Aw^lJI ^jl 169.

BjId^uJi J>U> ^ ^moaJI 70.

J*a^^> ^j <A+:>i &j«i, C7 ,vw -? fc *74*

lXjl^JI Jji ^j ^M^^VJi 115.
JiLjsJI <A*:5=U ^j ^^\jt 173.

^jLuii ^j ^^.^vJI ^1 173.

174.

(Ax^Ji) ^.c ^j ^amh^sJI 124.
33 f., 169, 177.

2CIax£ ^j *£^\JI 157.
O^ y* oU> 12.
Ju*5>- 30.
vJ>L^\jJ ^j J^x> 171.

&Ua:> ^j! 30, 192.
j*.JLw ^ odi* 180.

vl-s^JJ 156.

&*ax:> ^i 99.

^^a^vJI ^b jj! 46.
^IX*cfUJt 5 tj> ^jl 179.

^^L&JI *x>^> 27.
a t>JI J*\ 109.

c5je^

jjjl 166.

LS'

■xpjjl 34, 170.

^UJ,av ^j ^xjjt 49 f, 120.
^Laa^vll *L^ 82.

A^i ^ gJL* a , ^ 174.
J^-i> q4 A7l 0*0 V^=5) ! 74-

J.AX^> ^J tX7"t ^J uX-OtAV I74.

&Ua£: ^ ,»)Ia&*w 12, 15.
i^* 5 " o- **^ x 3-
d^^ o u ^ -* 1 3°.

^UJi 13, 14, 27ff, 33, 49, 102.

207

J*aa=> ^ «ArI ^ gJLo 131 ff,
148 f, 151 f, 164, 166 ff, i7of,
173L 183, igof.

OjJLL ^1 168.

*L?vS. KaaL ^J 17.

jjLx-^t xj^avs/q -jj (j^L*^ no.

JsAtoftJt y^Xl &avLaC I74»

Jixf ^J l\a£ 17, l8.

J*aa> ^ J^l ^ &JJI l\a£ 20,

28, 137, 149, 166 ff, 171,174.

y^^ol ^ &IJI <Aa£ 46, 166.
vjlsH J M Aac 131.

y>it a ^ *in <x*£ 18, 146.

(j*Lac ^ adfl lXac 155.

^LD ^i idJI Aa£ II.

83, 138, 192 f.

oytAA^ ^j *Ut c\ac43, 103, 156.
[jbH pj r jr i» l\a£ 97, 98 ,

99, 102.
LsFjV'JfL^^o? ^^173.
^jji Oc^ i7f.

^a^. ^j adit .Aaac 148, 154.

VJUAfi 56.

Ju5\c 99.

(ja^aS ^j K^alc 176.
sIIaJI ^ ^ ^t 173.

y\*£» pJ J.C l66.

r*^ e^ c> J 32, 133. 136.

^Aok ^ ^ 176.

L 5sioat j ^ 31, 87 f, 174.

vL^tii 2 ^ 43, 155, 156.
^*JI Aac j ^ 123, 124, 157.

2j? o^ '*&^** o^ v^ %*' * 5 l •
^%iit 28.

J.AA> ^J uV.^1 V-AAJ SUblS 174.

J^a* ^j g^ait 166.

^y a- V is6 *

^-bLi^t J,*n5 191.
^So ^j ^Auait 63, 87.

^obyoA-St AA^Lftit o) 44 f.
Ju^lS *j! 157.

Xa^&I 39, 41.

ju^Jt w*.>Lao ^Kil a ji 131.

>-JLw i%} pj ^A-J l66 f.

JL^aIo a J 135.

u^Ji ^j tdJlo 11, 116.
oy «U» 49; 5*> 53 f ; 65, 81, 82,
86, 109.

^yUl 123, 124, i3of, 148 f,
151 f, iS4f, 164, 167 f, 170.

^^> ^j *X^i ^ lX*^ 1 174.

r^y' ^ o^i j *♦*? 131.

jJU J cX+^ 40 ff.

s t£ ^ ^ 135.
o^ c^ °^ 30*

J^-A.^ ^j l\*^ IO, II.
^j-i-W ^jj lX*.^ I57*

^li ^ jJJI lXxc ^j lX*^ I48,

165, 167 ff.
0JL£ ^ lX*^ 174.
3Cj 3 U* ^ lX+^ 133.

&lyiJi v-^Lo y^ ^j lX.*^ 153.

^j^II yai ^ lX*^ 33, i67f,

170.

ys/^' ^y ^ ^*^ 81, 83.

JJ>Jdl ^^U ^ cX*^ 35.

sa>^H 40 ff.

^il Vld. yai j cX+^°

131.
pidl 134.

kJjx*U 49, 55.

^ao^lLI 92 ff, 101, IO4, 108 ff,
II2f, 114, 115, 131.

j«*A l8.

^baJI ^ y 73.

208

*Xa* ^1 I73.

r 1 ;^ o* c5^ 30.
t^ 1 o* or** I0 9> XI 3-

MX ydj ,\ 173.

u>U> ^J fwOU II9.

^^V 1 atj* 49-

^■•LJI <A«]| a i ^L$> 55.

J***-* qJ p£ft*N 29.

•Jt5yi 115, Il6, II9, 120.

silo* pi j^ ss .

^t^ i33-

d£ 0* ^ J 3^
^^JUkSt lXJ^JI ^1 174.

o 6Li> o* ur*^ *34, 13s f, 15 1\
164.

^*-* o* u?-*-^. 10, 17, 65,

86 f, 99, 116, 174.

lXSUSI j^-^U >j' 176.
SU3/ ^ c ^^u 133.

C5'

>^u

o* u»^v. I{

o*j* o* °*j* 30, S3. 180.

U*£ull ^ u^jy 135.
»J*yu U^*it s^**J J3 2 ^ 136.
L^fy^ (JT*^: 3 . a^ ^^ I2a

CORRIGENDA.

Page 3, line 5, Read Abi for Abu.

„ 19, n. 1, 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-Shafi c i's for al-Shafi c i's.

„ 38, note, 1. 4 infra, Read Shahrastani for Shahrastani.

„ 46, line 2, Read Ayub ibn al-Najjar.

„ 47, „ 5, also Side-heading, Read al-Mu c 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 MuzafTar for Muzaffir.

v 75, „ 12 infra, Dele comma after "him".

a 83, „ 11 „ Read ^^i.

„ 96, „ 10 „ „ ^*j for Oytj.

w ^2, „ 4 „ „ i^l*^ „yb v

» I0 9> » 5 » j) £/**W » £**L.

„ 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

Patton, Walter Melville
Ahmed Ibn Hanbal