,c«m «►-#<* \\» JSt*3SS^^3T

A BIOGRAPHY OF THE IMAM INCLUDING

AN ACCOUNT OF THE MOHAM-

MEDAN INQUISITION CALLED THE MIHNA,

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

Professor in the Wesleya» Theologicil College, Montreal, Canada.

LIBRAIRIE ET IMPRIMERIE
E. J.*BRIIiL

sgafo |gS2gg£^SB5£

w. h. dkhh
BOEXBINOERIJ \'

A BIOGRAI\'HY OF THE IMAM INCLUDING

AN ACCOUNT OF THE MOHAM-

MEDAN INQUISITION CALLED THE MIHNA,

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

Professor in the Weilcyan Theological College, Montrcnl, Canada.

LIBRAIRIE ET IMPRIMERIE
E. J.BRILL

I\'RIOTED BY E. J. 11K1LL, AT LEYDEN.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

The following pages contain the record of the Imam
Ahmed ibn Hanbal and of a struggle \') 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 vcry
meagre outline the most important public occurrenccs of our
narrative; but thcre 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 thcir
connection with the outward history of the State. This kind
of historical study is the more interesting, because from it
we are enabled to understand the relation of the State to
religion at that time, and the place occupied by religion
and its teachers in the State.

I) The Mihna. This term, meaning ii> general usage a \'testing\' or \'trial\',
whether by the accidents of fortune or the actions of men, is oftcn used,

(together with the vin Form of the verb ,^-^\\x) with refcrencc to a rcligious
test with a view to obtaining assent to some particular belief or System of
bcliefs. We find this special usage largely illustrated in the records of the
Mu^ctazilite inquisition, the account of which is to appear in the sequcl. It
is also found in the accounts of the Orthodox inquisition under the Khalif
Kahir 200 ycars later. Most commonly, the whole persecution extending from
the year 218 A. II. to 234 A. H. is called the Mihna.

We have rcferred above to the issues of the Mihna, as
the persecution inaugurated by al-Ma\'mün is called. The
importance of them lies in the fact that they settlcd the
orthodox charactcr of Islam for all following ages; and in
the preservation of orthodoxy lies the preservation of Islam
itself, in our judgment. Had Rationalism succeeded in bring-
ing about by persecution a gcneral 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 susceptiblc to modifying and reforming in-
fluences from without; so that, in time, we should have
seen standards of faith and lifc, which contravene our
rcason as the Koran and Tradition do, givcn 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 bc 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 scarch for truth. The abusc of free-thinking,
howcver, in a lovc of speculation for speculation\'s sake, and
in an inordinate desire of controversial victory is, in the
history of this period, abundantly cxemplified.

Ahmcd ibn Hanbal during his whole carcer subsequent to
the death of the Imam al-Shafi^ci(204 A. H.) was the most remark-
able figure in the camp of Mohammedan orthodoxy, and
during the course of the Mihna did more than any other
individual to strengthen the resistance of his party to the
repressive efforts of the Khalifs and thcir officers. He stood
for the standing or falling of orthodoxy in its time of trial;
and thcre is little exaggeration in the statement, made more
than oncc concerning him, that \'all men were looking to
him for an example, that as he decidcd on the test as to
the Koran bcing applicd to him, so they might follow\'.

Wc have some interesting circumstantial evidence of

Ahmed\'s position and influence among the people from the
way in which he was treatcd by the Khalifs. Al-Ma\'mün
had made up his mind to cite hint to appear with the first
seven men to whom hc put the test, but even the violent
bigot Ahmed ibn Abü 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 fecling that the result of their
trial would bctter determine whether or not it would be
wisc to attack onc greater than thcy. Al-Ma\'mün\'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 alludcd to. In the case of al-Mu^ctasim, we
must bear in mind that hc did not scourge Ahmed until he
had exhausted every mcans to save him, by threats, argu-
ments and entreaties. Hc declared that had al-Ma³mün not
ordcred him to deal with him and such as hc, hc would
have had nothing to do with the infliction of the punishment.
Furthcrmorc, 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 suspectcd that their Imam was
bcing torturcd, there was a tremendous excitement; and it
secmed as if the Khalifs palace would become an object
of assault, when al-Mu\'tasim had Ahmed\'s uncle \'Ishak
brought out, and had this man falscly intimate to them
that hc had not harmcd his ncphew in the least. To makc
himself still more secure against the danger of a popular
uprising, aI-Mu^ctasim kept Ahmed within the precincts of
the palace until the cvening, and then dressed him up in
gala costume and sent him undcr cover of dusk to his
dwclling. We may consider it as significant of Ahmed\'s
standing among the people that there wcre 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 trcatmcnt furnishes somc evidence to shew
how hc rcgarded Ahmcd\'s influence. We are told that,
despitc the urging of Ibn Abü Dowad, he would not cite
Ahmcd for examination before him, but sent word to the
Imam to remove from his country; a good proof that Ahmcd
had grcat power with the people. The biographer adds that
hc does not know whether the Khalif refraincd from dealing
with Ahmcd because of admiration for his stcadfastness, or
bccausc of fcar that evil consequences might come upon
him should hc lay violent hands upon so holy a man. For
al-Mutawakkil we need say little here. His attention to
Ahmcd 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. Hcnce it was that they idolized as they did
a man likc Ahmcd ibn Hanbal. His intense devotion to the
things most venerated and chcrished by the people: God,
the Prophet, the Koran, the Tradition, the Sunna of the
Prophct, and the Communion of the Faithful, endeared him
to the mass of the common folk. He was, also, a remarkable
example of an cffbrt which always excited reverence in the
brcast of the Muslim, namely, the eftbrt \'to bring himself
ncar to God and thus secure a good reward from him\'. Those
who are familiar with the stock expressions of Mohammedan
picty will understand what this means in the case of a sin-
ccre and earncst religionist. Judging by the record of a host
of extravagant visions of blessedness in Paradisc which men
had of the Imam Ahmcd after his departure from the world,
onc cannot doubt that all good Muslims bclicved him to
have obtained even more than the good reward for which
hc had hopcd.

That Ahmcd ibn Hanbal has come to bc rcgarded as the
founder of the Hanbalitc Madhhab, or School, is not to bc
wondcred at, though it is not bccausc of any intention on his
part, as far as I can sce. He was a great saint and defender
of orthodoxy, and it is due to this fact that his pupils and

admirers, after his dcath, sought to givc form to their
mastcr\'s teachings and compactcd themselves into a sect
or school of thcology. I do not bclicvc that Ahmcd him-
sclf had the idca that such would occur. That a school
was formcd spontaneously is a tcstimony to the powerful
impression of the man\'s personality upon his ovvn age and
that following. The things which the Muslims reckon to
Ahmed\'s praisc 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 cffective weapon in the controversial warfarc which
he had to wage. Ahmed\'s great book the Musnad is the
best monument to that knowledge in which he especially
excclled. It cxerciscd such an influence, in itself and in the
works dcrived from it, for the maintenance of Tradition in
its worthy place as a basis of thcology, that its author\'s
career ought to bc known. We will then sce the real life
which was so steadying in its effect upon Mohammcdan rc-
ligious thought, and which was but foliowed up in its effect
by the book which it produced.

Some nativc 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 ei vil history
have often passed over the religious movcment of Ahmed\'s
time with little or no notice. Hut there is a significance
about the man and the movement which the greatest of the
chroniclers, such as Tabari, have not been slow to recognizc.
Abu\'l-Mahasin, who professes to be writing the annals of
Egypt» but whose interest in religious persons and events
is evident on almost cvery page of his work, has done full

justice to the gencral course of evcnts in conncction 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, howevcr, at that point wherc
his life bccomes a factor in the public history of the time,
in order that we may have a fair impression of the wholc
course of religious evcnts then transpiring, and may, also,
sec more clcarly Ahmed ibn Hanbal in the arena where he,
more than elsewhere, won for himself that great fame which
has placed him among the chicf heroes and saints of his faith.

It should bc remarked that European writers have too
oftcn writtcn their accounts in a spirit of antipathy toward
the orthodox thcology of Mohammedanism, and have givcn
more than a due share of commendation to the Mu\'tazilites
(Rationalists). They vvere, it is true, advocates of the frecdom
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 constitutcs true freedom.
It would appcar to be rather the motive of convenience that
moved them to take the course thcy took. They preached
the gospel of Freedom because they feit the Law and the
Commandmcnt to impose an inconvenience upon them, so
that they could not do as they wished. All praise is due
to the sincerc 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^:mün, al-Mu^ctasim,
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\'mün, 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
pcrsecutor. As to his liberal tcndencics, it is not likely we
shall find any reason to change our judgment. He had a
quick and very capable mind, and hatcd to bc fettered. He
believed he had the right to think to the full extent of his
opportunity, and to make opportunity for mental ranging
wherc he had none. Had he stopped at this point, he would
have prescnted to us a record of grcat service to his fellow-
men accomplishcd 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 bc
darker than the plague of darkness itself. He was orthodox,
but his treatment of liberals will casily bear comparison with
his prcdcccssors\' 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 condonc his terrible treatment
of individuals, and the gloating satisfaction with which he
sometimes related his own barbaritics. Nor would we softcn
terms over his treatment of Jews and Christians. Hut the
man was a fanatical religionist, and many of his deeds must
be vicwed 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 footnotc here and there a difference of
opinion from some of the modern authorities whose works
have been consulted. Hut, none the less, I avail myself of
the present opportunity to say that the books of scholars
like Steiner, von Kremer, Houtsmaand Goldziher have been
of grcat 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 thrcc manuscripts in the Library of the University of
Leiden; i) Cod. 311a, which, with its companion Cod. 31 \\b,
represents the 5* and 4"¹ vols, respcctively, of a five vol-
urne Ms. of the \'US^S¹ i-L=- or .tjjSI *Ji=> of Abü Nu^caim
Ahmed ibn Abdallah al-Tspahani (d. 450). 2) Cod. 73 a,
which was not in the University collcction of Mss. at the
time that Dozy preparcd his Catalogue, and is, thereforc,
not described. lts companion volume, Cod. 73 b Gol., is
howevcr described. The two volumes form together one
transcript of the work of Taju\'d-Din Abdu\'l-Wahhab ibnu\'I-
Subki (d. 771), cntitled iLyólijl oliuk: 3) Cod. 1917, which
is likewise not described in the University Catalogue, but
will be found in the Catalogue of Landberg, "Catalogue de
Manuscrits arabes provcnant d\'une riibliothèque privée a el-
Mcdina et appartcnant a la Maison E. J. Brill, Leide", p.
53, Cod. 188, Ahmed el-Maqrizi (f845) J^s» ^ 0^-\\ wöÜ»
Autographe de Vauteur.

The biography of Ahmed ibn Hanbal in Abü Nu\'aim is
found pp. 138161 and in al-Subki pp. 132143. I have
made most extensive use of the former of these two, as
being the most dctailed and circumstantial account of my
subject\'s lifc. 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 surc to be a portion of his Mokaffa, and is
a good piece of biographical writing, well-arranged, concise
in expression, and covcring fully the life and relations of
Ahmed. Considered as a literary production, it is a better
account than that of Abü Nu\'aim, because of its compact-
ness and system; but, for one who is gathering materials to
compose a sketch having itself a similar purpose to Makrizi\'s,
as might be expected, the more diffuse narrative of Abü Nu\'aim,
with its accumulation of traditional accounts bearing on many
minor points in Ahmed\'s career, has much more to offer.

As is pointcd out in a footnote Tabari\'s Annales have
been followctl for the letters of the Khalif al-Ma\'mim. The
same source, also, has affordcd some useful information
touching matters of more public interest during the progress
of the Mihna.

My endeavor has been to use the matcrials gathercd from
these and othcr sources in such a way as to make many
witnesses contribute cach something complcmentary to the
testimony of his fellows, and yet have the whole convey
the impression of a continuous narration.

To my grcatly estecmed Professor, Doctor M. J. De Gocje,
Professor of Arabic in the Univcrsity of Leiden, I am in-
debtcd 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 uscd in the preparation of the work.

Leiden, Fcby 4U1, 1897.

A1IMED IBNHANBAL and THE MIIINA.

,Uiiu;i\'s Ahmcd ibn Hanbal was bom in the month of
Birth and Rabi^c the first, 164 A. H. \'). The home of his parents
Family Co»- _vvas in Khorasan ^!). His father Mohammed ibn Han-
bal was onc of the descendants of a captain in the
Abbaside army in Khorasan which fought to overthrow the
Omayyads ³). The family left Khorasan to takc up residence
in Baghdad, howevcr, and Ahmcd was bom 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, Tshak
ibn Hanbal\') and a son of this man, Hanbal ibn Tshak ibn
Hanbal °), any mention of a relative of his father\'s or his
own generation. His lincage was of pure Arabic stock⁷)
from the family of Shaiban of the great tribe of Bckr ibn
Wa\'il. Ahmcd is rarely called \'ibn Mohammed\', the name

1) Ibn Chall. N°. 19, Dhahabi, Liber Class. 8, N". 18, Abu\'l-Mahasin

3) Abü Nu\'aim, Leiden Ms. 311a, 1500, o|)-S 4^ol ^ a^-jl q^j

4) Ibn Chall. N°. 19, Dhahabi, Liber Class. 8, N*. 18, Al-Nawawi, Biog.
Dicty. p. Ift

5) Abu\'1-Mah. I, 771.

6) Abu³l-Mah. II, 76; cf. p. 26, 1. 5 infra.

7) Al-Makrizi, Leiden Ms, 1917, p. I, ^ (_y*^S! JS Vj*^ CT* *^°\'j

of his paternal grandfather taking the place of that of his
fathcr, 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 rcsponsibility for Ahmed\'s care and training
devolved upon his mother, whose name and history wc do
not know \').

years of We are without any details of his early years
siuJy and and know merciy that hc continued to reside in
Teachers. Baghdid until the year 179 A. H. In this year, when
fiftecn years of age, hc began the study of the Tradition *).
He first went to the lecture-room of Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak,
who came to Baghdad for the last time in 179 A. H. He
was too late in going, howcver, as Ibn al-Mubarak had left
the city to takc part in an expedition to Tarsus ³). Malik ibn
\'Anas, too, died in the very year in which Ahmcd began to
study; and the latter used to say that hc had been deprived
of Malik ibn \'Anas and Hammad ibn Zaid, but that God
had givcn him in thcir place Sofyan ibn ^cUyaina and \'Isma\'il
ibn ^cUlayya ⁴). His first teacher was Hushaim ibn Hashir al-

1) That Ahmed\'s fathcr did not die bcforc his boy was born will appear

from the following: Abü Nu^caim, p. 138^, v)"-*^" rri A*-^ *j-i^ ^AJj

.ï-jl <_^jj\' *"^ J*\' o^ L^\' & ** **Ü* ***" OY^ *3

2) Dhahabl, Lib. Class. 8, N°. 18.

3) Abü NVaim, 138 a, ,_£-*} iü-JI 8i\\3> £ *Xi ti) L*i\' ^1 q|(j

Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak d. 181 A. H., al-Nawawi Biog. Dicty f*1o.

4) Al-Makrlzi, p. 2, fL% «xUto-1 ₍*X_e ^y-i-c v_i*»Jj i^Jó. ^
e**>JL Ifcj lASi \'fU» ,-Ji ^1 XimSl jy iZ_} JJU ₀^ è&»

«II! Jd»[» üUU jO\'ls ^ ₀IXs SJU_S !$***,} *«ü LU u-f)

Sulami, to whom he went in the year 179. With Hushaim
he studied in this ycar and, then, to receive more particular
instructions in difficult traditions, he continucd to study with
him thrce years longer and part of a fourth year up to the
time of Hushaim\'s dcath, which occurrcd in the year 183
A. H. From Hushaim\'s dictation he wrotc the ^Ji <_.■Ui\',
containing about 1000 traditions, a part of the j*-~iï, the

tUaï and somc minor writings. He is said to have learned
from this teacher in all more than thrce thousand traditions ^!).
Kor the study of tradition he visited Küfa and Hasra, Mccca,
Medina, Yemen, Syria and Mcsopotamia \') and among the
other teachers under whom he studied were Sofyan ibn
^cUyaina (f 198), \'Ibrahim ibn Sa^cd (f 183), Yahya ibn Sa^cid
al-Kattan (f198), Waki^c (f196), Ibn \'Ulayya (f 193), Ibn
Mahdi (f 198), Abd al-Razzak (f 211), Jarir ibn Abd al-
Hamid (t 188), al-Walid ibn Muslim (f 194), ^cAli ibn Hisham
ibn al-Barid, Mu^ctamar ibn Sulciman (f 187), Ghundar (f 193),
Bishr ibn al-Mufaddal (f 186), Ziyad al-l?aka⁵i, Yahya ibn
Abü Za\'ida (f 182), Abü Yüsuf the Kadi (f 182), Ibn Numair
(f234), Yazid ibn Harün (f 206), al-Hasan ibn Müsa. al-
\'Ashyab (f 209), \'Ishak ibn Rahawaih (f238), ^cAli ibn al-
Madini (f234), and Yahya ibn Ma\'in (f233)³).

1) Abü NVaim, 139 o, ^e ^^-^5 j ,jl JS [^Jlo JuiaiSI ^jl JS]

J-LaaJI} j±mJü]\\ lP»J; ii-oA=- v_&.\'l u* ^->\'-J «ü >-hzS kkc IXjJS

Jtfl Jï v£*j^\\s» i_i^\' \'iS^iS rjy^ 0^ <3* LUk*B l*^j

2) On the subject of travelling about to acquirc a knowlcdge of traditions
cf. Goldziher, Moh. Studiën II, p. 176.

3) Cf. al-Nawawi Biog. Dict. If t f.; al-Subki, p. 133; Dhahabl, Lib. Class.
8, N°. 18. Dhahabi adds Bahr ibn ^JAsad. Abu 1-Mah. I, 638, makes Kubaisa

He studied with al-Shafi\'i the Fikh and the \'Usül al-
Fikh \'). Wc do not know much of the history of Ahmcd
until the year 218 A. H. is reached. In that ycar the Mihna
was begun by the Khalif al-Ma\'mün and Ahmed comes at
once into prominence. He must have been studying with
Abü Yüsuf the Kadi bcforc 182 A.H. when Abü Yüsuf died.
His personal intercoursc with al-Shafi^ci bcgan in 195 A. H.,
when the lattcr came to Baghdad, and lasted till 197 A. H.,
when al-Shafi\'i went to Mecca. Aftcr a break it was renewed
in Mecca, and after that, probably, for a brief space of time
in Baghdad, when al-Shafi^ei returned there for a month in
198 A. H. before finally taking his departure from ^cIrak\').
We know that Ahmcd was in Baghdad in this year. Wakf
ibn al-Jarrah he knew very intimately bcforc his death in
197 A. H. Ahmed had such familiarity with this man\'s tra-
ditions that hc gave his son liberty to takc any of Waki^c\'s
books that he plcascd, and told him that, if hc would givc
him any tradition whatcver from it, he would give him the
³Isnad for it, or, if hc would givc him the \'Isnad, hc would
givc him the tradition. Wakf had his tradition from Sofyan
from Salama, but Ahmed secms to have been able to add
to his own tcacher\'s knowledge in respect to the traditions
of Salama ³). With Sofyan ibn \'Uyaina he studied in Mecca

ibn ^cOkba one of Ahmed\'s teachers; I, 681, Khalaf ibn Misham al-Bazzar;
L 715, \'Isma\'il ibn ³Ibrahini ibn Histam; I. 734, kutaiba ibn Said ibn Jamil.
lly Shahrastani Waki* and Vazid ibn Hdrün are classed as Shyites, Ilaarbr.
Trans. 1. 218.

1) al-Makrizi, p. 2, aJisJt »-«.,r Ai>\'. \\-o, <-*i.~~l\' fWi\\i t*-^-^!.

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

3) al-Subki, p. 132, JUaxJ! u>ól^ UI fcfi f)³ A*x~ .jj £*£XJS $)

iUJ t\\s>li »ji lA*s vjUSI J>_e v_»%s Jw*i=» _l~i Afl uu i_jyaij

bcforc 198 A. H., in vvhich year Sofyan died. Wc have no
mcans of fixing the exact date when hc studicd with Sofyan.
It was, no doubt, on the occasion ofa pilgrimage, for Ahmed
performed the Hajj five times in all \'). It was also during
the residence of al-Shafi\'i in Mecca, in all likelihood, for
we have it recorded that \'Ishak ibn Rahawaih on two occas-
ions disputed there with al-Shafi^ci during Ahmed"s residence
thcre, and it would seem also in his presence ²).

The following incident is characteristic of the man. Whilc
in Mecca, Ahmcd\'s clothes and cfifects 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 askeel for nothing more.
Still, owing to the torn state of his clothes, he was forced

cjTp *-V* \'-*3 J**»i IiWj \'^ ^JL» Jjiió ^^ts?. Ui f*j Jï IJ»/
jLjL» q* èJü ,J^> UiA=> c^-i\' J*%J Wj \\jS .<«.u. ^j J»%=
i\\=»LJ "i ^S_s Jjiui LXJ\', \\ÓS JUL» [^] JaiLSUè .A?^-! Jjjjij J

vi>JLiij iu.Ls- ü\'u> ,_5>^> Uj3 J;-j |JLJ Jï |nft -w~ c>jO^> i

^£l?" ü^-* ef*"^-"*¹\' o\' «s*** o\'\' £^5 -r**-f er «**£ >->\'*-*\'

tfLji-l JL-=>- Jj*»\'}\\_i ^aXZ, q|j oli-.\'jlli slU=»t ,_£<-»■ (marg. .\'iUttl)

1) al-Xawawi Biog. Dict., p. Iff, 1. 16.

2) al-Subki, pp. 157, 158, ^j U$*3, ^jL#U.l_s ^.jóLAJI ^fcj SjkLrf

«iV!3 **-. uü ^«sLiJ! e>X~i......U;«»j (^j-»-l S-kLu

to remain away for sevcral days from the iecturc-room, until
the anxicty of his fellow-studcnts led them to seck 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

I) Abü Nu\'aim, 143 a , Jï A?\' l*J Ji¹ _lölA_=» [»*JÜ 5.J JS]
OJUi Uü Jï sJais~ y, [J~i» ^1 AT\' ^j-J *1H Juc J-e Jut\\
ja i&4 J^l ^p q^j ïcU». ^j j<j JjIj j/Xi ;.%*£ U*s ₀^_} l_;l>>
,.^1 ^.1 vi>JUa ji j.iLc bij Jjdl ₅A3> j «lil A*c _jjl UJLe Jjj
_jÏAj qKj jwAi-l o<-^s rf-^Lo J»->i *-i\'ó mA:>Is J^>J! lA_ff
J:>0 ie*\' *J v^JLai ils? *£**\'» «_clX« Jif^ i£v>A_*. \'-Uti.j
j ₍__?ol »J >üJB _!>Wi v^-Jl» Lo JUü ii\\.iUi \'ySj-oJ öV~" «i^^
Aj"l ^ £,U*L» L3A>- (142 <i) Lsuê s-^ ^ ju, Lcj ji\' ^LliSI

ijs_a> ,»jü UU Jo£ ia» o^/"\'\' JUB bUs" l**J\' ->!» /-=>■ LiJ

&&é.j I_:_S\' jö liUj v"-*^ w»*^ *J tiJLfij J~»i> ^-j-J A*=>l Jas>

V ^ 4\' J-V^ ry> A*i-I \'JAüsJ aa**e ^_J ^Ui*» Aie _tr.»..üLc

j y> L^i y jül jIaJI jw_»t LaJ JUö ju* JUó *JI Ui=» >
Lis» 0"°^^" *\'^^LC \'"*\'\' **^ -^>.j-^>,* v-i-\'i ***\' "*-h^ o>4tJ\' tiV__L>

«j v^JUü 3-J isJy> Ja Jjl Au tilj ^ i)-A-i> U jJJI A-j-r Lb
JjtJU ^1 Jtls iÜUo ^^JLS. £,lj Usji A_s> vi>vÜ ^LJ -óliJ « <

Jlïj »Aj>1j ^1 Jilj IjUp v^»^.i-b j»ju J15 »_r^>lj i *_»i£i\' v^Jüis
._tuajJL _L5Ajy₅ >_a,«o,ó -jjft} »il Itjli ^kaoj «Jiiislj L_^ Jl Jiill
idx» lAjs i _>r**Xs ^jj vitZsZ ^A»sa W^iu i/^> J5j />"$!

pilgrimages Yahya ibn Ma^cin accompanicd Ahmed \'), and they
made up thcir minds tliat, aftcr the complction of the pilgrimage,
they would go to San^ca in Yemcn and study Tradition with Abd
al-Razzak. On arriving at Mecca they met with the teacher,
who had, Iikc thcmselves, come to perform the Hajj. Yahya
ibn Ma\'in introduccd Ahmed to him, and, after making known
thcir wish to study with him, an appointment was made by Ibn
Maln in accordancc with which they should receive his instruc-
tions in Mecca instead of going to San^ca. Ibn Ma\'ïn told Ahmed
of this and the lattcr asked him why he had made such an
arrangement. His rcply was that it would save a month\'s
journey cach way and all the expenses of the trip. Ahmed,
howcver, declarcd that he could not allow such considera-
tions to overcomc his pious resolutions, and, in the end,
they did go to San^ca and reccivcd there the traditions. He
suffercd great hardships on the way thither, for, though
offered money sufficiënt to enable him to travel in compar-
ative comfort, he refused to take it and hired himself to
one of the camel drivers of a caravan going to the place.
At San^ca, 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 wherc trading was difficult and to gain his
livelihood would be impossiblc. 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^cid ibn al-Musayyib from Abü
Huraira. Ahmed was fortunate in having studicd with Abd
al-Razzak before the year 200 A. H, for his reputation as
a sound traditionist was impaired aftcr that date. It is in
keeping with Alimcd\'s character that he should, as we are
informed, have put into practicc evcry tradition which he

i) Abu\'1-Feda, Annalcs , Reiske cd, II. 186.

learncd from Abd al-Razzak, even to onc in which the
Prophct is represented as giving to Abü Taiba, a surgeon, a
dinar for cupping him. Following this example Ahmed, too,
asked to be cuppcd and gave the surgeon a dinar \').

I) al-MaVrizi, p. 7, ^ _lS^^s?. L;*a».\' i \'-*»\', o\'^S\\s- l\\_?"I ^->
^♦Jl s|jU»o ^,1 qU*« rfwü eUaïJl _V_x.j Lfi\' Jw£ Usiï^ ^V"
èj LJó i_j|>iiJ\' j »\'A_^_i ijhJI <->> » r ~e v£«jA±L. q\'iA.:>Ij
*J jlas &*~,L »jj«j UjIj «Aii^Ji ^-V^ ^ "-^-ï"\' ü^S "^^ L*»*»-l
»jl JJt sü> JUi J^i=» ^j-j l\\_J"\' ii)j_»l !A_S> yyw .^ _l_fü3?.
^xjaj Atlj ^3 iiUj Jx ilju\' «IJl kX«3 \\j j*J U jf *ic _tójJu-J
oJki»! |^J (jUM ^^ Jk_yl Ja «-ie Ijjail Ub gctJ J^c iN^-iJt

L^AmjI iUi u>o*J lX5₅ ^\'-J »l!l q¹^ L« iXT\' fW Jliü XSAJu\'j j£&
JUÜI jjt &M>} Ljj jlJLc iXi>l₅ _lu**JI \'buo j,t IjSU. ^S JJü Uj
^1 _L<rJ « ,_jCs» a_j ka«.Uc AJij ^1 Lij\'-X^- ^it^ii u JS jüI .X?^-!
va^ ^Us-li l_;LuO .L*Vrfd| iwk Ijl (^c\'; f-?^**-\' *Jtlo aIJI Jj*,,

\\Jjjk> |X*V* ^A*ljct₃. _Abfl fcVaim, ,_4I «, JUiS» ^J A?^-! -;=» U

yüü>- (ja-Jt-J q* ».**aj ijSi Xi&ül »_j ü^oti-aiül öM\' >^ vi\'

^ J-Jb ,JU SU^il aJU Les,* *jL£>t ₀tf AS, *"Ui*o £\'j ₀\' ^1

Jjb ^v\'\\J\' A»c o^-**~ (Ax*a- ^j A.i) J. « 1 .... *-il A>\'

l^**~ JH Usl0 J..;*r> qJ iXS"l UJLc |»A3

dui^J LuÖjl qÜ k_) £&& ,y_l ,\\«jj «iy&J IJ*-? A-i- «II\' A*E

\\&* y^i %i jtj&i li\' iX*>l. Abü Nu-aim, 144 a, t\\*>l !*XS Li
y*u\' iXij b^SUÏ \\_j ci«jK ^\'v-!\' A-kC t\\ic ^ XjC» J^is» ^t

With Ishak ibn Rahawaih, who is called in the Kitab

al-Fihrist (I. 230) a leading Hanbalite, he correspondcd

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 lattcr because

of it both moncy and high position \').

AKmtd\'s When still a youth Ahmed ibn Hanbal was held

Ptriod «J in reverence as an authority on the Tradition,

Teaching. _ancj j_n the asscmblies of the sheikhs was lookcd

up to with great respect *). We do not know when his most

L< jLü ^\'jJi >A*e ^1 iiVi-jj=- ^ iiV^~ü J.c i&JüLZ, i\\«J «IJl iX*c

^_j l\\ax*» ^t <?f"^ *£*#*^i *ft$\' CJ-* "^ ^^ r>H ^^ O^c

UwS\' U [aJJI lXac _^ji ^jt] 3I Jij .... «jBj iijj^ Jjl ^c w<.**»JI
Uls-J lil uJL-\'Jj J^l u-J^* ïl L<y& aaü=>- ^ v^y A*c ^_c

Jij [«W ou£ ^! ^i] £\\ j*i ^jCüAs- U 1 jj> \'S ^J JUs j^aJI j.1

[lof &i.« oL*] Ij*jw (Ji\'sJI i-V^ \\j^fi [*W ^^c >?\'] J>\'

i\\*c q^ t**» ^ J^j «Ui u\\*c Jiii jyij i,^; Js «_i£ ytXX,! o^
U-JOi <3\' a-U 5**"J v_ft**ö &tL**»i yy^ll\' iA*j jIJI

1) al-NawawJ Biog. Dict. Iff f. cf. al-Subki, p. 156, i-«-=>-lö- JoiOi
^j ^^aS^ JUS, »«* ₀\' |>-Cj vW-Ij i)-=-j *1 JU» [ Lk o-J¹ i¹]

J»i-iXJ iÜOl Jij *JU Jj i_5**V (jJ («*** J^ j**^\' vi\' (^A^M

2) Abü NiTaim, 144*, Jkiü t\\**=- r^J J>-** o** *» yai _^j\' JS
vX*s-l, ₀jj_*!j\\Jü viojJl ujL^\'j J>IJ«*j fc_*J>) v>lSUw j ₀tf

aJI ^UjO q, JkJI rtWI &jl \'iSl v_iU óuJtfé

active pcriod of teaching and litcrary work occurrcd, but
he was establishcd as the greatest traditionist of his time
when al-Ma\'mün introduccd the Mihna, and continued to
teach until shortly after al-Wathik camc to the Khalifate
when hc was foreed to give up teaching. He may have
resumed teaching for a ycar or so after al-Mutawakkil camc
to power, but in 237 A. H. when he went to the camp hc
took an oath nevcr to teil a tradition in lts intcgrity as long
as he livcd, a vow which he appears to have kept\').

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 hc had memorized ²). The names which
have come down to us are the following: JJbcl *Jj£ - wUS"

₀U> vLtf - 5C?yi"SI _,U* - JJUil ^US - JJuaiJI _v\\JiS -

Jou4l UuS-Jywjjl KslL v-ur-xl*^ J* Jy ^ur-iiUUii vjUT ³).
The Musnad. Of one book, his great work, the Musnad, wc
have more dcfinitc particulars. It comprised the tcstimonies of
more than 700 Companions of the Prophct, and was sclected
and compiled from 700,000 traditions (or according to anothcr
account from 750,000) and contained 30,000 (in some ac-
counts 40,000) traditions. Ahmcd boasted that whatevcr was
in it was a reliable basis for argument, and that what was
not contained in it was not to be regardcd as a sound
basis. Hc lookcd 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 bcginning.

2) al-Xawawl, Biog. Dict IfV,

3) Kitab al-Fihrist I, flfl.

4) al-Subkl, p. 133, 1. 20, \'ij»V\\ 8kX3> Jya\' u* J-ol *>j sAi*»uc _v_iil_i.

hammedan theological circlcs, and has been uscd as a basis
of many smaller works and as a source of information by
many authors. lts immense size and the vcry inconvenient
method of its arrangement have, however, donc a great deal
to prevent its becoming much more uscd tlian it actually
has been. In fact, it has been rarcly mastcred by any onc
individual, and perhaps as rarely transcribed by onc person.
Hcncc it is that, whercas there are a numbcr of partial
copics of the work, only onc complete manuscript is known
to-day \').

The Musnad as compiled by Ahmcd ibn Hanbal is no
longcr extant²), nor does it secm to have survivcd bis own
agc; for Abü Abd al-Rahman Abdallah Ahmcd\'s son, who
cdited, with somc additions of his own, the work of his

ii>Jl^ JUs .... XSVS jjw^J ^1, &xj ^ ^Ij «.Jt tjjtS-jli |»«JUa «1)1

£=»j f*U> «lil Jywj ^ jd* j. JJ.USI vJdUr»! Ijl LUI yi^\' &*
,c^y »j\' J6 liovAs- j_ftjl uUtu< _i^% iXi-«ll J;! j> Loajl JÖ5 \\;JI
CJ*^³ O* Oi^J ^ii^J *SA*s »A*c c^*J ^^*c ^Sl .j#U ,ij tf-J^-"
l\\*c ^1 8l>LuJj _J"j J fciiLI j [Cod. has these porats. Rcad ^ytb^?l
[jj]j«JI Jutjjt ^1 oJL, JÈ U^JLc «IJl Us-j L\\*ï*t _fWI gjl «UI
liuiXS iiA> L*J Lyi l\\.**»II & *-Lc _y>l ,5 Jliü Jj\' ^jjl
Jjl f-J-i JUoJtl vitoj\'is»\' JtA.c Uls ^«j< _^_jl Ja «Jtf\'j-ï o^*5|jII

^^yai^ ^1 ,_^c otjS _al ^t UJI qjXJ^I Lp! (J.UJI «J^Ü ^ £*~t

j ^ >5 tjjUtl q^I JB JS w**k^ ^u _^l ÜT JS iMJUg Om,j

k*~ iu^) lXJ"I Jo\'iSI ^1 «JJI cX*c ₁_jju (O* »ujI ^_e ^jj¹ \'luiX!\'

aJI UjI ^jyi-cj v_iJI XjU _^ j^mSaJIj UJI wf$~> ^i Ai~4l
The sum 40000 for the traditions is that given in the Kitab al-Fihrist I,

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

2) üuldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 473.

fathcr aftcr his dcath \'), speaks of what hc heard from his
fathcr, what hc rcad to his father from his own copy of
the original page, and what he had gathcred from books
and papers bclonging to his fathcr, as being cmbodicd in
the cdition which hc had madeⁱ). In somc cases hc says
that hc \'thinks\' he had a tradition from his fathcr in such
and such a form, in such and such a manner of communi-
cation, or undcr such and such a hcading. These cvidences
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 reviscd form given it by the
editorial labours of Abdallah ibn Ahmcd. It is mentioned,
furthcr, that an edition of the Musnad with certain supplc-
mentary traditions by the cditor was made by Abü \'Omar
Mohammed ibn Abd al-Wahid (f 345). A commentary in
eighty sections making together ten volumes was prepared
by Abu ³1-Hasan ibn Abd al-Hadi al-Sindi (f 1139); an epi-
tome callcd al-Durr al-Muntacad min Musnad Ahmcd was
compiled by Zain ad-Din \'Omar ibn Ahmcd al-Shamma al-
Halabi³) and, finally, an cdition of the Musnad ordcred
alphabctically according to the names of the Companions of
the Prophct from whom the traditions takc thcir origin was
made by the Jerusalcm scholar Abu liekr Mohammed ibn
Abdallah al-Makdisi: k_jjj»- ^ J-**> ^ ^7^ Ai« T**jy
i^sijitl⁴). A printcd cdition of the work, based chicfly on a
manuscript in the Library of the Sadat Wafa\'iya at Cairo
was issued in [S96^s).

The great work according to the boast of Ahmcd himself
was intended to be cncyclopacdic in its aim, as far as tra-
ditions rclatcd to the Sunna of the Prophct were concerned.
It apparcntly 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.

the author\'s judgment could possibly contributc to a com-
plete notion of what the Sunna was. All the reliable mater-
ials coming clown from the Companions werc mcant to be
included within the book. Hence, only the vcry broadest
tests were applied to the traditions which werc accepted by
the author. The main criterion was that the Isnad must bc
sound; that is, no man whose reputation for truthfulness or
religious charactcr was decmed unsatisfactory could be allowed
to validate a tradition \'). The test of conflict with clear teaching
of the Prophet elsewhere found was also applied, but not with
the most thorough consistency *); and, finally, the duplicate
traditions were excluded, tliough here, also, Ahmed\'s practice
was not uniform ^s). 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, historica! incidents and biographical anecdotes⁴).
Furthermore, we cannot find the same order which is ob-
servcd in the great collections of al-Bokhari and Muslim.
Their material was much less in quantity than Ahmed ibn
Hanbal\'s and much narrowcr in its scope. They had a pur-
pose much more special in view, which permitted of a real
system being observed. Uut Ahmed\'s aim was simply to
store up genuine traditions and nothing more⁵).

In such a collection, too, as that found in the Musnad
any onc acquainted with the genesis of Mohammedan tra-
dition can understand that there would appcar 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 aftcr his time,
and as lending his countenance to views whose later origin

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

2) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 4S0; v. note 4, p. 19.

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

4) Goldziher, Z. I). M. G., L, 474.

5) v. notc 4, p. 19.

is clearly known; opposite opinions and parties alike find

thcir support in distinct traditions of the Musnad \'). It might
seem that there was room to question the honesty of the
author who would thus leave all kinds of discrepancies in his
work; but reflection will shewthat 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 whatevcrof misccllancous or con-
tradictory character there appears. It is quite likcly, too,
that the Musnad was a collection brought together during
many ycars, 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 observcd.
He would rcad 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 makc it difficult for him to have in mind
and eyc the whole work at one time, so as to perecive the
mutual harmony or discrepancy of the parts of which it
was composcd. He, thus, might casily admit and with dif-
ficulty correct such inconsistencies as those of which we have
spoken. With his aim, as wc conceivc it, howcver, incon-
sistencics made vcry littlc differencc. He was but collecting
sound traditions, and not supporting particular opinions or
movements. It was not his idea to constitutc himself a har-
monist. Dishonesty in connection with any of the contents
of the Musnad lies propcrly with other and earlier author-
itics than Ahmed. Wc have no record of his having been
chargcd with fabricating traditions during his lifetime ⁵). His
great fault was the uncritical aim and method. Kven in the
Isnads, where hc was supposcd to bc an excellent critic,

1) Goldzihcr, Z. D. M. G., L, 478, 489 f.

2) During the trial bcfure al-Mu tasim it was not objected that any of his
traditional arguments were unsound. Whcn he was chargcd with plagiarizing
a tradition (which hc had not tlicrc citcd), hc was angry and took pains to put
his adversaries to confusion. Cf. a passage in the long Arabic notc in Chapter II.

hc appcars to have been rathcr libcral. Thcrc are found
lists of authoritics with anonymous individuals even as the
first sources of the traditions citcd; a few names are given
credit, also, who do not stand as reputablc authoritics in
the opinion of many thcologians. In the cases of most of
the lattcr Ahmcd, however, makes a special note to the
effect that he sees no reason to refuse the traditions furnishcd
by them. And, lastly, he favours at times the Kussas, who,
while not altogether discountenanced as authorities, werc
not held in great repute \').

Abdallah, Ahmed\'s son, did his part as cditor with great
conscicntiousncss, noting carcfully his own additions to the
materials gathcred by his father, and inserting corrections
and glosses with explicit statement of his own authorship of
them, The traditions which hc added to the Musnad appcar
to have been aftcrwards brought together by him in a se-
parate book which borc the title _i^j i\\*>l ±>}\\ JiimJt lVjLj
lX*UI «lil Jc^e »A.y J.~i»-. In some cases where Abdallah
had hcard a tradition found in the Musnad from another
teacher as well as his father, he wrote a note to that effect
when putting in the tradition conccrncd *).

During his lifetime Ahmed read the Musnad to his sons
Salih and Abdallah and to his uncle Ishak ibn Hanbal, and
they alonc formed the favoured circle who hcard the com-
plete work from the lips of its author ³).

As may be inferrcd from what has been alrcady said,

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

and Gloss. Fragm. Hist. Ar. (J&9> The Kussas having as storytellers no vcry
serious aim were naturally enough in disercdit with scrious traditionists, hut
it may well have been that such men actually furnishcd some sound tradi-
tions. According to the critical method then in voguc, the soundness of such
traditions would depend upon their contents to some extent, bat more upon
the Isnads.

2) Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., L, 501 ff. Abdallah is said to have made ad-
ditions, likewise, to his father\'s tX^jJI ^-juj,

3) v. note 4, p. 19.

the great work of Ahmcd is not arrangcd witli any rcference
whatever to the subjects of the traditions it includes. Such
an arrangement is found rathcr in that kind of traclition-
collections called Musannafs, a class of works which properly
belongs to a later dcvelopment of Arabic literature than
these Musnads. The lattcr class, of which Ahmed\'s book is
representative, is ordered according to the earliest authoritics
or first sources of the traditions citcd, and according to
the localitics 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 predilcction or bias of the
original authorities or of the localitics made rcsponsible for
the traditions. This feature, which is almost inevitablc 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-Makdisï to bring
a more convenient order into the book of Ahmcd ibn Hanbal.
It does not diminish the awkwardness of his work, eithcr,
that the traditions of the same primitivc authority should
bc found, somc in a section classified according to the Dames
of the men, and others in onc or more sections classi-
fied according to the places in which the materials wcre
gathered \').

The order of the Musnad of Ahmed ibn Hanbal, as found
in the recently published Cairo cdition, is as follows;
Vol. I, pp. 2195, Traditions of ten Companions of the

Prophet, including the first four Khalifs.
Vol. I, pp. 195199, Four other Companions (principle of

separate classification not given).
Vol. I, pp. 199206, The Ahlu ⁵1-Bait.

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

Vol. I, p. 206 to the end, Vol. II and Vol. III to p. 400,

The well-known Companions.
Vol. III, pp. 400503, Traditions of Meccans.
Vol. IV, pp. 288, Traditions of Mcdinans.
Vol. IV, pp. 88239, Traditions of Syrians.
Vol. IV, pp. 239419, Traditions of Küfans.
Vol. IV, p. 419Vol. V, p. 113, Traditions of Hasrans.
Vol. V, p. 113Vol. VI, p. 29, The Ansar.
Vol. VI, pp. 29467, The Women. (In pp. 383403ofthis

section are put in some traditions JuLaJI iXiwi q.) i).

It should be carefully borne in mind that each one of the
sections enumcrated, 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.

Atmtd\'s Puplts. We have the names of some of those who hcard
the Tradition from him, among whom were his teachers Abd
al-Razzak, Ibn Mahdi and Yazid ibn Harün. Other pupils were
Abu\'l-Walid, ^cAli ibn al-Madini, al-Hokhari, Muslim, Abü
Daüd, al-Dhuhli, Abü Zur^ca al-Razi, Abü Zur\'a al-Dimashki,
Ibrahim al-Harbi, Abü Bekr Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Hani
al-T;Vi al-Athram, al-Baghawi, Obaidallah ibn Mohammed Abu
³1-Kasim (his last pupil jf-i-l³), Ibn Abi Dunya, Mohammed
ibn Ishak al-Saghani, Abü Hatim al-Razi, Ahmed ibn Abi
\'1-Hawarf, Müsa ibn Harün, Hanbal ibn Ishak, Othman ibn
Sa\'id al-Darimi, Hajjaj ibn al-Sha^cir, Abd al-Malik ibn Abd
al-Hamid al-Maimün, Haki ibn Makhlad al-Andalusi, Ya^cküb
ibn Shaiba, Duhaim al-Shaml and his own sons Abdallah
and Salih ⁴). His method of teaching was to read the tra-

1) GoldzUwr, Z. I). M. G., L, 470.

2) Goldzihcr, Z. I). M. G., I., 472. On the Musnad cf-, also, Goldziher,
Moh. Studiën II, 228, 230, 266, 270.

3) Dhahabi, Libcr Class. 8, N°. 18.

4) al-Nawawi, Biog. Dict. tft^, The name tXjLs^ in al-Nawawi\'s list should
bc (ALi^U; v. de Jong\'s cd. of Dhahabi\'s Muschtabih 74, Kamüs, and Abu^Jl-

ditions from a book rathcr than rccitc thcm \'). Ho is not
known to have taught in any othcr vvay except in the case
of about onc hundred traditions ^J). He adopted this method
notwithstanding the fact that he had everything committed
to memory and was gencrally regarded as being almost the
first hafiz of his time. On onc occasion when he was deüv-
ering the tradition to some of his pupils, after they had
learned it by hcart, and vvcre preparing to write it, Ahmed
exclaimed, \'the book is the best hafiz\' and with that he
started up and brought a book \'). His wish probably was to
vcrify his memoriter recitation.

Ahmed does not appcar to have taken money from his

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

writing materials etc. which he furnished ⁴).

Relations For al-Shafi^cï hc always entertained the most

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

SM/ri. _nonc j_n i,j_s _t]_ay carricd an ink-bottle or touched a

pen but thcre was resting upon him an obligation to al-

Shafi^ci ⁵). For thirty years he dcclared he had never prayed

a prayer without offcring in it a petition for his friend, and

on his son\'s asking him what kind of a man al-Shafi^ci was

that hc should pray for him so rcgularly, he replied that

al-Shafi^ci was like the sun to the world and like good health

to mankind"). Al-Shafi^ci, too, scems to have had a great

Mahasin II. Wa. j-^L&JI (**s»0 I have addcd from al-Subki, p. 133, 1.
18, cf. Dhahabi Libcr Class. 8, N°. 69.

1) al-Nawawi, Biog. Dict. W.

2) Abü Nu^caim, 139 a, U (J-**i> rj-i l\\*^-I ^~J M iX-tt) Jyb

viioAs- ïSU rj* JjIj \'bil »_jUS\' _*ê ry, ci>*X> sih&s- j ^ owjl,



		4\'

		MysthsanJ Ahmcd ibn Hanbal had a predilection in favor Asatks. of mystics and ascctics, but toward one of these, Al-llörith al-HArith ibn Asad al-Muhasibi, he conceived a al-Muhasiiu. _st_rong antipathy because this man was said to use rcasoning in thcological matters. The reconciliation betwecn

		ïi=»jjt J>c «UI tz_} juaal W, oUL=» »JUil ^t JJI ^y U ,1 ^JJiJI ASc _Oio q, _GUUIj L^SJI y9 ₀L;>I ₀I usf=j JÜI X#»$CI J iÜliXJI Jl^Ji j_a ₀U:>I i ^ftLa Aas jUXcüJt _>J> ^JO\' ...........Ij*i UwL> LUi" «_j\'IjLel j wlüjl >_S_jA*3J

		»«Juo «UI j_~, JL-S-i..................... jiXüJIjj j-=-^I wtill) i~,j »~!-i-Jj «J^SiL-«5 UIj cr-j\' o\' oW.^-^\' xjUS\' j Ai^wlj »jij vi-uAs- Jijt lAj vi^iAi. »-ij <-r~> df M J.»ï ^ ^jL_»_!4l i\\J Ju«l q_j iXJ? J5 »_/>^Lj\' «Jie ^óJj xJlï jj ijiXHwkJ oLe q* \'Lio <j J&* «j \|_f Lu₅ xfjf I_jU_ï »-Jt »*=-) oW."^\' ■ O^-1-}} ""^ ^ï^-" \'\'""■\' **\' ^ ^^ \' ü\'"^"" «Ai\' ,X_aJLi5 j-a-S\' ,.> ,» i\'; ai,5 -^j «i&iL-«j «UIj xJi o^_,a\' xj-jj l^s «11\' Jks er ok* W r¹"\' o? ^^ «J* ^^-^ N^* a repetition Ko «JÜJ J£ ^-KXiuJ KaaA <ji ^£L^J er» cj^ ^ Or. ^°5 qL-^I «Jü ij >3)J} 8)A« »J -£-J; a*k> »J ,viJ [of preceding matter &Jl~j^ «ij iU\\j^L-4j «DL «JIS q,! »--il (Codex Aa=V3J_S) &*^j jLJlj XiSj i-jU.iij v3oi>JIj q^Ij a^ij Sja»- W jAïlLj j-\'il rr^\'s \'öLs aJiï Jj «UI «iJö ^lXj! .yJI ,j, ttUó j eUJ A\' yoij k3K je» q\' iXfij AJAj .5. ^JLiL¹ U ,jV U 15AA34 «jLJ wS-Jji «»1.S q^¹



		5«

		measure of God, to know him as he rcally is, and to dis- tingnish between him and his creation, because of the weak- ncss of thcir views, the deficiency of thcir understandings, and thcir turning aside from reflection and recollection; for they put on an cquality God and the Koran which he has re- vealed. They are all agreed and stand unequivocally in ac- cord with onc anothcr that it is cternal and primitive, and that God did not create it, produce it, or give it bcing; 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 belicvers, \'We have made it a Koran in the Arabic tongue\'¹), and everything which God has made he has created. He says, also, \'Praisc bc to God who created the heavens and the earth and made the darkness and the light\'\'). He spcaks also thus, \'Wc will teil thee tidings of that which went bcfore\'³); he says hcre that it is an account of things aftcr whose happening he produced it, and with it he followcd up thcir lead. Then he says, Jl, \'A book whosc verses were wcll-ordered, and, then, were divided by order of a Wisc and Knowing One\'⁴). Now, for everything that is ordered and divided there is onc who orders and divides; and God is the onc who orders well his Book and the onc who divides it, there- fore, he is its creator and producer. They, also, are thosc who dispute with false arguments, and call men to adopt thcir view. Furthcr, they claim to bc followcrs of the Sunna, while in cvery chaptcr of God\'s Book is an account, which may be rcad therein, that gives the lic to thcir position, de- clarcs thcir invitation [to adopt their opinions] to be false, and thrusts back upon them thcir view and their religious pretentions. But they give out, in spitc of that, that they are the pcoplc of the truth and the [real] religion and the communion of belicvers, all others being the pcoplc of falsc- hood, unbelief and schism; and they boast themsclvcs of

		2) Koran, 6. I. 4) Koran, II. I.
		l) Koran, 43. 2. 3) Koran, 20. 99.



		\'7²

		event was Friday, the twelfth of Rabi^c I, 241 A. H., his age being a few days, or it may bc hours, more or less than seventy-seven ycars. His Funtral. There was the most wonderful scenc of grief all over the city of Haghddd, and even in distant places, when the news of his death bccame known. The secne at the funeral, on the afternoon of the day of his death, was one such as must have been scldom witnessed anywherc. The estimates of the number of thosc who attended are vcry discrepant. Sonic say 600,000 wcre present on the spot where the prayers wcre held over him; others say 2,500,000, and other figures fall betwecn these two \'). It is said that there wcre 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 ühahabi thought such figures to be absurd and that ten converts would bc nearer the truth. The Emir Ibn Tahir wishcd to furnish the burial suit of Ahmed but Salih rcfused to accept it, as he knew that his father when living would have been unwilling to accept any gift from the Emir. The filia.1 respect of Salih for his dcad father\'s wishes in regard to receiving gifts or attentions from persons of state now took very dc- cided form. It was only by main force that his friends with- held him from displacing Ibn Ttihir in the official conduct of the prayers at the funeral ^!). Indeed, it was not known by the pcoplc that Ibn Tahir had prayed over Ahmed, until the day after he was buricd. When thcy knew they flockcd in crowds to his grave in the cemetery of the Bab-I.Iarb ^J); so much so, that one man who attended the funeral, de- clared that it was a weck bcfore he was able to come near the tomb. His own family and the Hashimitcs also conducted prayers for him insidc 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. 3) cf. Ibn Chall. N°. 19.
		2) Mac.oudi Vil, 229. 4) Ibn Chall. N°. 19.



		173

		tomb of Ahmcd in the cemetcry of the Bab-Harb was known far and wide and was much visited \'). At a later time, the raised work of the tomb was destroycd and the grave made level with the surface of the ground because of the unduc reverence which was being shewn to it ). His Biog-* Among thosc who are said to have writtcn of raphers. _tne Manakib of Ahmcd are Abu\'l-Hasan ibn al- Munadi³), the Hafiz al-Manda ), al-Baihaki \'-), Abü Isma\'il al-Ansari, the Fakih Abü ^cAli ibn al-Banna, commentator of al-Khurki, the Hafiz Ibn Nasir, the Hafiz Abu\'l-Faraj ibn al-Jauzi^G), Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi and al-Hasan ibn Mohammed al-Khallal⁷)^s).

		IV. His Family. The immediate descendants of Ahmcd ibn Han- bal⁹), except his two sons Salih and Abdallah, both ofwhom

		i) Ibn Chall. N°. 19; vid. also al-Nawawt, p. 146. 2) Goldzihei-, Moh. Stud. I, 257. 3) al-Fihrist I, 38 f.; Dhahabï Tabakat II, N°. 55. 4) Dhahabi, Tabakat 13, N°. 29. 5) Ibn Chall. N°. 27; Dhahabï Tabaljat 14, N°. 13. 6) In his book JoAjüjI^ .jSUt, Chapter on the Manakib of Ahmed ibn Hanbal. v. al-Nawawl Biog. Uict. 143; cf. on Ibn al-Jauzï, Goldzihei, Moh. Stud. II, 186 and note 2. 7) Dhahabi, Tabakat 13, N°. 68. The others I have not been able to tracé in the authorities at command. 8) al-Makrizi, p. 18, ^.«it-üjlj NÏÜ-« \'&±>i\\* ^ i_E_^s- Ji¹ Juij <>/ ^b> & _& ^ ♦«, Ufzfi &* g/il J.1 JaiUi, j-flÜ ^1 yyu^! (JU» S _{J»_} fjtfiy JlUi J^ ₀J _a^, 9) al-Makrizl, p. 2, jj^ J.^aJI ^j\| &X_<!ü\'j pJLo f^fi tSiJ* UI,



		\'75

		Tradition and the arguments for it. The special distinction which he enjoyed, however, was that of being the greatcst authority on the traditions of his father. It is related of him that, when hc was on his death-bcd, he asked to bc buried in the quarter called commonly al-Harbiya [or SU^ÏulI the quartcr of the city or the plot of ground in which his house stood?]. Those present asked him if hc would not rather be buried with his father in the cemetery at the Bab-Harb, but he said he preferrcd to be under the protection of a prophet whom hc knew by trustworthy reports to have been buried in al-Harbiya to being under the protection of his father. I Ie dicd at the agc of 77 in the year 290 A. H. \') By a con- cubinc named Hisn Ahmcd had a third son, who was namcd Sa^cid and who became in time Kadi of Küfa. By the samc mother hc had, further, two sons Mohammed and al-Hasan and a daughter Zainab , and, likewise, by the samc mother, twin sons al-Hasan and al-Husain, who died soon aftcr their birth. Finally, he had another daughter whose name was Fatima. ■) This is all that is known of his family. Tatimonia A few evidenecs of the cstecm in which Ahmcd ofEsiccm. was held will assist us to place him in the posi- tion which hc really occupicd in the estimation of his own and of following generations. His pupil Abü Zur^ca said he had ncver met with any one in whom learning (Jlc), selfdenial, knowlcdge of the law and gencral knowlcdge (Süjm) wcre so combincd as in his master³). This is one opinion out of a host of similar ones, all of which are ex-

		1) Ibn Chall. N°. 19 says/S¹¹\' day remaining of Jumada I, some say Jumada II\'. 2) cf. Abü Nu\'aim, 153/\', \'u&i Li! v^ f$ fJio* J-aaSI jA Jlï jvJLjo b JLai i_il_»JI j jdl SJü\' il *Ls\\i «j-Lö L_TjjLj i\' t
		&		I JU wiAJls J^ Jjg ijm&JS q\'j\' U _JiJl The Umin \'Alt hcre rcforrcd


		to may bc the Zainab or Fatima namcd abovc. 3) Abü Nu^;aim, 139a, kXS? ^ iX»-\' ^ A^ ^£j ^jl ljj__s>l



		2 We have rcferred above to the issues of the Mihna, as the persecution inaugurated by al-Ma\'mün is called. The importance of them lies in the fact that they settlcd the orthodox charactcr of Islam for all following ages; and in the preservation of orthodoxy lies the preservation of Islam itself, in our judgment. Had Rationalism succeeded in bring- ing about by persecution a gcneral 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 susceptiblc to modifying and reforming in- fluences from without; so that, in time, we should have seen standards of faith and lifc, which contravene our rcason as the Koran and Tradition do, givcn 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 bc 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 scarch for truth. The abusc of free-thinking, howcver, in a lovc of speculation for speculation\'s sake, and in an inordinate desire of controversial victory is, in the history of this period, abundantly cxemplified. Ahmcd ibn Hanbal during his whole carcer subsequent to the death of the Imam al-Shafi^ci(204 A. H.) was the most remark- able figure in the camp of Mohammedan orthodoxy, and during the course of the Mihna did more than any other individual to strengthen the resistance of his party to the repressive efforts of the Khalifs and thcir officers. He stood for the standing or falling of orthodoxy in its time of trial; and thcre is little exaggeration in the statement, made more than oncc concerning him, that \'all men were looking to him for an example, that as he decidcd on the test as to the Koran bcing applicd to him, so they might follow\'. Wc have some interesting circumstantial evidence of



		8 from thrcc manuscripts in the Library of the University of Leiden; i) Cod. 311a, which, with its companion Cod. 31 \\b, represents the 5* and 4"¹ vols, respcctively, of a five vol- urne Ms. of the \'US^S¹ i-L=- or .tjjSI Ji=> of Abü Nu^caim Ahmed ibn Abdallah al-Tspahani (d. 450). 2) Cod. 73 a, which was not in the University collcction of Mss. at the time that Dozy preparcd his Catalogue, and is, thereforc, not described. lts companion volume, Cod. 73 b Gol., is howevcr described. The two volumes form together one transcript of the work of Taju\'d-Din Abdu\'l-Wahhab ibnu\'I- Subki (d. 771), cntitled iLyólijl oliuk: 3) Cod. 1917, which is likewise not described in the University Catalogue, but will be found in the Catalogue of Landberg, "Catalogue de Manuscrits arabes provcnant d\'une riibliothèque privée a el- Mcdina et appartcnant a la Maison E. J. Brill, Leide", p. 53, Cod. 188, Ahmed el-Maqrizi (f845) J^s» ^ 0^-\\* wöÜ» Autographe de Vauteur. The biography of Ahmed ibn Hanbal in Abü Nu\'aim is found pp. 138161 and in al-Subki pp. 132143. I have made most extensive use of the former of these two, as being the most dctailed and circumstantial account of my subject\'s lifc. 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 surc to be a portion of his Mokaffa, and is a good piece of biographical writing, well-arranged, concise in expression, and covcring fully the life and relations of Ahmed. Considered as a literary production, it is a better account than that of Abü Nu\'aim, because of its compact- ness and system; but, for one who is gathering materials to compose a sketch having itself a similar purpose to Makrizi\'s, as might be expected, the more diffuse narrative of Abü Nu\'aim, with its accumulation of traditional accounts bearing on many minor points in Ahmed\'s career, has much more to offer.



		A1IMED IBNHANBAL and THE MIIINA. i. ,Uiiu;i\'s Ahmcd ibn Hanbal was bom in the month of Birth and Rabi^c the first, 164 A. H. \'). The home of his parents Family Co»- _vvas in Khorasan ^!). His father Mohammed ibn Han- bal was onc of the descendants of a captain in the Abbaside army in Khorasan which fought to overthrow the Omayyads ³). The family left Khorasan to takc up residence in Baghdad, howevcr, and Ahmcd was bom 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, Tshak ibn Hanbal\') and a son of this man, Hanbal ibn Tshak ibn Hanbal °), any mention of a relative of his father\'s or his own generation. His lincage was of pure Arabic stock⁷) from the family of Shaiban of the great tribe of Bckr ibn Wa\'il. Ahmcd is rarely called \'ibn Mohammed\', the name

		1) Ibn Chall. N°. 19, Dhahabi, Liber Class. 8, N". 18, Abu\'l-Mahasin I, 735 T- 2) JacClt II, 777. 3) Abü Nu\'aim, Leiden Ms. 311a, 1500, o\|)-S 4^ol ^ a^-jl q^j 4) Ibn Chall. N°. 19, Dhahabi, Liber Class. 8, N. 18, Al-Nawawi, Biog. Dicty. p. Ift 5) Abu\'1-Mah. I, 771. 6) Abu³l-Mah. II, 76; cf. p. 26, 1. 5 infra. 7) Al-Makrizi, Leiden Ms, 1917, p. I, ^ (_y^S! JS Vj^ CT *^°\'j



		\'3

		He studied with al-Shafi\'i the Fikh and the \'Usül al- Fikh \'). Wc do not know much of the history of Ahmcd until the year 218 A. H. is reached. In that ycar the Mihna was begun by the Khalif al-Ma\'mün and Ahmed comes at once into prominence. He must have been studying with Abü Yüsuf the Kadi bcforc 182 A.H. when Abü Yüsuf died. His personal intercoursc with al-Shafi^ci bcgan in 195 A. H., when the lattcr came to Baghdad, and lasted till 197 A. H., when al-Shafi\'i went to Mecca. Aftcr a break it was renewed in Mecca, and after that, probably, for a brief space of time in Baghdad, when al-Shafi^ei returned there for a month in 198 A. H. before finally taking his departure from ^cIrak\'). We know that Ahmcd was in Baghdad in this year. Wakf ibn al-Jarrah he knew very intimately bcforc his death in 197 A. H. Ahmed had such familiarity with this man\'s tra- ditions that hc gave his son liberty to takc any of Waki^c\'s books that he plcascd, and told him that, if hc would givc him any tradition whatcver from it, he would give him the ³Isnad for it, or, if hc would givc him the \'Isnad, hc would givc him the tradition. Wakf had his tradition from Sofyan from Salama, but Ahmed secms to have been able to add to his own tcacher\'s knowledge in respect to the traditions of Salama ³). With Sofyan ibn \'Uyaina he studied in Mecca

		ibn ^cOkba one of Ahmed\'s teachers; I, 681, Khalaf ibn Misham al-Bazzar; L 715, \'Isma\'il ibn ³Ibrahini ibn Histam; I. 734, kutaiba ibn Said ibn Jamil. lly Shahrastani Waki* and Vazid ibn Hdrün are classed as Shyites, Ilaarbr. Trans. 1. 218. 1) al-Makrizi, p. 2, aJisJt »-«.,r Ai>\'. \\-o, <-i.~~l\' fWi\\i* t-^-^!. 2) De Gocje, Z. D. M. G. XLVII, p. 115; Ibn Chall. N°. 569. 3) al-Subki, p. 132, JUaxJ! u>ól^ UI fcfi* f)³ Ax~ .jj ££XJS $) iUJ t\\s>li »ji lAs vjUSI J>_e v_»%s Jwi=» _l~i Afl uu i_jyaij



		*\'7* learncd from Abd al-Razzak, even to onc in which the Prophct is represented as giving to Abü Taiba, a surgeon, a dinar for cupping him. Following this example Ahmed, too, asked to be cuppcd and gave the surgeon a dinar \'). I) al-MaVrizi, p. 7, ^ _lS^^s?. L;a».\' i \'-»\', o\'^S\\s- l\\_?"I ^-> ^♦Jl s\|jU»o ^,1 qU« rfwü eUaïJl _V_x.j Lfi\' Jw£ Usiï^ ^V" èj LJó i_j\|>iiJ\' j »\'A_^_i ijhJI <->> » r ~e v£«jA±L. q\'iA.:>Ij J jlas &~,L »jj«j UjIj «Aii^Ji ^-V^ ^ "-^-ï"\' ü^S "^^ L»»-l »jl JJt sü> JUi J^i=» ^j-j l\\_J"\' ii)j_»l !A_S> yyw .^ _l_fü3?.* ^xjaj Atlj ^3 iiUj Jx ilju\' «IJl kX«3 \\j jJ U jf ic _tójJu-J oJki»! \|^J (jUM ^^ Jk_yl Ja «-ie Ijjail Ub gctJ J^c iN^-iJt L^AmjI iUi u>oJ lX5₅ ^\'-J »l!l q¹^ L« iXT\' fW Jliü XSAJu\'j j£& JUÜI jjt &M>}* Ljj jlJLc iXi>l₅ _lu*JI \'buo j,t IjSU. ^S JJü Uj ^1 _L<rJ « ,_jCs» a_j ka«.Uc AJij ^1 Lij\'-X^- ^it^ii* u JS jüI .X?^-! va^ ^Us-li l_;LuO .LVrfd\| iwk Ijl (^c\'; f-?^-\' Jtlo aIJI Jj,, \\Jjjk>* \|XV ^Aljct₃. _Abfl fcVaim, ,_4I «, JUiS» ^J A?^-! -;=» U yüü>- (ja-Jt-J q ».*aj ijSi* Xi&ül »_j ü^oti-aiül öM\' >^ vi\' ^ J-Jb ,JU SU^il aJU Les,* jL£>t ₀tf AS, "Uio £\'j ₀\' ^1* Jjb ^v\'\\J\' A»c o^-~ (Axa- ^j A.i) J. « 1 .... -il A>\' l^*~ JH Usl0 J..;r> qJ iXS"l UJLc \|»A3 dui^J LuÖjl qÜ k_) £&& ,y_l ,\\«jj «iy&J IJ-? A-i- «II\' AE** \\& y^i %i jtj&i* li\' iX>l. Abü Nu-aim, 144 a, t\\>l !XS Li yu\' iXij b^SUÏ \\_j ci«jK ^\'v-!\' A-kC t\\ic ^ XjC» J^is» ^t



		\'9

		active pcriod of teaching and litcrary work occurrcd, but he was establishcd as the greatest traditionist of his time when al-Ma\'mün introduccd the Mihna, and continued to teach until shortly after al-Wathik camc to the Khalifate when hc was foreed to give up teaching. He may have resumed teaching for a ycar or so after al-Mutawakkil camc to power, but in 237 A. H. when he went to the camp hc took an oath nevcr to teil a tradition in lts intcgrity as long as he livcd, a vow which he appears to have kept\'). 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 hc had memorized ²). The names which have come down to us are the following: JJbcl Jj£ - wUS" ₀U> vLtf - 5C?yi"SI _,U - JJUil ^US - JJuaiJI _v\\JiS - Jou4l UuS-Jywjjl KslL v-ur-xl^ J Jy ^ur-iiUUii vjUT ³). The Musnad. Of one book, his great work, the Musnad, wc have more dcfinitc particulars. It comprised the tcstimonies of more than 700 Companions of the Prophct, and was sclected and compiled from 700,000 traditions (or according to anothcr account from 750,000) and contained 30,000 (in some ac- counts 40,000) traditions. Ahmcd boasted that whatevcr was in it was a reliable basis for argument, and that what was not contained in it was not to be regardcd as a sound basis. Hc lookcd 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 bcginning. 2) al-Xawawl, Biog. Dict IfV, 3) Kitab al-Fihrist I, flfl. 4) al-Subkl, p. 133, 1. 20, \'ij»V\\ 8kX3> Jya\' u* J-ol >j sAi»uc _v_iil_i.



		20

		Vol. I, p. 206 to the end, Vol. II and Vol. III to p. 400, The well-known Companions. Vol. III, pp. 400503, Traditions of Meccans. Vol. IV, pp. 288, Traditions of Mcdinans. Vol. IV, pp. 88239, Traditions of Syrians. Vol. IV, pp. 239419, Traditions of Küfans. Vol. IV, p. 419Vol. V, p. 113, Traditions of Hasrans. Vol. V, p. 113Vol. VI, p. 29, The Ansar. Vol. VI, pp. 29467, The Women. (In pp. 383403ofthis section are put in some traditions JuLaJI iXiwi q.) i). It should be carefully borne in mind that each one of the sections enumcrated, 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. Atmtd\'s Puplts. We have the names of some of those who hcard the Tradition from him, among whom were his teachers Abd al-Razzak, Ibn Mahdi and Yazid ibn Harün. Other pupils were Abu\'l-Walid, ^cAli ibn al-Madini, al-Hokhari, Muslim, Abü Daüd, al-Dhuhli, Abü Zur^ca al-Razi, Abü Zur\'a al-Dimashki, Ibrahim al-Harbi, Abü Bekr Ahmed ibn Mohammed ibn Hani al-T;Vi al-Athram, al-Baghawi, Obaidallah ibn Mohammed Abu ³1-Kasim (his last pupil jf-i-l³), Ibn Abi Dunya, Mohammed ibn Ishak al-Saghani, Abü Hatim al-Razi, Ahmed ibn Abi \'1-Hawarf, Müsa ibn Harün, Hanbal ibn Ishak, Othman ibn Sa\'id al-Darimi, Hajjaj ibn al-Sha^cir, Abd al-Malik ibn Abd al-Hamid al-Maimün, Haki ibn Makhlad al-Andalusi, Ya^cküb ibn Shaiba, Duhaim al-Shaml and his own sons Abdallah and Salih ⁴). His method of teaching was to read the tra-

		1) GoldzUwr, Z. I). M. G., L, 470. 2) Goldzihcr, Z. I). M. G., I., 472. On the Musnad cf-, also, Goldziher, Moh. Studiën II, 228, 230, 266, 270. 3) Dhahabi, Libcr Class. 8, N°. 18. 4) al-Nawawi, Biog. Dict. tft^, The name tXjLs^ in al-Nawawi\'s list should bc (ALi^U; v. de Jong\'s cd. of Dhahabi\'s Muschtabih 74, Kamüs, and Abu^Jl-



		28

		respect and affection for Ahmed. He is said to have dcclared, \'O Abü Abdallah, whenever a tradition from the Messenger of God is sound in your judgment, teil it to us that wc may conform to it\'. Ahmed is reportcd as saying that al-Shafil told him that he (Ahmed) was more learncd in the sound traditions than himself, and that his (al-Shafi^ci\'s) desire was to know from him what he regarded as sound that hc might adopt it. Ahmed\'s son Abdallah declared that, wherever al- Shafi\'i says in his book \'a trustworthy person told me that\', or \'a trustworthy person related that to me\', hc refers to his fathcr. Abdallah said, furthcr, that the book which al-Shafi^ci com- posed in Baghdad was more correct than the book which he composed in Egypt, bccause, when he was in Baghdad, hc asked Ahmed and the latter suggested corrections to him, but when he was in Egypt and was inclined to adopt a weak tradition there was no one to correct him \'). Al-Shafi^ci Bjtff, X-ï-~ (j^JUy \'L^i¹ i li^Jt-J\' aU3l JS, fjJU V Jii^U) i) Abü Nu\'aim, 140/\', A£ \\i> « jiü A:>\' ^y ^l^J,,* Lo^-lX> ^] qU^JL-. UjAs» h-JI £f>jj i^-¹ H ISjj^ »JIa3 «XJI ,J, Jij Jjb 3I c>-*» JkÏJ JU»J ^ «UI 0* c* cjmu~ JB [A>! ₀\'^ Ijli Ux _sL^=wJI jL.i.% ,acl o^il ^iUJI j^l _a? JwsS ^iiX»- ,\\üü juUJ\' j ^jjLiJI _j ei>Aü- U *= J-H \'-V-^E JS ó«=> .si\' a\'ó. .«3j \\ais i^^xJ\' i-jLïJ}I ^ JlXcI ^p oLvij &ii*3



		«9

		went to Egypt in the year 198, stayed probably two or three months and then returncel to Mccca, whence he took his final journey to Egypt in the end of 199 or the begin- ning of 200. In \'Irak he composed the Hook of the Hajj. His first visit to Baghdad was in the year 195; he left thcre for Mccca in 197 and returned for a month to Baghdad in 198\'). Al-Shafi^ci said, \'I left Baghdad and did not leave behind in it any one greater as a fakih, or onc more pious, sclf-denying, or learned than Ahmcd\'²). Othcr Al-Haitham ibn Jamil, one of Ahmcd\'s teachers Contem- in Baghdad, thought highly of his pupil\'s authority. foiancs. Q_n _onc _occasj_on (je was told that Ahmcd ibn Hanba! 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 Ahmcd ibn Hanbal\'s life\' ³). It is worthy of notc Yazïd ihn that Ahmcd gave apparently unreserved credit to H&rün. Yazid ibn Harün as a traditionist. At one time Müsa ibn Hizam al-Tirmidhi was on his way to Abii Suleiman al-Jüzajani to ask him some question about the books of Mohammed ibn al-Hasan «hen Ahmcd met him and enquired whither he was going. On lcarning his object, Ahmcd remarked k>Xb _ob ^0 ,aj j^j Jtj julc _-k«» ^.iJl JL»o U^L. ^ 1) De Goeje, Z. D. M. G. XLVII. 115; Ibn Chall. N°. 569. 2) al-Subki, p. 132, 1. 9, \\a5>y> liU.s- a\'j,, L»a3 ₁jjiLiJI &_o jij\' lX4"I ,j,* (Jlcl \'bij iAjl \\ ijjl % wisl Ljj o^> U, oUju y, cf. Ibn Chall. N°. 19. 3) Abü NVaim, 141 «, -yiS> ^ vij>XS J>>- qJ \|» »&{■!! dxV> J«as» ^ l\\>I yf-* j ^tjj ^^c q, j«3iii aó¹ o^j jij\' J^is»



		30

		that it was a very strangc thing that Ibn Hizam should be rcady to accept the tcstimony of thrcc persons leading up to Abü Hanifa, and yet refusc that of three authoritics form- ing a chain of tradition to the Prophct. Ibn Hizam did not grasp Ahmed\'s meaning and asked for an explanation. Ahmed answering said, "You will not receive the Isnad \'Yazid ibn Harün 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\'küb from Abü Hanifa". Müsa adds that he was so im- pressed by the force of what Ahmed said that hc engaged a boat at once and went to Wasit to receive the Tradition from Yazid ibn Harün \'). When Ahmed himself went to study with Yazid, on the other hand, Yazid ibn Sa\'id al- Kattan enquircd for him, and, on learning where he had gonc, cxclaimed, \'What necd has he of Yazid?\' This was interpretcd to mean that Ahmed was more fit to be the teacher than the scholar of Yazid ibn Harün ²). 1) Abü Nu\'aim, 144 />, /A^-Xj (j^A^oJü! \|»\'j-> ry~i ic*y° uyël) ■~ii i [Cod. ib-j^J^JI] j,L>ijij! ₀LJ.» J;¹ A\' _ali>l c^JLi\' i.1 & JLïs _»4^ lXae ^^=- tf iX>\' ^LSaUs j-ji»- rf <Xt^* ^ *S\'_;3 £** w>..p\\jt i\\ s»l & JLas ₀l Ju« ^j! i\' «^ia ^j-il L>L> oui\' oUii ^ⁱ> ijj\' i\' XibLS J^ (»M!s wüi\' Jt)uo iff*JI i_yüu ^t ^»i>- qJ iX^ U3 Jjij Il\\j \|»«1o «X!l jy. Jls J8 «V^¹⁵ l^ >* & Ji>» p\|p o-J l^ $ \'*> tf-¹ O" 2) Abü Nu^caim, 140 tf, \\^jS \\ 9 1 t$^ CUUm (adii iX.;.r) jls i}l»i Ja «Jj ,1,1 oo-jS» Ji qUiüJI >Xuu» ^j_j .y^ST. J>-c L aS<« jitaj ^(j" ls\' J^" Ja»!} i\' «.> yLaJ ,^-c iXou» ^^_j ,_y*^:



		AHMED IBN HANBAL AND THE M I H N A.



		TO MY WIFE.



		3\'

		\'Ali ibn ^cAli ibn al-Madïni not only shewed great respect al-MatilmSox Ahmed, but reccived it, likewise, from him. It is said that when \'Ali came to Baghdad he took a leading place among the traditionists, and at such times as men like Ahmed and Yahya ibn Ma^cin and Khalaf and al-Mu^caiti wcre in difference of opinion on any point the voice of ^cAli was regardcd as decisive. Ahmed out of respect ncver called ^cAli by his proper name, but ahvays by his kunya Abu \'1- Hasan \'). While Ahmed was regarded as the best fakih of his time, Ibn al-Madini was said to have superior knowledgc of the different views held as to traditions ^!), and to bc the most learned of the doctors of his day, as Yahya ibn Maln was the one who wrote the most, and Abü liekr ibn Abü Shaiba was the greatest hafiz \'). Yabya Urn Of Yahya ibn Ma\'in Ahmed said, that the hearing Mtftn. of Tradition from Yahya was hcaling for troubled brcasts. He said, also, that Yahya ibn Ma^cin was a man whom God created for the express purposc of exposing the lies of liars; and any tradition which Yahya did not know was no tradition. VVhen 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 writtcn more traditions than any of his contemporaries ⁴).

		1) al-Nawawi, Biog. Dict. fff, cf. Goldziher Moh. Stud. I. 267. 2) al-Subkl, p. 185, 1. 1, Jlï J-c p\' f""^"\' ^tX^:>\' -^ (jr^ J^5 3) al-Nawawl, Biog. Dict. 4) \\X\\; the word oU-> should probal)ly bc read ^t-J^^>\' 1 J^ars 1 (^s6- V^) ^v\'^t** ^^c Goejc, Gloss. Bibl. Gcog.



		32

		Al-Htuain One of the contemporarics of Ahmed ibn Hanbal ibn AH al- was al-Husain ibn \'Ali ibn Yazid Abü ^cAli al-Ka- KarHbhi. j-jbisi (-j- 245 A. H.) This man was wcll known both as a fakili and as a traditionist. At first, he was a disciplc of the Ra\'y school, but, later, inclined to the views of al- Shan^ci, bccamc a student of his teachings and received author- ization \') to tcach what hc had learned. The Khatib al- Baghdadi tells that he was much discstccmcd (lit. was very rare) as a traditionist bccause hc had acquired a bad name with Ahmcd ibn Hanbal. This was owing to his strong leaning toward dialcctical thcology LbUtl JU)²), in general, and, more particularly, to his application of dialectics in order to come to his conclusions touching the Koran. He was a professcd belicver in the unercated existence of the Koran, but could not satisfy Ahmcd ibn Hanbal by his profession of this doctrine, and much less by his uttcranecs on the symbolic expression of the Koran in articulate human sounds (qUM Jii!) \'). Hc appcars to have trifled somewhat in his treatment of subjects that were to minds such as that of Ahmcd in the highest degree sacred and serious. For cxamplc, 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, bccause the process by which it had been reached was that of rcasoning and not that of submission to traditional authority. Ahmcd\'s judgment on him was made known to al-Karabisi, who changed his decla- ration of faith and professcd that the Lafz al-Koran was uncreated as well as the Koran itself. Naturally enough,

		i) 8JL>I cf. Goldziher, Moh. Stud. II. 189. 2) For origin and usc of the term vid. Houtsma, De Strijd over het Dogma, 87 f.; cf. Shahrastant, Ilaarbr. transl\'n II. 388 f. 3) The Lafz al-Koran is used here with reference to the enunciatïon of the Koran in human speaking; in the following paragraph wc have taken it to have a widcr scope.



		33

		this pleascd Ahmed no bctter and he vigorously declarcd 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 \').

		I) al-Subkt, p. 172, qK _{J.»tJjSÏÏ* J* _jj\' Ajjj ^ J.C yl ij^jmM. J-l wju« ,^-c ij M>* wï-jA^Lj «Ui¹ yyj LwL> ^b- LUI ......................^LÜJ jJüj\' J (^"Üt i^xs u ^j-^yj\' (jy»> vi J> tiL}^\' ^jIj v5S)........ Lij i^fi\' dXlc lysl q\' i ^óti «! ^üJLas tó/siXï oltXiu ^l ^LïJl yuJiil JS 8)L>I lX»U iiU U>>j>l Aöj j,UfijJI wUi" lL=- JSj JLXXj ytf J-=- ^ iXs>-l qI liUjj lA=- -: ^y-^ljül ii>jA»- y^JLSUl A.i-\' j. JÜCïj ₀2 Uu¹ ^-P; JïaDI ;\\L~^ ^~J \'-- q, ^--^-l\'yjl J* yi ₀I/ ^Jê ,_~~J! IJ^J J^i_£ Jó^il (J.UI & jytJÜI ^-sJ fU^I w*iiü j-jI JUS etfUil j v¹-^ «Jj &üaJ[» iüjjw £ ÜV^^¹ iij--* O^Ull j «oUS\' J>_e j,t_it juli vjLS\' ^^«-ijjai j~s wi ^ji ^üs y^i jj>i ^u., _5;vJ wüw vJ^iï Ui JJuJI j) JÜ8 ^^ j-^c U ^ JS ₀!,aJI jJjBL, !~j i\\>t ^1 J»JL»JI _LJ-ö₍i ^vLï\' »J ii)Jia! J\'iSs Q^üfy ^^ii* j <>=>\' jjl liJUe i^Ailj ïxAj sA.0 JLs.9 ^^a- U J _-Ü J^.» ia»»] S\'* JjL\'¹ \\L««* ^,_c ijLii- Al iLxAj ^A? J-yb .Uil )U3. qLÖ XcAj pbUil \|Jlc ^ &ij H j t^l U¹!^} ^sif i#i U «il «UI «^ Jw>4 _a^j "3, l^j\'s J"^\' --\' r^¹ o o^jOJI ^ i-VkS\'j ^y^-wLsUI tX»l ^jj lijlii} ^.Liuit ^ LjÜ« JJü As tfe-J. ^1 JJUJI «j>_; «Aj »A* Js Li jkj-l ₀I Jjü_a üU5 i 3



		34

		Al-riokhari. Wc have interesting cvidencc of the doctrinal sympathy between al-Hokhari and Ahmed ibn Hanbal. A jcalous rival of al-Hokhari in Nisabür chargcd the lattcr with hcresy on the point of the Lafz al-Koriin, and the imputation was taken up by many. Hut it is clear tliat al-Bokhari\'s silence on the question , from reluctance to bc drawn into any reasoning on a point for which therc was so littlc cvidencc pro or con in Tradition, was the only ground for suspecting his orthodoxy. Ilis belief, as wcll as that of Ahmed ibn Hanbal, was that the Koran itself was not created, but the Lafz al-Koran, by which hc understood the human acts of writing, Qyoai- iOUU tifi iAJ^-\' ^ o\'jó ^^^ ;?■* o\';^ AWS ! Jij» U Jx dUju IJkJj xcJu Uajl »AP JS, «£J3 Lail JkJ-l jJÜÖ LJ\'j Jjal S \|»^\' ee¹ **4 ■"-* V% jLil Uil iX5»l ₀I ^ aJ^iü pbLÜI ^\\x ««i^aJI Jjüis Jyü iXj-ï»! Jï Ujj es-J-¹" U sL& ^t Uajl «jJJiXi U^j ÏUU £:>lr> J^Utl jjjl ciAj Ji U U, üUII jj o\' \'ja; ⁸V o\' ^5J,iX£\' c^ " ^-^ <S r^¹ o ■>* ^** 4ibL<\\j iA=l Jjy _Lj^- SÜL&i Q->s"i JlSs «--s A»-! ..\'bLi\' Aij ^ jüif Uyj Jü KjUS. »A»j ^jJl^ ₀I^J\'j (^jAiJ JUj -i<j iu^-yj\' j, Jw=-i juüi iu=j-ï j ,^^-J\' ll^^s uyj_a kjluü. U oJ-»\'j\' \'j\'s uSUó j !»KiJ ^1 ^£jl L»jlj Ljillisj. J ₈Jüij Uj JaiJJI &JLi»v< ,jl &i=U Ji\' ^ £>} j£- & \\jJ^n& Jj» 4r^s «lip" ouLaii ₅₁>j> j ^lVj y j-=-Ji o\' ^/ (*■ ^ ^\' £>> ^ jfJuis y«Jj ₀\|>** ^ ^e> ó ^ ajUpIj j» jü"! iXS, Jjüj U



		35

		rcading, reciting and all othcr acts conncctcd with the usc or preservation of the revclation, was creatcd \'). i) al-Subki, p. 214, II JAJJI LJ Ja\' jjL> ^j lXajé" ^j _a~J- Ja **>^j>jd ui KxfJh*** rfJUaJi J>=»y \'A* i\' 1^-J\' j>yL~J i»,lAJI ju JjwJi u^l^ i JJLêi jf& JL2-* JU* gU«JI ^c !»M\|s !\' U^\'* jLel»=>- J, J\'ó (_=Ae ^ iA?"l ^j\' Ja «ui fJ&s* ^^ AJ jAa~jJ ».-l s ]yuJi>\|j ,yU»AJ 0^5 Li J~otfl ^j_j iA^¹ ,jl iuLül q» J^>. »-JI Ja ₀-U)l a> Lis ijj-LaS-^\'i ^J^ o\'j"\'^ "^"\' Jl .1 O^Jbs? ^é J _y-2 _ïjU? ₀UHj JialJI i Jjii\' u «Ut J^c U, JUb &_k_!l c^sa-\'b oU ^3 «Ue lPj^Is JI^>»JI v>Uj jus?. >Jj iULc osjcb HrjL? oUJI JUJl, öy^L^\' r-- "\' r^ o!r^JLjl ^Jss u^^¹ i_ol&3 J«i_!l uajlü LcA..: ^jLa^w«^tj Ui\' «IJl A** ^ J>c Ui\'As- ïijJli=Ua oUJI J\'msl Lo! Jyb Ju»,--¹(^uil JS JS ïAjJo- ^ j^ ^j-c üU/> _^1 Ui Jü_sLxi ^ ₀\\y *lXajcam .^ aJUI vU: _c^,~» aJJUOj tiltó J£ <r >-m dXll .^ .xlo** ^_,LsuJI Ja\' Aa^s? oUxJI JUs! ₀I _oyy>J LijUPI £«J «>Jj U Jjüj j vauill _>UI ₀j_BJ Ui JÜjL? (fcülxi\'j ^Uv^lj jJU^ol, jtffp. U^jJ xUI ^bLT _A_j_a «jjaüJI j yJB^tl vyaCV ^k~il v_>Lail ₍JUJI ty\'j\' ^jJi jjt\\a j oUj oL>( _j Jo J.Uj .UI JS oSjI^Uj ₀^ül Csi) %* o!/" o^* ^JUL^ % ^ \'o~> o^ ^JU;!** ^-s j>j_j «ïtyüi, vj^J! r^-⁵" o\'^¹ o^ ^Si,y^jJI ^oL^\' i¹ v"^ \'■■"\'s SUaj »£j Ui" ,Jit au «UI «I j c -io J _l\\>^i u~*Jj JujüI Id/Jl ,1 _,JUii J g^LsJt, Jol, ^ ju Ui-UJlj, LiUilj ₀iyüt ₀t



		36

		Mohammed Another of Ahmed\'s companions, whosc highest ibnAslam. compliment was that he resembled the great Imam, was Mohammed ibn Aslam Abü Husain al-Kindi al-Tüsi JSj £>y ilxJI i-s_s Ófj\'lüJI J-«-s SjbLxJl _Dl «] ^Jü* ü£₃yül $ ₀I <>U jb> wJuï" J «>ias (^"j aü\' i5?j Ut ^£.7. >_ai\' ₀\' _jWj BjbbJI ^-,j üjj ^ Ijl liLoj L>_& .\\j -yi> ^ Ua£ adul 3 J»j\' Ot-J. (ji-tc\'il A.» j_j\' Jïj i_j^_=» iJUs o-^! -^ \' vs^^""" Js ^:> ^ Ia* J^ ji\' Ui (Jl-Jt ji. eïj¹^-¹ *» ^.s J^\'s ^ UJI \\yjS* (juli Uj\|\| bLs mJb^ il ^aU^. j, SI J..PAJI .,i s^-JUs "^-rJiJ\' ^SL.i »aJu .-is >Ua£)j .kaltl J. ».)..X.j \\_j\' otjJu v¹ o\'/^ ur^ J* O* "-\' ^ *\\fSU~i* ijij ^ J* L5;^^J\' > * 05^ ü\'/^ ^ o\' rtJ er- t^W\' l?^. o* ^^ ^J^ U\'j _j^ Aai ^0^ ₀lyÜI ₀t ^j j^,, (J^j ^, u-JLsr. ^ gA~« uj" j^ü» ^ a-t\' >y u «ui juc (jxjij jjjxij. ^ a.^ ^y Ojj ^ lA_0 j uJOjii ^-e ^^jiJI ^ L^^u\'iil iU=»J\' j slL«AS **a£ Cfc-? CT> r;^ ^ o\' 1"^\' "^ O¹ L5j^^\' ^^ i^-O ,_j-o» u ^-r--; f.\'.fo" >\'j Kiaki Ai Aas jA_s ₀-ydA3=0 JJU i ya^Jl ^ jjfjl iüfSI ^ 1^4, A4"li ^ JJ* U\', &JI g.L^»-\'^ Ai* «B j J^: Jji? ÜAic ,Jf,L#UJI _r^j _fbUit [dittography Ai] Aic c^»jlj V^\'i -l-¹^\' Ai* pOJft ^ »^UJIj ^* U^as _■^s\'\\ _c-^i- ^l¹ olslj> cOj jVJJ jii JuU> _Lfe-^)l Ae ^jfts\'l, Xi«JI Ai ^Ij qj-J\'As\' Sül C!?^ CT¹-^\' UV\'-¹\'\' °l !}*



		37

		(f242 A. II.). This man was an earnest opponent of the Jahmi and Murji \') sects, of the former becausc thcy professed that «Uo q, )iii«J «U\' Jjj ^Ij (JljJI j A-J. _(J__V3£ ^jj J^sf* <J Jis l\\5j Ji\' vi^=» ajLX» _\|V.!ir ^x qIjI, ,_5.lJI i_S^ Juüj ö^ _oyCli _l#fcJ eUys >j l^ali- Aj (j.L-ÜI _Dl oUÜ- 5-/= _^l (jrV\'jl U~Vs JjJfWi J^\' CT \|>\'; O ^ Jj^S\' I* -k=\' jr^ Wi j,t ïÜjAi\'j :\\.\\_i. «yajlj iüyljlj o\'Aiij ^li\\0j (_=J\'j [dittography jl«ji oJu i\' « «ui ^ £B viUr h» o^ o!^ l?^ «^ ^1 «UI iXa-C JlJtj >Uuj «Kjl U s^üi" Jytlj ,^Jï iüjLs? oLllil JJU~« i u^3> ÜL» j _rXJÖI ₀tS J^JL* JyÜL, ^JiiJ JJI J JLujl oJLS lc^Cj SjjyöJ ^1 l^^s i>«^ l5* ^ \' ^\' öLio₃ (.^LDI fit * jS\'JcIIj iCL~II biA_2 (jaA/aii\'\' ^y_£ &MJt<« S.X-ei5 _j-j xs^U\' J>L«JI UiUfc Ö^U" UUJl_a UIUJI SUs- ^ UÉ»J _al fUj JJh Jf _alJ l»i\'L»- b\'jj fc= Ka?^ lSj^\' «V.\'jj i3 e?^ \'*4< ^as\' A£J_S «i^ls? Lfcj, JüUC^. As _LsÜi ^j jju^o ^a^v. JLSs ^AiÜI iXTl ,^1 ï^Jls? LdUJl JUü ₀ty»Jl, JaiDI ^ JUö ^UsuJI il fS ^ ₀I J* o^U>\' «é)\'ó3l ^1 _teJ jü\'j j\' jü& ii Ulrfl o» UbUV\| JlSj jji^Ls? ₀l_JiJlj ^yÜÜ [dittography Jis] JB ^iaJ JLJÜ ^Ls^JI gjl _;^l gij ,Ji «^ JJÜ J oj^W 1) Kor the doctrines of Jahm ibn Safwan, the (bunder of the Jahmia sect, v.



		J8

		the Koran was crcatctl, of the lattcr because they held that faith was mere profession without the inward trust and exper- iencc of the heart. The argument which he adopted toward the Jalunia was that of the Koran verses in which God speaks in his own person to Mohammed announcing his Mission, and to Moscs declaring himself to bc his Lord and the Lord of the worlds. In the former case it is implied that if the word of the speaker bc not that of God, Mohammed\'s Mission is called in question. If it bc the word of God, then it is etcrnally potential in him and inseparable from any true conception of him, and, thercforc, it must be uncreatcd. 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 onc Lord is admitted without question, and the professors of such a doctrine are at once convicted of Shirk (ilji); but, supposing God to have really spoken, then wc have again the procecding forth of a word which we must not regard as created with its uttcrance, but rather as an inseparable adjunct of the Divine Knowledgc, for how otherwise could the Divine Knowledgc become efficiënt or communicativc? The sin of the Jahmïa is thcir Shirk; this is the result of the rcasoning, and without reasoning, from the standpoint of the orthodox apologist, they are guilty, as well, of forging a lie against God (^£U*Jl) by declaring that God did not spcak to Moses though the Koran says hc did. Against the Karramiya Murji\'a Ibn Aslam maintaincd the

		Shahrastani Ilaarbrückcr\'s transl\'n I, 89; Iloutsma, De Strijd over het Dogma &C pp. 102, 123 f. On the Murji\'a v. Iloutsma, De Strijd &c. pp. 34 ff., 40: Shahrastanï, Haarbriicker\'s transl\'n I, 156 ff. The Murjite belief as presented in Iloutsma, p. 36, differs from that set forth by Mohammed ibn Aslam, but agrees with the second class of the Karrainite sects (Iloutsma, p. 39) and with the Sifatiya Karramiya (Shahrastani, Ilaarbr. transl\'n I, 119 ff., especially p. 127). Ahmcd ibn Ilanbal, it will be remembered, com- posed two works bcaring the titles, rcspectively, \\«»~~g >~~ ,J£* J.1\' i^jütf and q\'^^1 V^) ^v\'^- P* *9\'



		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 disposcd to bclicvo in God, his angels, his books, his messengers, the resurrection, the day of judgment, the final account, in foreordination to good and evil, in paradisc 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 tcstimony of the lips as, at oncc, 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 tcstimony of the lips has for its subjects the things belicved on by the heart. These it dcclares to bc truc; and, more spccifically, 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 hc 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 cxamplc, it is said by Mohammed ibn Aslam that, should the Murjitc view bc proved correct, then the Prophet and the first Khalifs, who had not spent their wholc lives in the confession of Islam, but who had had truc faith, notwith- standing, might be held inferior to any mcre babbler of the sacred formulas who had been occupied long cnough with his task. Those (also called Murji\'a \') who held that works were the measure and substancc of faith are opposcd, too, and the argument of disparagement to the early worthies is applied herc, likewisc. Mohammed ibn Aslam was a bcliever in the eternal existence of the Divine attributes, but wc have no record

		i) Called cspccially Xa^ï.U\' v. Dc Goeje, Gloss. Bib!. Gcog.



		40 of his mcthod of proving his position in this respect, nor have we any exposition of what it involved \'). i) Abü Nu^caim, 162 a ff, J^c (jaiii!\' j. «c-t^Lï\' Lt_} jp^^AJ Jij ^ «UI «^ ^ iAJj tjló jjlü Ka>_»JI₉ X.»»{^i- ^ y^iljsjj ^U oyu 1^-j^t¹ «jUS" j ÜJ^¹ ja* xJp Lfil «UI oUaJ kxÜI .............«Jyos (j, lj>j ^Lai »wU Cjï j «»f^ Aiij v_Ali» _öyÜI q¹ K»,{.<vJI c^cj JjSj «W «7", ^Ju»l ^ Aj^ il JUö UbLT «I ₀i ^ AS «UI ₀^J _orJUj * ft eUó £ ^J& «U «lij (^p-l -j\' ij Jij i/^^s S^j!* ulM (^-» «fcóiEipl j JUö j.\'bUJI «Jlc Lj-^y» & "\'j l^Ls 1 u\' " \'iflKT !c~y* I»¹ i\' _Lyr>\'« li iy> o\' r^cj er ^j \'ⁱ\' ^ l^ Ii "h? *^ⁱ Jis IsÜ- qI jk^j sj^ «UL ijLftl Aas xs^IXj (j»-J -i\'j v_S-L=- rf)u, «UI Jjïj «UI _oio ,_<-.! U, ^ijil Ia» Jjt> asj ^ Ui J,i _te-^ KI II ^ «UI lil 0,1 ^s»^ U ji~lj «Jbü £ ^jl* U=j\| iUJ _jl £ JSj «UI j^è j^.,1 L4JI ,»eyi IA» Joi> AS» j,Ael5 l]l J o⁴ ü^^w\' V; U\' W i¹ _L?^r^s b «W «aUQ i _l__jrr>i ijty>\' ■Jils* «_jl ^5 «lis idJIj jo j^Uj «jjïj «UI «bLS lA.» (TjI AjAj \'_rf ^^i Ja Lüi=- qI p-cj J^ «UI J-c "i\'^\'j «j4 » a é Aiö _.c b, y^IUJJ ,»eljjt lj«J> Jjk> Ais gfelbUI yj; "N¹ W i\' ^y-^ e^j iuaajl iA» £ iU^S\\.\'l ,yuiJ lAJ _cr \|»JiLcl s>)_£ J^Ls «Ut «UI wUi\' \\yij* ASJ ₍__?-₎-^ ^ ,J «IJl ₀I J,MJ ^,1 yvOil ^Jtï* o. efclW y, «Ui Ui ^t ^«^ b f^Il U* o\' ^5 o\'s \'sr^J «Ut fUS ^lyül ^l ₀Lu oL.^1 ï%Ji ^ «LI lyjyit Ajü oü3- o>Ji- «ui Jy-* s\' ^^ ^JJI f^-^J\' o\' r-"v cr* "^j-⁴ o¹? *



		4- thcm does not secm to have ever been openly effected; but thcre is a story to the effect that Ahmed took the oppor- tunity of secrctly hearing al-Harith, when the latter with ^T jjl tUiSI \\s> ^Is (jJLo «Ut iyjMj* iJw" Ó!s »^JJ\' ^JI __;^_$\\JI oJU= qL^UI <A_j.ij v¹^\' o-\'"\' \'^^L-\' o-³- >-«AsJI Ljj £ LjJLc aUl v_ï_> cólj ₀U>l ^Ju o,i , rj atSI ^.1 o^Lili j aUi ^Uï .vl\'l ^ Jü, Lu>_/« ₀tf liXJi Jju IJLi ₀UJ)I &_j ^l/M .«XJI v-^ "\' o^ J^* *^ o* o^\' **■■ o\' "-H^ q» ^j Jj: jii j.U-.bü -yA-o aJJI _^_il ^^1 ji, j»^» j »^?j}* JS, ₀U-^I ^jÜ ,3 >_Ui Jij ₀L;.^!. ,Ji«il jj_J>i o-J^I JÊ, «^ l»xj Jï Ifj ^-SjJi-J X-o^Lc i J^ J JwJ ^s» Jw;ij joL-l ^^1 iXüj J«£!b \'S J^xJIj i_Jj«j jóUjI q¹ _c^j l\\s «jt qjjJ\' ^i aIjjJ J>ï J^c Ijli qL-\'SI J.x; J^x lil .xiij i_Jiül ^ \|_5i>JI qL-\'SI _gI (j^j s^lc i_eA-!t luii-f \'A^i u«-^ »j\' wL-\' iOibLc j*-\' oW.^\' iV"? ULJuu >> ₀W>I JB ₀U>I iwiU JL^H Jj^> Jl, ujUXJIj <UJI qI "i wJsJI ^ Lv= -«ju _-«-«5 iA-j_^_i iA-£l_£ qL-JJI q!_s «_a1jü ow=) U j.c wJlaJl 0L1A-A3J\' qjO y» _üU"3l ^«ü -»il LX-ïLiJI Jo.l_s ₀Lr>l J^jil JLs jJL.1 ^ i\\s? JB ï.jSf* vijoL=»l ijyuUJIj JU=^Ij u«Lül J-/B.&Ó liSLJjJi ^^^-jJJ JLiU JL^IJL (J.LJI J^xaLa^



		43 his companions had been invited to a fcast, and that lic was then convinccd that his earlier impressions of the man, howcver just when formcd, did al-Harith somc injusticc at *JJit Ji ^jjl er J-ail tf <Xf- fi\\ rf o.* o\' (~»j «-& L&»** «Dl ^ o, yjaJi rf «Dl ^-, O-, ^ o. ó\' 5 ^W ^ SbLaJIj _aj4fl₃ Iptat^ gJL y-. B^Sf ^Ufl «Juu i^Ul jjü"S 7^ J> iU< J»«2i! j»«U3 «UI Jj-~i5 y.;>.i.«»j- JL^S\'j iüsAjoJ\'j A £inV} w\'j Jkj _>jI kkr>.^ Ijsö ^Lj¹¹ y^= J»_ï ^ ^t juu ₀tf er (j-di g^SÖI JL/fl y^ JJ ^ A« ^ ^ ^3 jju-. 3^aJl yó Jj->"j yJ^\' >*J er" >> ffc-⁰ iV*! ,--} kkj A ,-^c k¹*^ J a_jL\\x,\'I jjlv= IJS «fl s-v^ "Ük¹\' y^¹ Oüi (jyulj^¹ er (►"*« "\' egjJI jW^I \'JkJ¹ !>■ er" f^¹ k* i^ls f^* ^^ai\' M-^-^\'j er« x-_j^j JI\' iXa-j J-oaiil Ui\' Jl/^L q»J-jöUj (ji>Ull e>\' f--) Jas X?jb »--^ x)l« Li.j er J* oLx er« \'L£j er J^²^ ^cl-~^ U! er (*J ok.^\' o^ Ms^J e?^\' er ^k.\' i*^⁰\' >£ "\' ^ er jJJI <_=»! Ijl jx»^ ^j )JI iXkc JkJs ^1 eS;¹\' ^\' ^I\'■" ^ *** Jyoasjj \'Lixj ej--⁰ y-h»! »üi er \'sv²¹¹ ok^-⁵ ok.^\' ^^1E\' \'»-»« jcüj, ok^\' f6^* v^ "\' o^s 9* & ^** er J^ ^VIA>. er Ö er ^ J ^ _fiL.5U j\\> «IJl _cri Q¹ JU», -£jjAj> j t>M «hj iï 4ti er» jyJ\' kx, ₀^i iap ₀i _ü5^ 5UI J^ ï^«Lr!! !^_> e)ir»H lA-\' o¹ osr-¹\' ■\' \'\'«Ai Utf \'\'-ij er^- «J Jio ^y y>\'_} J»csl Ji< »_;y A>^s ^y ^l\\J J>c JjI^aoJI**



		44 that time. The changc in Ahmed\'s opinion does not secm to have been complete or to have savcd al-Muhasibi from loss of credit in Baghdad, for, at his death in 243 A. H., only four people attended his funcral. It is possible that this may, however, bc explaincd as the consequencc of some pious wish which hc had expresscd \'). K*^s\\Jl ₀U A-s-tj (j.Uï Lf~Lï «,,.<; jij ï_£_>Jls ijlij _,i\\_ï £cAj \|»i»£\'} bLfi- j^j iübl~> q^jI \|»y (_sLi ^Xj^-cI U <^>.* JLS bl [.LLo^\'j qIjj^! oAe L4_i _i_iO (j»Uu Sj »-i_p <l)l J^ lyijjlj ikjj> j aJJ\' Ja: (_j»L-kJÜt A^ &-x>> Li lj.A_»Li ,_«La!Lj cIJUj\'j (j«Us \'S cLj\'lj \'IjOSl ₀Uï~l aJJI ^^jjj ₀li lyX~j\' ~i₃* 1) v. Shahrastani Ilaarbrückcr\'s transl\'n I, 97, 11_T 389. A different view is given of Ahmed\'s quarrcl with this man in von Kreiner, Ilensch. Ideen des Islams, 68, notc I. Kor his biography v. Ibn Chall. N°. 151. Al-Subki, p. 230, I.9. J» jfSii3 AXiu ₀\'i &ie aJJI ^j AT¹ JWH q\' \|JUlj tiL* ^3 ^yi^J HU «£të Is ₀! Isji- (.Uil ,0e i fi&o ^ Ais Ais vj ^li\'j j.3¹ tó-UL \\J\' £->\' J \'< fc^-e CA»/ (.,\' ,jl JS _fbUjl JJUv. ^ ^S j (JLJÜ A5 £^JL ₀tf, KeA> io-LÜ i_*«JI IAjj »^?\\ J---»- \|j-J A-T\' qI i5-»^ (jjblyaiil -~\'Ji3l A«iiL« J-X\'j &>!Ü c>^J vivt=- (J^J\' l-ft ->\' S^t v^\'i OS ^ at\' fa V* o\' * ^^ .h\' r^ /³\' ^ ^U^J> r¹\' ■!»**



		45

		With Bishr al-Hafi (f 226) and with al-Sari al-Sal>ati (f 253) Ahmed stood on terms of intimatc Griendship. He countcd it his high privilege, indeed, to have scen somc of the most holy men of his time in possession of little else than thcir picty and poverty. Those whose names are recorded bcsidc the

		jü.^3s»I jij (jlAic ₀^Ct yiXj Ia* c^Üi ₀\' (>«ij J-~=» tf Af! cxlJl oAyiaJö iw^LJ\' £fJS jjljj M ₀\' vi»- er Lf-"^!? «1^^» Xj Sjü\' \|JUi Jjis JuUPl ^aïus?. ₀\'i &JUÜ¹ u^lï liyöST ₀I JjJU, XijC i\' /^ «JCjLcIs J!\' A-»_e Ijl >a~y\'\'\' j^\'} v⁰"^\' J- ?°y ^5 iulsJt I^JLo j ^_Kb »jUpI, e^liL j-ö-s-j Ojj" ,3 Aj^-lj v_jv«flj Wt i\' oy^²^ ^ ^jL-S- (.jAj cfcJ IjlXjüj LAj JjLaJ fbUÜ j C^ÜL A=>li iÜL-w« ₀_e JL~j jJU« J^>, Ijüól >\' JwJJI o?- er jH-% i£. er \|W j^¹ ^j <> ,3\' JL> uijJtj^ ïSjiJI J. [o]Aju2S Mib\' j _j»j oicjJ er¹ (^s JL> ^j 3LJI vüjyajls «_Je ur-^ li^^- e& >** J\'A>y JJI Ac L> JLiü «JiJI Ac jJ JJ oAiuai l^öj J^Wol ,_c^=- iJl=>- «JUj C^T JJU OÜJ& ,0. j ooww ^S, fjiil \'V JcU «81, éf fiti _Di wiy i_s _SJ=._S _rs ^ ^4? 4J ,^1 bu u* ^.j jo-yi ia* SjaaoJI yyu KjIXS sjw* J-olï «Ui Ls>-S Ijk* y, yGI ^ J5 AJ-I _a_c »,yaJÜ jJU^ J^l U«J ^ J> U\' J^to. (jj AT\' _al fJWj ■^Ij jüu» J^ oLfts As-l JY XJu»j ^ oua .UU i Ailj iuLïx &JJI Uyioj If^-lj ^ JJB, jjül\\ ia* lijjll y^, jo os aj-ij



		₄r,

		two mcntioncd are Abdnllah ibn Idrïs (f 192) Abü Daüd al-Hafari and Ayüb al-Najjar \'). />,;«,/ itn Daüd ibn ^cAli, the founder of the Zahiritc school, \'Alt. (-j- 270) was onc of Ahmed\'s pupils. Thcre was made to Ahmed a vcry 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 c^jAjO , and that his Lafz al-Koran was created (by being made from nothing ^Jjf). This influcneed Ahmed so that hc refused to reccive him, and we have no knowledge that he after- wards changed his decision; but the Zahiritcs are known to have been even more strict than Ahmed on the unercated nature of the Koran, and it may be assumed that Daüd did not long continue to bc suspected by him. It is to be remarked that the informant of Ahmed was Mohammed ibn Yahya al-Dhuhli, the samc man who in jealousy accused al-Bokhari of heretical views on the Lafz al-Koran. Further, it should bc notcd that the incident is said to have oc- curred during the lifetime of Ishak ibn Rahawaih (f 238 A. H.) when Daüd must have been a comparativcly young man. If the account bc truc his views must have undergone

		1) al-MaVrizi, p. 1, fUi\\ Ja, S\\J>$ ₀%>Uail ^j, Ij-Ctf UJLs- _l__s^i jiJLcj ^Jf^& <V>> Ij\' vi«-j\';j ^^\'j o**""\' ""^ \'S ""% ^y^ \\\\Uj ^ U J^ er* j^-^" ^L^-s ^c *-" Jiüj [Cod. Ui.] ïl_&, j _DL^sJi ^^ ^a-j i u/ya ui j ₀Kj ^JuUJt ^ ₀tf₃



		47

		change during the remaining ycars of his lifc. He was bom in 202 A. H. and dicd in 270 A. H. \'). IbrAMm In the ycar 218 A. H. there died in Egypt ihi hm,ïil Ibrahim ibn Isma^cil Abti Ish.ik al-Basri al-Asadi al-MuUaliz,. _al.Ji_u=talizi, known as Ibn \'Ulayya. He was a professor of the doctrine that the Koran was created and had discussions about Fikh with al-Shafi^ci in Egypt, and with Ahmcd ibn Hanbal in Baghdad about the Koran. Ahmed regarded him as a dangerous herctic \'). The Ibn \'Ulayya al-Akbar wlmse name tigiires in the liistory of the Mihn\'a under al-Ma\'mün, appears to have been a different person, who was of orthodox reputation hitherto. Taken togethcr with the similarity of the names, the sceming readiness with which Ibn \'Ulayya al-Akbar complied with the test as to the Koriin\'s creation might suggest, however, that he was in some way related to the party hcre men- tioncd. Uut this is only hypothetical.

		II. MIIIN\'A. I" -^ne bcginning of the second century of Islam Hisiorical* al-Ja^cd ibn Dirham, teacher of the Khalif Marwan II, Devihp- held the doctrine that the Koran was created, and, ment. _a(. _t]_m\|. jj_mc ₍ imaginative adversaries of the belief declared thcmsclvcs to be able to tracé the steps of Tradition by which the heresy was to bc carried back from Ja^cd to Lebid, a Jew, whom the Prophet had declared to have bewitched him and thereby produccd in him a sickness ³). However the doctrine came to him, Ja^cd was put to death by Khalid ibn Abdallah, Governor of ^cIrak, at the command of the Khalif Hisham. After this we hear no more of the doctrine until the time of the Abbaside Harün al-Rashid ⁴). The account of the 1) Goldzihcr, Zahiritcn , p. 134. The incident is also found in al-Subk!, p. 232. 2) Abua\'-Maliasin I, 647. 3) Weil, Mohammed, 94, note 121. 4) Iioutsma, De Strijd over het Dogma, 101 f.



		₄s

		historical dcvclopmcnt (of the doctrine of the creation of the Koran) \') which led up to the inquisition under al-Ma\'mün and his successors is given by Abu\'l-Faraj ibn al-Jauzi, (f598 A. H.) as follows: Men did not cease to follow the good rule of the fathers of Islam and their confession that the Koran was the unercated Word of God, until the Mu^cta- zilites (freethinkers) ²) appearcd, professing the creation of the Koran. This thcy did sccretly 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- Marisi \') says that the Koran is created; now, verily, ifGod givc him into my hand, I will kill him in such a way as I have never yet killed anyonc\'. On learning this Bishr remained hidden for about twenty ycars 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 dicd, the matter remained in the samc position during the time of his son al-Amin; but when al-Ma\'mün succeeded, somc of the Mu^ctazilitcs led him astray and made the doctrine of the creation of the Koran to appcar plausible to him\').

		1) On this subject cf. Weil, Chalifcn II, 262, note 1; von Krcmer, Ilerrsch. Idccn des Islams, 233 ff. and chronological note 20, p. 127, in the same Work. 2) On the name Mu\'tazila and the risc of the sect, vid. Steiner, Die Mu\'tazilitcn, 25 f.; Houtsma, De Strijd over het Dogma, 51. On the history of the sect, Steiner, 48 ff.; Dozy, Het Islamisme, 183, 184. On their doc- trines, Magoudi VI, 20 ff.; Steiner, 3 ff.; Houtsma, 55, 80, 89, 121 f.; Haarbrückefs transl\'n of Shahrastani 1, 40. On their doctrine of the Koran Steiner, 75 ff.: Houtsma, 104 f. 3) Von Hammer, Lit. Geschichtc III, 205; Abu^;l-Mah. I, 647 and note 9; Ibn Chall. N°. 114; Steiner, Die Mu\'taziliten, 78. He is called by Houtsma, De Strijd over het Dogma, 79 (cf. note i), one of the leading Murjites of his time. By Shahrastani, Ilaarbr. 1, 94, he is called, as the rcsult of false pointing of the letters, Bishr ibn Att&b, instead of Hishr ibn Ghiyath al- Marisi. For his views vid. Shahrastani, Ilaarbr. I, 161, 162, cf. I, 243. 4) al-Makrizi, p. 3, L^ó J_a Lj aJLc l)l ^iOj fltbil ÏS&? j J^aJ



		49 A rrc- It is rcported that the Imam al-Shafi^ci, bcfore dutionby his death in 204, had a dream, in which he was aUSti/ri. forewarned by the Prophct of the trial, in ycars to come, of Ahmed ibn Hanbal for the sake of the Koran. He is allegcd to have sent word to Ahmcd informing him of the communication hc had received, and report says that Ahmcd, on reading the letter, exclaimcd, \'I hope that God will verify that which al-Shafi\'i says\' \'). We may, probably, infer from lXa-üJI er) >i\' ^-^V o\';"¹\' lf-^^s oV"\' ^v-^\' !>"" -Jj«£l yisj Jsi liX>! Lj^Us U idxï ajJüï^ &_j «IJl eV-^⁵\' o\' l^ "\'j .«SI qI^ Octi_Jl ^«j UAJ ïi«« er!?"""⁶ er !>^ dkaAjB ptf ifjl?-¹-^ iüjXxil ^ ^i «.bjvi» C9^\' L?^S ^ üV¹\'⁵" "-^\'j CT; ij AJJlJ\' 1) al-Makrïzi, p. 3, L^e^jBj ^s iU^L I «Ua t^J\' öjUSo ^ Jus J»a=- ₍^_j AJ"I aJJI tX».e ^1 ^1 IjUJ\' (_g>A_j (jj: ^jiiLSJI ^.Xs oAiJj »t jü ^ ^jW\' il Il\\3> ^\'^Jó .A.\\jl ^-j¹-" L>U i ó\' J>* Afl iXSW* ii^s\|>i ö\'j^\' o^AS _l_je>- j«w qi o^s-3-j i_»U£l Sü<JI y.l ^J iü\\Ïj »J" ^^Xias _v-Sli)l J>aj «ói^Las J^-ii» j-J Ui ^j-c Jö» Üü ^Jl JU* J.x^ SbUlJI woic £?) o~«ü *IqXS> »J oJlïj AS\' -A^\' oJUsj\'j &Jl£ ü>^«JL, ,cï^ ^ vüaJu-* Xjjla _LCsl£JI ^ ^aJImo Jjtsü ja< ~^ ^xsLSJI «£=»! ujUJ" &*=> dij \'Ü vnJis jus oAi ^ Jjs «2 ijUsCJI ^s Jüj ₀I J^ï 4



		50

		this incident that the doctrine of the creation of the Koran had already bcgun to make some stir when al-Shafi^ci was in Haghdad, and that Ahmed was at this early stage a vigorous opponent of the tenet. Al-Mtfmüii. The interest of al-Ma\'mün in theology is empha- sized by all the historians \'). He had been thoroughly trained in the knowledge of Tradition, of the Koran scicnces, and of the Koran itself from carly childhood, and had had among his teachers Malik ibn Anas, Hushaim ibn Hashir and his own father\'). His ability as a pupil soon brought him ^5üs=\\j ,.,l ^!Lü a)JI _>->)\' JÊj i^j t^" l«5j-^« Jb Ij\' _c_jC> «Ijïj JlS «£-JI «^i" As o^-i (_c\' &JUI ae L>L üJÜs _L?xaLiJI «JU» U j^jLj »J Jyy _}P₁* a^J u? ^Ata _ce_^JI (_jtj a-it juLxi\' ^s _jï"j ^-\\ÏA» &jl J>»a=» qJ lXJ\'I «IJl i\\c LjI ujXsJI li\\5> ..&.J u~J,jl Vr⁰³" juli JjUj ^s ^Jls?-» o\'y"\' & o\' t^^S ^\' CT* i qI j» S »-Jlc qU"j IfcJlE . «JjjLs- ^^J>" t_g\'\' »;l-~4 viiJjÜ iULfiJI »_<!>=■ j^Jlliclj üAJb- ^j Lm qI/j ^-Jl juüaj lAA-=-l £j-ü Jlï tjf?* Uj ïj-Ü ^^LiJI jJU o<^l\\ï ^s- iiAS-j^s vj\'lïXJI j^xiliJI u! (_5j^₃ ju u&lSUJ u^J Jliü Ijj. kS-Jli\' «_j^i_Si ^jI-s e^Jü\'j ÜiiS i3 jJlxSÜ J»JI OtU öJU»-j «.aLaOO JUS JulJ UaS»^ J»i;> ^j Aj"\'u Kjaj «425 Jj: -**» »-i<« i^>Lj ....j J»J" j M 1) Cf. Abu\'l-Mahüsin I, 644; Hammer-Purgstall, Lit. Gesch. III, 26; al- Suyüti, Tarikh al-Kholafa, Calcutta, 1857, p. 310; Dozy, Het Islamisme, 1880, p. 152. The notiecs of al-Ma^Jmiln\'s character found in al-Subki,p. 144,** and al-Makrizï, p. 3, are in accordance with the accounts found in the works jast mentioncd. 2) Houtsma, De Strijd over het Dogma, 13, says that al-Ma^Jinün first



		5\'

		to a foremost place as a thcölogian, but a mind like his, 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 \'), hc gathered to his court from different parts of his empire, philosophcrs and men of more liberal tendency of thought than had been found among the com- panions of his predecessors *). Al-Ma⁵mun, however, is not looked upon as a man naturally impious nor was his interest in sacred subjects one mercly 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 bcneficence except Ahmed ibn Hanbal ⁴). The letters written by al-Ma³mün 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-Ma³mün\'s

		attended the lectures of the Mutakallims and later took an interest in orfho- 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 foliowed them in my narrative. 1) Steiner (Die MuHaziliten, 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 Abbasidc sovereigns with its direct effect in the rise of the men of the Kalam, and its indirect or reactionary effect in inercasing the zeal in study of the men of the Tra- dition, vid. Houtsma, De Strijd over het Dogma, 86 f. 3) Goldziher, Moh. Studiën II, 58, 59; Von Kremcr, Herrsch. Ideen d. Isl. 301, note 15; Steiner, Die Mutu/iliten. 6, note 5; Al-Subki, p. 144, 4) Abü Nu\'aim, 143/\', v-iL^Ual ^Ic **»5l JUS ^L< qy«UJI «O &&■ tf J#ï >i\\ As-I ^S! Jo-1 ^ U ZJjJe \|JUs js y>j.xJl