The Hanbali school (Arabic: ‫ )المذهب الحنبلي‬is one of the four traditional Sunni Islamic schools of

jurisprudence (fiqh).[1] It is named after the Iraqi scholar Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855), and was
institutionalized by his students. The Hanbali madhhab is the smallest of four major Sunni schools,
the others being the Hanafi, Maliki and Shafi`i.[2][3]
Hanbali school derives Sharia predominantly from the Quran, the Hadiths (sayings and customs of
Muhammad), and the views of Sahabah (Muhammad's companions).[1] In cases where there is no
clear answer in sacred texts of Islam, the Hanbali school does not accept jurist discretion or customs
of a community as a sound basis to derive Islamic law, a method that Hanafi and Maliki Sunni fiqhs
accept. Hanbali school is the strict traditionalist school of jurisprudence in Sunni Islam.[4] It is found
primarily in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, where it is the official fiqh.[5][6] Hanbali followers are the
demographic majority in four emirates of UAE (Sharjah, Umm al-Quwain, Ras al-Khaimah and
Ajman).[7] Large minorities of Hanbali followers are also found in Bahrain, Oman and Yemen and
within Iraqi and Jordanian bedouins.[5][8]
The Hanbali school experienced a reformation in the Wahhabi-Salafist movement.[9] Historically the
school was small; during the 18th to early-20th century Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Al
Saud greatly aided its propagation around the world by way of their interpretation of the school's
teachings.[9] As a result of this, the school's name has become a controversial one in certain quarters
of the Islamic world due to the influence he is believed by some to have had upon these teachings,
which cites Ibn Hanbal as a principal influence along with the thirteenth-century Hanbali reformer Ibn
Taymiyyah. However, it has been argued by certain scholars that Ibn Hanbal's own beliefs actually
played "no real part in the establishment of the central doctrines of Wahhabism,"[10] as there is
evidence, according to the same authors, that "the older Hanbalite authorities had doctrinal concerns
very different from those of the Wahhabis,"[10] rich as medieval Hanbali literature is in references to
saints, grave visitation, miracles, and relics.[11] Historically, the Hanbali school was treated as simply
another valid interpretation of Islamic law, and many prominent medieval Sufis, such as Abdul Qadir
Jilani, were Hanbali jurists and mystics at the same time.

Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the founder of Hanbali school, was a disciple of Al-Shafi‘i. Like Shafi'i and al-
Zahiri, he was deeply concerned with the extreme elasticity being deployed by many jurists of his
time, who used their discretion to reinterpret the doctrines of Quran and Hadiths to suit the demands
of Caliphs and wealthy.[12] Ibn Hanbal advocated return to literal interpretation of Quran and Hadiths.
Influenced by the debates of his time, he was known for rejecting religious rulings (Ijtihad) from the
consensus of jurists of his time, which he considered to be speculative theology (Kalam). He
associated them with the Mu'tazilis, whom he despised. Ibn Hanbal was also hostile to the
discretionary principles of rulings in jurisprudence (Usul al-fiqh) mainly championed by the people of
opinion, which was established by Abu Hanifa, although he did adopt al-Shafi'i's method in usul al-
fiqh. He linked these discretionary principles with kalam. His guiding principle was that the Quran
and Sunnah are the only proper sources of Islamic jurisprudence, and are of equal authority and
should be interpreted literally in line with the Athari creed. He also believed that there can be no true
consensus (Ijma) among jurists (mujtahids) of his time,[12] and preferred the consensus of
Muhammad's companions (Sahaba) and weaker hadiths. Imam Hanbal himself compiled Al-Musnad,
a text with over 30,000 saying, actions and customs of Muhammad.[1]
Ibn Hanbal never composed an actual systematic legal theory on his own, though his followers
established a systemic method after his death.[13] Much of the work of preserving the school based
on Ibn Hanbal's method was laid by his student Abu Bakr al-Khallal; his documentation on the
founder's views eventually reached twenty volumes.[14] The original copy of the work, which was
contained in the House of Wisdom, was burned along with many other works of literature during
the Mongol siege of Baghdad. The book was only preserved in a summarized form by the Hanbali
jurist al-Khiraqi, who had access to written copies of al-Khallal's book before the siege.[14]
Relations with the Abbasid Caliphate were rocky for the Hanbalites. Led by the Hanbalite scholar Al-
Hasan ibn 'Ali al-Barbahari, the school often formed mobs of followers in 10th-century Baghdad who
would engage in violence against fellow Sunnis suspected of committing sins and
all Shi'ites.[15] During al-Barbahari's leadership of the school in Baghdad, shops were looted,[16] female
entertainers were attacked in the streets,[16] popular grievances among the lower classes were
agitated as a source of mobilization,[17] and public chaos in general ensued.[18] Their efforts would be
their own undoing in 935, when a series of home invasions and mob violence on the part of al-
Barbahari's followers in addition to perceived deviant views led to the Caliph Ar-Radi publicly
condemning the school in its entirety and ending its official patronage by state religious bodies.[18]

Principles[edit]
Sources of law[edit]
Like all other schools of Sunni Islam, the Hanbali school holds that the two primary sources of
Islamic law are the Qur'an and the Sunnah found in Hadiths (compilation of sayings, actions and
customs of Muhammad). Where these texts did not provide guidance, Imam Hanbal recommended
guidance from established consensus of Muhammad's companions (Sahabah), then individual
opinion of Muhammad's companions, followed in order of preference by weaker hadiths, and in rare
cases qiyas (analogy).[1] The Hanbali school, unlike Hanafi and Maliki schools, rejected that a source
of Islamic law can be jurists personal discretionary opinion or consensus of later generation Muslims
on matters that serve the interest of Islam and community. Hanbalis hold that this is impossible and
leads to abuse.[12]
Ibn Hanbal rejected the possibility of religiously binding consensus (Ijma), as it was impossible to
verify once later generations of Muslims spread throughout the world,[12] going as far as declaring
anyone who claimed as such to be a liar. Ibn Hanbal did, however, accept the possibility and validity
of the consensus of the Sahaba. the first generation of Muslims.[19][20] Later followers of the school,
however, expanded on the types of consensus accepted as valid, and the prominent Hanbalite Ibn
Taymiyyah expanded legal consensus to later generations while at the same time restricting it only
to the religiously learned.[20] Analogical reasoning (Qiyas), was likewise rejected as a valid source of
law by Ibn Hanbal himself,[12][21][22] with a near-unanimous majority of later Hanbalite jurists not only
accepting analogical reasoning as valid but also borrowing from the works of Shafi'itejurists on the
subject.
Ibn Hanbal's strict standards of acceptance regarding the sources of Islamic law were probably due
to his suspicion regarding the field of Usul al-Fiqh, which he equated with speculative theology
(kalam).[23] In the modern era, Hanbalites have branched out and even delved into matters regarding
the upholding (Istislah) of public interest (Maslaha) and even juristic preference (Istihsan), anathema
to the earlier Hanbalites as valid methods of determining religious law.

Theology[edit]
Ibn Hanbal taught that the Qur'an is uncreated due to Muslim belief that it is the word of God, and
the word of God is not created. The Mu'tazilites taught that the Qur'an, which is readable and
touchable, is created like other creatures and created objects. Ibn Hanbal viewed this as heresy,
replying that there are things which are not touchable but are created, such as the Throne of
God.[24] Unlike the other three schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi), the
Hanbali madhab remained largely traditionalist or Athari in theology[25] and it was primarily Hanbali
scholars who codified the Athari school of thought.

Distinct rulings[edit]
 Wudu – One of the seven things which nullifies the minor purification includes, touching a
woman for the purpose of carnal desire.[26] This ruling is similar to the Maliki opinion, however the
Shafi'i opinion is that merely touching a woman will break the wudu, while the Hanafi opinion is
that merely touching a woman does not break the wudu.
 Al-Qayyam – One position of the school according to Kashshaf al-Qina` of al-Buhuti, and al-
Mughni of Ibn Qudama is the same as that of Imam Abu Hanifa and his students; to place one’s
hands below the navel. Another position is that hands are positioned above the navel or on the
chest while standing in prayer,[26] not similar to the Hanafis, though others state a person has a
choice i.e. either above the navel or near the chest
 Ruku – The hands are to be raised (Rafa al-Yadayn) before going to ruku, and standing up from
ruku,[26] similar to the Shafi'i school. While standing up after ruku, a person has a choice to place
their hands back to the position as they were before.[27] Other madh'habs state the hands should
be left on their sides.
 Tashahhud – The finger should be pointed and not moved, upon mentioning the name
of Allah.[26][28][29]
 Tasleem – Is considered obligatory by the Madh'hab.[30]
 Salat-ul-Witr – Hanbalis pray Two Rak'ats consecutively then perform Tasleem, and then One
Rak'at is performed separately. Dua Qunoot is recited after the Ruku' during Witr, and Hands are
raised during the Dua.[30]
 In the absence of a valid excuse, it is obligatory (at least for adult men) to pray in congregation
rather than individually.[31]
 The majority of the Hanbali school considers admission in a court of law to be indivisible; that is,
a plaintiff may not accept some parts of a defendant's testimony while rejecting other parts. This
position is also held by the Zahiri school, though it is opposed by the Hanafi and Maliki
schools.[32]

Reception[edit]
The Hanbali school is now accepted as the fourth of the mainstream Sunni schools of law. It has
traditionally enjoyed a smaller following than the other schools. In the earlier period, Sunni
jurisprudence was based on four other schools: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Zahiri; later on, the
Hanbali school supplanted the Zahiri school's spot as the fourth mainstream school.[33] Hanbalism
essentially formed as a traditionalist reaction to what they viewed as speculative innovations on the
part of the earlier established schools.[34]
Historically, the school's legitimacy was not always accepted. Muslim exegete Muhammad ibn Jarir
al-Tabari, founder of the now extinct Jariri school of law, was noted for ignoring the Hanbali school
entirely when weighing the views of jurists; this was due to his view that the founder, Ibn Hanbal,
was merely a scholar of prophetic tradition and was not a jurist at all.[35] The Hanbalites, led by al-
Barbahari, reacted by stoning Tabari's home several times, inciting riots so violent that Abbasid
authorities had to subdue them by force.[36] Upon Tabari's death, the Hanbalites formed a violent mob
large enough that Abbasid officials buried him in secret for fear of further riots were Tabari buried
publicly in a Muslim graveyard.[15] Similarly, the Andalusian theologian Ibn 'Abd al-Barr made a point
to exclude Ibn Hanbal's views from the books on Sunni Muslim jurisprudence.[37] In al-
Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun—himself a Qadi in Egypt during the Mamluk-era—also noted that the
following of this school was rare and stated that this is due to the fact that they largely reject Ijtihadas
a whole.
Eventually, the Mamluk Sultanate and later the Ottoman Empire codified Sunni Islam as four
schools, including the Hanbalite school at the expense of the Zahirites.[38][39] The Hanafis, Shafi'is and
Malikis agreed on important matters and recognized each other's systems as equally valid; this was
not the case with the Hanbalites, who were recognized as legitimate by the older three schools but
refused to return the favor.[34]
Differences with other Sunni schools[edit]
In comparison to the Hanafis and the Malikis, in the absence of a consensus, the opinion of
a Sahabi is given priority over Qiyas (which early Hanbalis rejected) or al-'urf, which is completely
rejected by Hanbalis. Where Hanbalis require a unanimous consensus, Hanafis tend to follow the
consensus of Kufa and Malikis that of al-Madina.
Zahiris, a less mainstream school, is sometimes seen as the closest to Hanbalis and Hanafis.
However the similarities are only true for early Zahiris who followed the Athari creed. The branch that
was largely instigated by Ibn Hazm which developed in al-Andalus, al-Qarawiyyin and later became
the official school of the state under the Almohads, differed significantly from Hanbalism. It did not
follow the Athari and Taqlid schools and opted for "logical Istidlal" (deductive demonstration) as a
way to interpret scripture that wasn't clear literally. Hanbalis rejected kalam as a whole and believed
in the supremacy of the text over the mind and did not engage in dialectic debates with the Mu'tazila.
Ibn Hazm, on the other hand, engaged in these debates and believed in logical reasoning rejecting
most of Mu'tazila claims as sophists and absurd. Ibn Hazm, also scrutinised hadith more severely.
He adopted an attitude where he'd reject hadiths if he discovered something suspicious about the
lives of those who reported it, or in the case where a person in the Sanad is not a widely known
figure. In doing so, he was aided by his vast historical knowledge.[citation needed]

Relationship with Sufism[edit]

Sufism, often described as the inner mystical dimension of Islam, is not a separate "school" or "sect"
of the religion, but, rather, is considered by its adherents to be an "inward" way of approaching Islam
which complements the regular outward practice of the five pillars; Sufism became immensely
popular during the medieval period in practically all parts of the Sunni world and continues to remain
so in many parts of the world today. As Christopher Melchert has pointed out, both Hanbalism and
classical Sufism took concrete shapes in the ninth and early tenth-centuries CE, with both soon
becoming "essential components of the high-medieval Sunni synthesis."[40] Although many Hanbali
scholars today, identifying themselves with the Salafi and Wahhabi contemporary movements
within Hanbalism, shun Sufi practices such as the veneration of saints at their tombs, which they
deem heretical innovations in the religion, it is important to recognize that the Hanabali school of
Sunni law has, in fact, had a very intimate relationship with Sufism throughout history,[40] with such
controversies only manifesting themselves after the eighteenth-century, once the movement
of Wahhabism became the primary form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia.
There is evidence that many medieval Hanbali scholars were very close to the Sufi martyr and
saint Hallaj, whose mystical piety seems to have influenced many regular jurists in the
school.[41] Many later Hanbalis, meanwhile, were often Sufis themselves, including figures not
normally associated with Sufism, such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah.[42] Both these
men, sometimes considered to be completely anti-Sufi in their leanings, were actually initiated into
the Qadiriyya order of the celebrated mystic and saintAbdul Qadir Gilani,[42] who was himself a
renowned Hanbali jurist. As the Qadiriyya order is often considered to be the largest and most
widespread Sufi order in the world, with many branches spanning from Turkey to Pakistan, one of
the largest Sufi branches is effectively founded on Hanbali fiqh.[

Ahmad Ibn Hanbal was a founder of one of the four main Sunni schools of Jurisprudence. He
developed fiqh but was also an expert in the study of Islamic oral traditions (the sayings -
hadith). He famously and heroically held true to his beliefs despite the pressures of a Caliph
who wished to impose his philosophical ideas on Islam.

This article was written by Adil Salahi and originally published by Impact magazine.

The Abbasid Caliph, Al-Mutawkkil was a strong admirer of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. He once sent
him some rich gifts, including a large amount of money. A highly placed official at court, who wished
Ahmad well, wrote to him that the gift was forthcoming and alerting him that, should he refuse it, there
would be no shortage of people who would be quick to try to use that in order to sow discord between
him and the Caliph. Nevertheless, Ahmad did not allow any part of the gift to enter his home. He
distributed it all to poor and needy people, taking nothing for himself or his family.

Thus was Ahmad ibn Hanbal: a model of courage and honesty who cared little for worldly comforts
and luxuries that money may buy. What a Caliph would give held no temptation for him. Yet he did not
consider taking such a gift to be forbidden. His son once asked him whether he could offer the
pilgrimage using money he received from the Caliph. He answered that he could, because it was
money obtained from a legitimate source, explaining that he would not take it himself, as he wished to
maintain a standard of purity that he imposed on no one else. If such an attitude was certain to ensure
great fame for the scholar, let us now look into his life.

Although the name Ahmad has been over the whole history of Islam one of the most common names
in Islamic culture and throughout the Muslim world, when it is mentioned on its own in any scholarly
work of hadith or Fiqh, there can be no mistake that the reference is to Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Ahmad
was the founder of the fourth school of thought, but the ranking is made only on the basis of
chronological order. He was born in 164 AH, corresponding to 781 CE. This means that his birth took
place 14 years after Abu Haneefah's death, and 15 years before Malik's death, but the two did not
meet. He was a student of El-Shafie whom he respected very highly. His full name was Ahmad ibn
Muhammad ibn Hanbal Al-Shaibani, which means that Hanbal was his grandfather, but the affiliation
to his grandfather stuck to him, perhaps because his father died when he was a very young baby.
Indeed he mentions that he did not see his father, which suggests that the father died when the young
child was not yet able to recognise people with eyesight.

His grandfather was a governor in Persia, and although the family was purely an Arab one, it lived in
Persia for many years that some of its members found it easier to converse in Persian, rather than
Arabic. Ahmad himself spoke Persian, although the family moved to Baghdad when he was still very
young. That helped Ahmad who showed strong inclinations to study and learning. His uncle was
looking after the family, and directed his early studies, but it was his mother's influence that had the
clearest mark on his upbringing and future attitudes. She was a remarkable woman of very strong faith
and serious attitude. His early promise was recognised by teachers and friends. Thus, he was known
to be among scholars as ‘the pious young man' and in his old age he was the master scholar
withstanding torture and hardship for his beliefs.

Ahmad memorised the Quran at an early age, and as he was directed by his uncle and his mother to
pursue his studies, his serious nature and early pious attitude ensured that he sought to study Fiqh,
or Islamic jurisprudence. Baghdad was at the time not only the political capital of the vast Islamic state,
stretching from the Atlantic in North Africa to Central Asia; it was also the most important centre of
Islamic scholarship, witnessing at the same time the penetrating influence of other cultures, including
Greek philosophy, Indian mythology and Persian traditions. Ahmad sought none of this, but went
straight into the study of Fiqh, reading under Abu Yussuf, the best known student of Abu Haneefah.
This means that his early studies took him into learning Fiqhthat gave scholarly discretion a very high
rank and relied much on analogy. But soon afterwards, he decided to pursue the study of hadith,
delaying Fiqh study for a while.

Ahmad started his pursuit of the study of hadith in Baghdad at the age of 15, and continued to give it
his full attention there for seven years. He realised that the main scholars of hadith did not all live in
the capital. So he decided to seek them wherever they lived. He began to travel to Basrah, Kufah,
Hijaz and Yemen. He is said to have travelled five times to Basrah, and paid a similar number of visits
to Hijaz. However, in the latter trips he combined offering the pilgrimage with his studies.

On all these trips, Ahmad's aim was to listen to the Prophet's hadiths from scholars personally. He
could have easily learnt the hadiths from their books, but he was keen to listen to their hadiths as they
personally reported them. That is a recognised virtue of excellence in the scholarship of hadith,
because it ensured a smaller number of reporters in the chain of transmission of a hadith between the
student and the Prophet himself. A shorter chain of transmitters, who were all reliable and trustworthy,
meant the room for error is practically non-existent. Hence, scholars were keen to seek a hadith at the
shortest chain of transmission they could achieve, even though that might have required them to
undertake a long journey.

His trip to Yemen was one such effort. He was keen to meet Abdurrazzaq ibn Hammam, an eminent
scholar of hadith who was at the time, and remains today, widely famous. In fact he had met
Abdurrazzaq during pilgrimage, and he could have learnt from him whatever he wanted to learn,
sparing himself a long journey to Yemen, but he preferred to learn from the scholars of Makkah and
Madinah while he was on pilgrimage, and to go to Abdurrazzaq in Yemen later. That way, he would
hope for God's reward for his arduous journey and get all that he could from the Yemeni scholar in his
home surroundings.

Up to this stage, we recognise two major influences on Ahmad's scholarship: the early study
of Fiqh under Abu Yussuf and the hadith study through which he collected a wealth of statements by
the Prophet, or hadiths, together with rulings by the Prophet's companions and their successors as
well as their judgements in disputes put to them. This represented a strong exposure to the practical
application of hadith and other religious text, which means that he was not isolated from Fiqh during
his study of hadith. However, a third influence was soon to have a major bearing on Ahmad and his
scholarship. That was his meeting with El-Shafie who by that time had developed his methodological
approach to Fiqh and the fundamental rules he set for construction and deduction of rulings and
judgements. When he studied under El-Shafie, Ahmad started to review what he had learnt and
collected of hadiths and reports of the Prophet's companions and their successors so as to pinpoint
the relevance of those texts and reports to practical matters. That gave him a profound insight
in Fiqh which was rare among scholars of hadith. Thus, Ahmad was at the same time a top scholar of
hadith and a top scholar of Fiqh. That combination gave him a rare standard of excellence.

It was not until Ahmad was 40 years of age that he had a circle where he taught and gave rulings on
any question put to him. This does not mean that he would not have given rulings earlier than that.
Indeed he would answer when a question was put to him, because abstention meant suppression of
knowledge and that is forbidden in Islam. But he would not sit for teaching and issuing rulings until he
was 40. He had two reasons for that: the first was to follow the Prophet's example, who received his
revelations and became a teacher for mankind at that age, and the other his respect for his teachers
meant that he would not teach while they were alive. It was a coincidence that El-Shafie died in 204,
when Ahmad was 40. A point to remember is that Abu Haneefah did the same, starting his study circle
at the age of 40.
It did not take long for Ahmad to become widely known. Indeed his circle was soon very large, with
some reports putting the number of students and listeners attending it at 5000, among whom one tenth
wrote what he taught. While this may be rather exaggerated, even a circle one-fifth that size, i.e. 1000
students, is very large by any standard. People loved his teaching because they recognised in him a
teacher of wide knowledge, and a highly pious man who spared no effort in the pursuit and
dissemination of knowledge.

Three factors enhanced Ahmad's popularity as a teacher. The first was that his serious attitude to
learning and teaching was coupled with exemplary humility and contentment. Secondly, he was always
keen to report only that of which he was absolutely certain. Hence, he did not rely on his memory, fine
and sharp as it was. He always referred to his books, which he had written with his own hand, when
he learnt from his teachers. He feared that if he would report from memory, he might be mistaken and
he would attribute to the Prophet what the Prophet did not actually say. Thirdly, he taught his students
to write down what they learnt of hadith only. He did not allow them to write anyone else's views or
teachings. To him, true knowledge that deserved to be documented was the Quran and the hadith.

This meant that despite the numerous trends of scholarship with which Baghdad was bustling at the
time, Ahmad rejected any study that was not based on the Quran and hadith only. Thus, he would not
take a logical approach to faith, nor would he discuss matters of faith in a purely rational or
philosophical way. He rejected any involvement in debates of theological nature, such as whether
God's names and qualities mentioned in the Quran were purely attributes of His, or they were the
same as Himself. To him, that was a pursuit that brought no useful results.

Ahmad ibn Hanbal combined qualities that are always certain to ensure a degree of exceptional
excellence. The first of these is one he shares with all hadith scholars of repute; that is, a sharp
memory coupled with penetrative insight. In this regard Ahmad is rated by many scholars who knew
him well as having the clearest, sharpest and most reliable memory of all his contemporaries.

The other quality that stands out when we discuss Ahmad's personality is his endurance and
perseverance. This is the fruit of a strong will, sincerity and an aspiration to achieve only what is best.
It gave him a most pleasant personality that combined poverty with generosity and dignity, self-respect
with willingness to forgive those who caused him harm and injury, and a willingness to undertake
difficulties in the pursuit of his goals. We will see how these qualities stood him in good stead during
his long and hard trial when he was subjected to much persecution. As we try to delve deeper into his
character, we find a person who derives his dignity from faith, relies on none other than God, aspires
to nothing that a human being can confer, and fears God alone. Hence, he was a model of humility;
always ready to overlook other people's mistakes and forgive whatever they might have caused him
of hardship.

Ahmad's third quality was purity of heart in the broadest sense of the word. He never touched anything
belonging to someone else, nor did he ever succumb to a desire. Moreover, his faith was pure,
acknowledging no authority other than that of God. We find this quality rubbing off onto his scholarship.
In beliefs and thought, he would not take any course other than that of the Prophet and his
companions. In Fiqh, he would not even try to weigh up the different views of the Prophet's
companions. If they differed on one questions, he would consider their differing views as equally
acceptable. He treated the tabieen, or successors to the Prophet's companions in the same way.

His purity of heart affected his whole life. He tried his best to ensure that he would not touch any
money, property or indeed anything that came from any source other than what he knew to be
absolutely lawful. He would not accept money given to him by a teacher, friend, prince or Caliph. He
was poor, living mostly on the rent he received for property he owned, but that rent was too little to
give him a comfortable life. When a teacher like the Yemeni hadith scholar, Abdurrazzaq, tried to help
him with some money as a gift, he apologised gently, pointing out that he preferred to live on his own
earnings. Therefore, when he needed extra income, he worked, doing whatever job he could find. He
did not hesitate even to copy with long hand a book for someone who needed it in return for some
money.

Ahmad also maintained a high standard of honesty in everything he pursued. Thus, all his scholarship
was for God's sake. He sought no recognition or position. Even when he was young, he would not
carry his writing material in a visible way; he would hide them so that people would not say that he
was going to study, or that he was a scholar.

It was an awesome scene in a terrifying place. The Caliph, Al-Mustassim, who was a courageous
fighter and an uncompromising ruler, tried hard with the assistance of Al-Mutazilah scholars to
persuade Ahmad ibn Hanbal to agree to their line of thinking stating that the Quran is a ‘creature of
God'. Great and tempting promises were offered and hard punishment was threatened but he would
not budge. The punishment was to be carried out there and then. A well-wisher who belonged to
scholarly circles approaches him and whispers: "Why subject yourself to all this torture when God
allows you to spare yourself by telling them what they wish to hear and maintain your own beliefs."
Ahmad asked him whether he knew who was outside. The man said: "There are more than a thousand
people carrying pen and paper." He said: "Yes. They all want to know what Ahmad says on this issue.
If I conceal what I believe to be the truth in order to spare myself, this wrong idea will spread and
flourish for generations to come. I will not meet my Lord having helped to spread it." He remained
steadfast bearing excessive torture.

Ahmad's great test of endurance and hardship began towards the end of the reign of the Abbasid
Caliph, Al-Ma'moon, when the philosophical school known as Al-Mutazilah was on the ascendance.
The Caliph himself was a scholar who loved philosophy and debate. He favoured Al-Mutazilah
because of their logical approach to all matters. One major issue Al-Mutazilah raised was that of the
position of the Quran in relation to God. It is well known that all Muslims believe that the Quran is,
literally, the word of God, but Al-Mutazilah added that it was ‘created', in the sense that it did not share
God's attribute of being ‘ever-present'. This attribute belonged to God and to no one and nothing else.

The Caliph accepted this view and defended it with enthusiasm. He even wrote in his will that he bears
witness that ‘God is unlike anything else. He is One, the Sovereign of the universe with no partner.
Everything else is a creation of His. The Quran cannot be anything other than the rest of creation,
having the same qualities as everything else, while God is one with nothing like Him.' He also urged
his brother, Al-Mu'tassim, who was to succeed him, to follow his ideas.

As Al-Ma'moon was staying at Tartoos, he wrote to Ishaq ibn Ibraheem, his Deputy in Baghdad, to
examine all scholars on this point, insisting that they must accept that the Quran was ‘created' by God.
The orders were carried out immediately, with the Deputy organising a meeting of all scholars and
warning them that torture and affliction would be the lot of anyone who dissented. All scholars
attending toed the official line, with the exception of four, but two of these later followed suit and two
were left unwilling to compromise. Ishaq ibn Ibraheem decided to send them over to the Caliph, in
fetters, as his orders specified. The two were Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Muhammad ibn Noah. On the
journey, the latter scholar died, a martyr, and Ahmad was transported to the Caliph. However, a couple
of days later, news of the Caliph's own death were received, but the travelling party continued their
journey until they arrived at the door of his successor, Al-Mu'tassim.
Al-Mu'tassim was in no way a scholar, nor did he understand what the whole issue was about. He was
more of a military commander, but he loved his brother, Al-Ma'moon and trusted his judgement.
Therefore, he was bent on carrying to the letter his brother's will, requiring him to eradicate the opposite
view. Hence, Ahmad was brought to him, in fetters, and was asked about his views on the question at
issue, i.e. the position of the Quran. He said in court, which was attended by a large number of
scholars, mostly of Al-Mutazilah, that the whole subject was not mentioned in the Quran, the hadith or
by the Prophet's companions. As such, it was better and safer not to be involved in such theological
arguments and to confine oneself only to stating that the Quran was God's word. They would not
accept that from him. Because of his popularity and high standing, they tried both to tempt him to
agree and to scare him of the consequences of refusal, but without success. Hence, they inflicted on
him physical torture, with slaves beating him up with whips, but he would not give in. Then he was
taken to prison. This was carried out repeatedly over a period of 28 months, but Ahmad would not
budge.

Ahmad's popularity increased, as people admired his resolute stand. Therefore, he was released, but
placed under house arrest. He was banned from teaching or meeting other people. This continued for
the rest of the reign of Al-Mu'tassim and his son, Al-Wathiq. However, when Al-Mutawkkil succeeded
Al-Wathiq, in 232 AH, 837 CE, the trouble was over, as he leaned towards scholars of Fiqh and hadith,
among whom Ahmad was the top figure. That was a time when Ahmad could have avenged himself
against those who persecuted him, but he absolved them all of everything they did, seeking no revenge
whatsoever.

To the end of his life, Ahmad maintained his position on the central question in this difficult period. He
believed that the Quran was part of God's knowledge, and His word revealed to His last messenger,
Muhammad [peace be on him]. It was not a ‘creature' of God. He relied in this on the fact that neither
the Prophet nor any of his companions stated anything of the sort. Hence, Muslims should maintain
the same position and refrain from such logical and theological debate that was bound to be futile.

Imam Ahmad devoted all his scholarly work to hadith and Fiqh. He attained a very high position in
both disciplines, but this has led some scholars to classify him among the scholars of one speciality
rather than the other. Whatever anybody may feel, the truth is that Ahmad was a scholar of Fiqh who
paid great attention to hadith so that hadith became his distinctive scholarly mark. We will consider
Ahmad's work in both capacities.

Imam Ahmad started his collection of hadith early in his scholarly career, and continued his efforts
throughout his life. He kept all his material carefully, but without putting what he collected in any
specific order. Late in his life, when he feared that what he collected might be lost, he gathered his
sons and a few of his best students and related all his collection to them. He aimed to revise it all and
classify it, but he died before he could do so. That task was left to his son Abdullah ibn Ahmad, who
was a distinguished scholar of hadith in his own right. Abdullah added some hadiths which confirmed
those collected by his father on different topics.

The system of classification followed by Abdullah ibn Ahmad was different from that of the other main
collections of hadith which followed aspects of Fiqh. Al-Musnad is classified according to the first
reporter of hadith, which means that it relates all the hadiths reported by one companion of the Prophet,
regardless of subject matter. When these have been documented, a new chapter is started to relate
all the hadiths reported by another companion, and so on. This makes it very difficult to use Al-Musnad
by anyone who is not a scholar of hadith. This method of classification is useful in knowing the scholarly
standpoint and views of each companion of the Prophet, but this is a specialised area.
Ahmad was keen to make his collection highly authentic. He was always looking into it, dropping any
hadith that he suspected to have not been accurately reported. But he did not drop all the hadiths that
were lacking in authenticity. He says to his son, Abdullah: "Had I aimed to include only what is highly
authentic, I would have related only a small portion, but you, my son, know my method in relating
hadith. I do not contradict a hadith whose authenticity is questionable unless there is some other hadith
on the same subject to contradict it."

This means that Al-Musnad includes some hadiths that are somewhat lacking in authenticity, but, as
Imam Ibn Taimiyah says, there is not a single hadith in Al-Musnad that has been proven to be false or
fabricated.

That Ahmad was a top scholar of Fiqh is a matter of no doubt, but his Fiqh scholarship was based on
his excellence in hadith. Suffice it to say that when Al-Bukhari completed his Sahih collection, he chose
Ahmad to review it for him, and Ahmad raised questions only on four hadiths in the book that was
destined to become the best known in the Muslim world for 12 centuries so far. Hence, Ahmad's fiqh is
closest to the Sunnah and hadith. However, the mainstay of Ahmad's fiqh may be summed up as
follows.

1. Religious text, meaning the Quran and the hadith. When Ahmad finds a text applicable to a question,
he adopts that and does not consider any other view, not even a ruling by any companion of the
Prophet.

2. Rulings by the Prophet's companions when there was nothing to contradict these. He would not say
that such a ruling represented unanimity, but he would only say that he did not know of any opposing
view.

3. If he had different views of the Prophet's companions, he would choose the one that was more in
line with the Quran and the Sunnah. If he could not determine that, he would report their disagreement
without favouring any view. In this he is different from El-Shafie who would weigh up the different views
and come out in preference of one. Ahmad considers analogy to be of lesser value than the view of a
companion of the Prophet.

4. Ahmad places some of the less authentic hadiths ahead of analogy, or qiyas, as a source of rulings.
Such hadiths would be the ones whose reporters are not of the highest calibre on reliability, but are
not accused of falsification or fabrication. This means that Ahmad would uphold the views of scholars
of the generation of tabieen, who were successors to the Prophet's companions. If there were several
views of this degree, he would consider them all acceptable.

5. Analogy, or qiyas, to which he resorted only when necessary. However, he relies on this source
less than other scholars, including El-Shafie.

6. Unanimity of scholars, which is accepted as a main source of legislation by all schools of thought.
However, Ahmad felt that such unanimity is very hard to achieve, particularly after the generation of
the Prophet's companions. For unanimity to be ascertained, there must be no dissenting views, and
with scholars available in every main city, it was very difficult to achieve.

7. Serving the interests of the individual or the community, provided that these interests fit in with the
aims of the religion and do not contradict any statement in the Quran or the Sunnah. This is what is
known as massalih mursalah.
8. Means of accomplishing ends. This is a principle that has been refined by the Hanbali School of
thought. What it entails is that if something leads to a forbidden end, it is forbidden, and if it facilitates
the accomplishment of a duty, it becomes a duty or highly recommended. For example, Ahmad
imposes the payment of blood money, like in accidental killing, on a person who prevents another to
eat or drink until he dies, because his action led to his death. He also makes it forbidden for a
shopkeeper to slash his prices in order to damage his neighbour's business.

9. An initial ruling remains valid unless we have clear evidence to show that it has changed. This is
what is known in Islamic jurisprudence as istishab. What it means in practice is that all transactions
and conditions incorporated in them are permissible unless they are clearly forbidden, because all
things are initially permissible unless they come under a specific prohibition. The Hanbali School of
thought implements this principle far more widely than the rest.

The Hanbali School of thought is rich with diverse opinions. We often have more than one Hanbali
view on the same question. Several reasons have contributed to this, such as the fact that Ahmad
would accept as valid all the views reported to have been expressed by the Prophet's companions,
without favouring any of them. Another reason was that Ahmad would not give a ruling unless he
studied the question in relation to the parties involved. Thus he may give two different rulings on very
similar questions because the parties in each time have different circumstances, and he takes these
into consideration. Moreover, over the years there were many highly distinguished scholars belonging
to the Hanbali School who attained the grade of making independent ijtihad, or the exercise of
scholarly discretion. These have greatly enriched Hanbali scholarship.

The Hanbali School of thought has not spread far and wide as the other three, mainly because it was
the last of the four to develop. However, it always remained the one followed in the heart of Arabia,
and after the establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia it has spread to all parts of the Arabian
Peninsula apart from Yemen and Oman. It continues to constitute a very valuable contribution to
Islamic scholarship. Ahmad died in 241 A.H, corresponding to 856 CE. May God bless his soul.