The Rise of the Hanbali Madhhab in Baghdad
After Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s firm stance in the mihnah, his status was elevated and his madhhab became dominant in Baghdad. By the time Imam at-Tabari arrived, the Hanbali madhhab was the main school followed by both scholars and the general public in Baghdad. This created a sensitive environment for any differing views.
Imam at-Tabari’s Conflict With Ibn Abi Dawud
Imam at-Tabari came to Baghdad as a leading scholar of tafsir and hadith. Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud, a major Hanbali figure, was close to the ruler and had a public platform. Between him and at-Tabari arose scholarly rivalry. When at-Tabari wrote on the virtues of the Quran, Ibn Abi Dawud responded with a similar work. When Ibn Abi Dawud spoke on the virtues of Ali, at-Tabari authored a book beginning with the virtues of Abu Bakr and Umar, then Ali, and affirmed the authenticity of the hadith of Ghadir Khumm. This later became a cause for accusation.
Accusations of Shi’ism and Heresy
After at-Tabari authenticated the hadith of Ghadir Khumm, Ibn Abi Dawud responded by weakening it. This difference led to some Hanbalis accusing at-Tabari of being a Shi’i. Others went further, accusing him of ilhad or Jahmi beliefs. Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh reports that those who accused him did not even understand the terms they were using. These accusations were not from scholars but from the Hanbalis who followed their leaders blindly.
The Statement About Imam Ahmad
One major reason for the anger was at-Tabari’s statement that Imam Ahmad was not a jurist whose disagreements were considered. He explained that Ahmad was a hadith scholar and his fiqh was not yet compiled like the madhhabs of Abu Hanifah Malik and al-Shafi’i. He added that he found no reliable companions who transmitted Ahmad’s fiqh in a structured way. Although some scholars had said similar things, this statement provoked many Hanbalis.
Public Confrontation in the Masjid
At-Tabari was confronted in the main masjid by several Hanbalis, including Abu Abdullah al-Jassas. He repeated his view about Imam Ahmad and also rejected the hadith of Allah sitting on the Throne, calling it impossible. He recited the verse saying Glory be to the One who has no companion and no seatmate on His Throne. This sparked outrage and the people attacked him and threw their inkwells at him.
Physical Attacks and House Siege
After the confrontation in the masjid, the Hanbali public attacked at-Tabari’s home with stones until they piled up like a hill at his door. The chief of police had to come with troops to protect him and clear the area. Despite all this, at-Tabari did not fight back. He remained in his home and composed a book explaining his creed and praising Imam Ahmad. He read it to them and continued to honour Ahmad until his death.
Blocking Students and Burial Problems
Some Hanbalis blocked students from reaching at-Tabari. Al-Husayn ibn Ali al-Razi said that Abu Bakr ibn Khuzaymah asked him if he had taken knowledge from at-Tabari. When he said no, he explained that the Hanbalis had prevented him from entering. After at-Tabari died, some people claimed he was a Rafidi and even tried to stop his burial. He was buried secretly in his house.
The Dispute Over the Hadith of The Prophet ﷺ Sitting on the Throne
One of the most serious points of conflict between Imam at-Tabari and the Hanbalis was his rejection of the hadith that claims the Prophet ﷺ will sit on the Throne. When the Hanbalis came to confront him in the main masjid of Baghdad on a Friday, they asked him about this hadith directly. Imam at-Tabari replied, “As for the hadith of sitting on the Throne, it is impossible.” Then he recited:
سبحان من ليس له أنيس ولا له في عرشه جليس
Glory be to the One who has no companion and no seatmate on His Throne
This upset the Hanbalis, especially the followers of Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud, who viewed it as a denial of a report they accepted. Upon hearing these words, a crowd that included many Hanbalis and people of hadith erupted in anger. They threw their inkwells at him and physically attacked him in the masjid.
As the situation escalated, Imam at-Tabari withdrew to his home. The crowd then began throwing stones at his house until they formed a large mound at his doorstep. The chief of police, Nazuk, had to intervene with thousands of guards to protect him and remove the stones. On his door, someone had written the same line he recited: “Glory be to the One who has no companion and no seatmate on His Throne.”
Nazuk ordered that this inscription be erased. In its place, one of the people of hadith wrote verses defending the honour of the Prophet ﷺ, affirming that he would be seated on the Throne as an honoured guest of the Most Merciful. These lines included phrases such as:
“He is brought near and honoured with a seat despite those who hate him… On a Throne perfumed with sweetness… So narrated Layth from Mujahid”
This disagreement was not simply a matter of rejecting a hadith. It showed a difference in how to interpret such narrations.
Imam at-Tabari viewed the report of The Prophet ﷺ sitting on the Throne as impossible, meaning he did not accept its authenticity or its apparent meaning. The Hanbalis saw rejection of the narration as an attack on the status of the Prophet ﷺ.
This particular incident caused great public outrage and was one of the reasons why at-Tabari was attacked both physically and verbally. It also contributed to the long-lasting hostility he faced from the Hanbali public, some of whom continued to accuse him even after his death.
These historical sources and others agree on the following matters:
1. That Ibn Jarir, may Allah have mercy on him, remained in seclusion within his home.
2. That when he died in the year 310 AH, he was buried in his home at night, and they were prevented from burying him by day.
3. That this was due to the harm he had endured.
Then they differed on who harmed him and why.
Yaqut attributed it to two matters related to the Hanbalis:
- His interpretation of the hadith of sitting on the Throne.
- His omission of Ahmad’s disagreement in his book Ikhtilaf al-Fuqahaʾ.
Ibn al-Athir mentioned that Ibn Miskawayh said the reason was the common people accusing him of rafd (rejection) and ilhad (heresy), but Ibn al-Athir rejected this and instead mentioned that the cause was his composition of the book mentioned above and the Hanbalis rising against him.
Imam At Tabari was clearly wrong in this issue since we have many athar from the salaf affirming the prophet will indeed be seated on his Throne. (Click here to see discord channel of athar from the salaf affirming it)
It is likely that Imam At Tabari did not see the abundant athar from the salaf of them affirming the prophet will sit on the throne which is why he denied it.
Unpublished Book and Lasting Misunderstanding
The book Ikhtilaf al-Fuqahaʾ that had triggered much of the controversy was not even released in his lifetime. It was found buried after his death and copied by others. Yet the harm had been done and misunderstanding remained. Still, scholars like Ibn Khuzaymah and others acknowledged that he was wronged by the Hanbalis who did not understand his position.
Clarifying the True Nature of the Dispute
The dispute began as rivalry between peers and became personal due to the behaviour of Ibn Abi Dawud and his followers. Scholars have always said that the words of peers about one another should be ignored and not transmitted. The anger of the Hanbali public was based on misunderstanding and exaggeration. This episode should not be used to criticise the Hanbali madhhab as a whole.
Fanaticism Is Not Limited to One Group
Fanaticism is a sickness found in many groups. It is not specific to the Hanbalis. Even those who claim to reject madhhabs fall into worse forms of bias. The true solution is to be loyal to Allah and His Messenger not to individuals or groups. The great scholar ash-Shawkani warned that religious bias had caused Muslims to accuse one another of disbelief without proof from the Quran or Sunnah. He said anyone who fulfils the five pillars is a Muslim and must not be condemned by others without clear evidence.
The Meaning Behind At-Tabari’s Statement
When at-Tabari said that nothing was transmitted from Ahmad, he meant structured fiqh like that of other jurists. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah explained that Ahmad’s views were scattered and few people gathered all his opinions. Even al-Khallal who compiled around forty volumes missed many statements. The Hanbali madhhab was not fully formed during at-Tabari’s life. His judgement was based on what was available to him at the time.
Final Reflection
This dispute was a product of scholarly rivalry and public misunderstanding. At-Tabari was a leading imam with his own independent madhhab. His views were grounded in knowledge, not personal bias. He remained respectful and explained himself clearly. The fanaticism he faced reflects a wider human weakness not confined to any single group.
Imam at-Tabari, may Allah have mercy on him, was tested in his time by people whom Allah sent as a trial for him, so that his life and legacy would remain fragrant until our time. Attacking him is an attack on the imams of Islam, the carriers of this religion and its defenders. The attacks on the symbols of Islam will continue until the Day of Judgement. Among those who participated in this attack were some of the Hanbalis of his era. The root of Imam at-Tabari’s trial can be traced back to the trial faced by Imam Ahmad.
The Beginning Of The Story
This is a living example of what we mentioned earlier, that Allah hides His gifts within hardship, and raises His servants through trials and the harm of those who oppose them. Today, the status of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH) is well-known, not only among senior students of knowledge, but even the general Muslims know him, may Allah have mercy on him. This all began when he stood firm during the trial of the claim that the Quran was created.
He stood firm and spoke the truth, so Allah raised his rank and elevated his status, and his madhhab became widely followed, especially in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad, the very land where the events of that trial occurred. Imam Ahmad’s madhhab became the dominant one among the majority of scholars and Hanbalis in Baghdad during the third and fourth centuries. This reminds us of Imam at-Tabari who came to that land as a great hadith scholar, but Baghdad had its own reality, as we will see.
At that time, the leading imam of Iraq, especially among the Hanbalis, was Abu Bakr Abdullah ibn Abi Dawud al-Sijistani (d. 316 AH).
Ad-Dhahabi said: “Everyone who has been criticised, we have already mentioned when we spoke about Ibn Abi Dawud. He said: His own father criticised him, as did Ibrahim ibn Urmah. At the beginning, he was associated with some tendencies of nusb (hostility toward Ahl al-Bayt), and Ibn al-Furat expelled him from Baghdad to Wasit.
Then the vizier Ali ibn Isa brought him back, and he began to narrate hadith and openly mention the virtues of Ali رضي الله عنه. After that, he adopted the Hanbali madhhab and became one of their prominent imams, and he is accepted by the people of hadith (ashab al-hadith). As for the criticism his father directed at him, I do not know what became clear to him about him. I heard Abdan say: I heard Abu Dawud say, “It is from tribulation that Abdullah seeks the post of judge.”
Siyar Aʿlam al-Nubalaʾ (13/228)
He was close to the ruler, and a pulpit was set up for him to teach the people. However, a conflict occurred between him and at-Tabari, the type that happens between peers. Although the words of peers about one another are often ignored and not transmitted, as the scholars have said, we are compelled to address the incident here in order to respond to those who cast doubts, and to prevent people of various madhhabs and sects from exploiting this incident to attack the scholars and discredit them.
The Words Of Peers Are Not To Be Relied Upon
What happened between Imam at-Tabari and Imam Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud was the type of tension and dispute that typically arises between peers. Yet, it also had a positive side, in that it led to competition between them in serving knowledge and mastering its disciplines.
Whenever one of them made a contribution in a particular area, the other would respond with even greater effort. For example, when Imam at-Tabari wrote a book on the virtues of the Quran, Imam Abu Bakr responded by writing a similar book, which may have been the one called al-Masaahif.
When Imam at-Tabari heard that Abu Bakr was delivering lessons to the people about the virtues of Ali, he also narrated those virtues and wrote a book on the virtues of Ali. He opened the book with the virtues of the rightly guided caliphs, then mentioned the virtues of Ali, may Allah be pleased with all of them. Among the hadiths he included was the famous hadith of Ghadir Khumm. He elaborated on its different chains and argued for its authenticity.
Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH) said: He gathered the different chains of transmission for the hadith of Ghadir Khumm into four volumes. I saw half of it, and I was amazed by the vast number of narrations it contained, and I became certain that this had truly occurred.
It was said to Ibn Jarir, “Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud is narrating the virtues of Ali.” He replied, “A shout from the guard,” and there had been tension between Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Dawud, with neither of them being fair to the other. The Hanbalis were the supporters of Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud, so they increased in number and spread out against Ibn Jarir, and he suffered harm from them and remained confined to his house. We seek refuge in Allah from desires.
Siyar Aʿlam al-Nubalaʾ (14/277)
When it reached him that Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud had criticised the hadith of Ghadir Khumm, he composed a book titled “al-Fada’il” (The Virtues). He began it with the virtue of Abu Bakr, then Umar, and he spoke about affirming the authenticity of the hadith of Ghadir Khumm. He argued in support of its authenticity, but the book was never completed.
He was one of those who was not afraid of the blame of any blamer in the matter of Allah, despite the great harm and slanders he endured from the ignorant, the jealous, and the unbelievers.
As for the people of religion and knowledge, they did not deny his knowledge, his abstinence from the dunya, his renunciation of it, and his contentment, may Allah have mercy on him, with the small share he received from a plot of land that his father left him in Tabaristan.
Harun ibn Abd al-Aziz told me: Abu Ja‘far said, “I sought Allah’s guidance and asked Him for help in what I intended of composing the tafsir three years before I began writing it, and He helped me.”
Siyar Aʿlam al-Nubalaʾ (14/274)
In response, Imam Abu Bakr wrote to weaken that hadith. This became one of the reasons many people accused at-Tabari of being a Shi’i, as will be explained.
The Desire To Defend One’s Own Self Is At The Root Of Disputes
What a beautiful example of scholarly competition and dedication to knowledge. However, the devil stirred hostility between the two imams. Matters escalated beyond scholarly disagreement into personal rivalry. Each of them insisted on defending himself against the other, exaggerating in doing so, failing to be just, and the issue grew in intensity. Imam Abu Bakr launched a harsh campaign against his peer.
He rallied his followers, especially since he was the leader of the Hanbalis in Baghdad, against Imam at-Tabari. They made up false accusations against him, monitored his every slip, and even turned his virtues into flaws through distorted explanations and interpretations. At times, they accused him of being a Shi’i. At other times, they labelled him a heretic or an unbeliever.
Ali ibn Isa said about them: “By Allah, if you asked them about the meaning of rejection or heresy, they would neither know nor understand it” (al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh 6/677). This reflects the truth of the poet’s words:
وعين الرضا عن كل عيب كليلة
وعين السخط تبدي المساويا
The eye of love is blind to every fault,
The eye of hatred reveals every flaw.
Fanaticism is a destructive, blinding disease
Fanaticism is a hateful, blinding disease that obscures the line between truth and falsehood. It is deeply rooted in human history. A group of trinitarians among the Christians were supported by Emperor Constantine. As a result, the doctrine of the Trinity and incarnation became accepted, even though it remains a source of agony for Christians to this day.
They are unable to rationally justify it or prove its soundness, and they possess no authentic chain or scripture linking it to the Lord of the worlds like the Muslims have with their beliefs and texts. Yet, they clung to Constantine’s stance and have remained in confusion and misguidance. Within every madhhab, there exists a small faction who fanatically cling to their view, even if the truth becomes clear in another view.
Some even act as though their imam is like the infallible Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, denying any possibility of error. This is what happened to Imam at-Tabari at the hands of some of the Hanbalis.
As for Imam Abu Bakr, may Allah have mercy on him, he went so far as to inform the palace guard Nasr al-Hajib about Imam at-Tabari, reporting things about him. Among the things he claimed was that at-Tabari followed the views of Jahm ibn Safwan, and that he interpreted the verse “Rather both His hands are outstretched” (al-Ma’idah 64) to mean “His two blessings.” At-Tabari denied saying this, and responded, “I never said that.”
Thabit ibn Sinan mentioned in his history that the reason his burial was kept hidden was because the common people had gathered and prevented his burial during the day, claiming he held Rafidi beliefs, and later accused him of ilhad (heresy or irreligion).
Ibn Al Jawzi said: Ibn Jarir held the opinion that it is permissible to wipe over the feet instead of washing them, which is why he was accused of rafd (rejection), and Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud had written a report about him to Nasr al-Hajib (in another narration: Nasr al-Khadim), in which he claimed certain things about him.
Among them was that he attributed to him the view of Jahm (referring to Jahm ibn Safwan), and claimed that Ibn Jarir said, “Rather, His two hands are both open,” meaning “His two favours” (this is based on the verse: “Rather, both His hands are open” al-Maida: 64), which he denied and said, “I never said that.”
Another thing he accused him of was that he narrated a report that the soul of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, when it left his body, flowed into the hand of Ali, and so he drank it, to which Ibn Jarir responded, “The hadith only says that he wiped it on his face, and does not say that he drank it.”
Ibn Al Jawzi said: This too is impossible, but Ibn Jarir wrote in reply to this accusation to Nasr al-Hajib, “There is no group in Islam more despicable than this group,” and this was an ugly thing for him to say, for he should have responded to the one who opposed him directly, but to insult an entire group while knowing to whom they ascribe themselves is an extreme form of ugliness.
Al-Muntazam fi Tarikh al maluk wa al umm By Ibn Al Jawzi (13/217)
The Reason Why Imam At-Tabari Was Accused
What happened as a result of this conflict between peers is that Abu Bakr’s followers among the Hanbalis became stirred against at-Tabari. They began scrutinising everything he did, seeking to defame him, and agitating the public against him.
One of the main things they used against him was his book Ikhtilaf al-Fuqahaʾ, which was an unprecedented compilation of the views of earlier jurists like Abu Hanifah (d. 150 AH), Malik (d. 179 AH), al-Shafi’i (d. 204 AH) and others. However, he did not include the views of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. His opponents seized on this, roused the masses against him, and some Hanbalis, such as Abu Abdullah al-Jassas, Jaʿfar ibn ʿArafah, and al-Bayadi, confronted him directly.
They went to him and asked about Ahmad ibn Hanbal in the masjid on Friday, and about the hadith of sitting on the Throne. Abu Jaʿfar replied, “As for Ahmad ibn Hanbal, his disagreement is not considered because he was not a jurist but a hadith scholar.” This view had been held by some other imams before at-Tabari, so he was not the first to say it.
They objected, “But the scholars included him in the books of disagreement.” At-Tabari responded by stating his reason: “I have not seen anything transmitted from him, nor have I found students whose knowledge is reliable,” meaning that his statements and madhhab were not collected and preserved like the other madhhabs.
Naturally, the Hanbalis did not like what Imam at-Tabari said. They found in this an opportunity to attack him, accusing him of hating Imam Ahmad. The common people from the Hanabila became enraged, interpreting this as belittling Imam Ahmad, and their hearts turned against at-Tabari.
Personal motives played a role in fuelling the fitnah between at-Tabari and Abu Bakr. Had Abu Bakr limited himself to their scholarly disagreement and not provoked the public against Imam at-Tabari, especially given that at-Tabari’s position had an intellectually valid basis and was not based on mere desire or partisanship, the matter would have remained scholarly.
At-Tabari was an independent imam with his own madhhab and ijtihad. However, Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud’s sharp temper and character caused the situation to escalate.
Ahmad ibn Yusuf al-Azraq said: I heard Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud say, “I have pardoned everyone except the one who accused me of hatred for Ali رضي الله عنه.”
Al-Hafidh Ibn Adi said: In the beginning, he was associated with some degree of nusb (hostility towards Ali and Ahl al-Bayt), so Ibn al-Furat expelled him from Baghdad to Wasit, then Ibn Isa brought him back, and he began narrating hadith and openly mentioning the virtues of Ali, and then he adopted the Hanbali madhhab, and he became a major imam among them.
Ad Dhahabi said: He was courageous and strong-willed. There was tension between him (Abu Dawud) and Ibn Jarir, and also between him and Ibn Saʿid, as well as with the vizier Ibn Isa who had once brought him close.
Siyar Aʿlam al-Nubalaʾ (13/230)
Another thing that angered Abu Bakr’s followers was that at-Tabari opposed the Hanbali view on the second issue they asked about. When asked about the hadith of sitting on the Throne, he responded, “As for the hadith of sitting on the Throne, it is impossible.” Then he recited:
Exalted is the One who has no companion
And no one sits with Him on His Throne (Muʿjam al-Udabaʾ 6/2450)
Imam al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, said truly: “He was one who feared no blame in the cause of Allah, despite the great harm and slander he faced from the ignorant, the envious, and the heretical” (Siyar Aʿlam al-Nubalaʾ 14/274).
When they heard these words from him, they attacked him, vilified him, and threw their inkwells at him.
At that point, Imam Abu Jaʿfar chose to extinguish the fitnah even if it meant giving up his right to defend himself. He overlooked what they had done to him, withdrew from them, and went into his home. When they saw that students were still coming to him, they began to block them from entering.
Among those who were prevented was al-Husayn ibn Ali ibn Muhammad al-Razi, who said: “The first thing Imam Abu Bakr ibn Khuzaymah asked me was: Have you written from Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari? I said: No. He said: Why not? I said: He does not appear publicly. The Hanbalis were preventing people from entering upon him”
Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh (6/678)
Out of anger, they even pelted at-Tabari’s house with stones until a huge pile formed at his door. The police had to intervene to stop them and clear the stones. Out of humility and gentleness, at-Tabari did not argue with them. He stayed in his home and wrote a book explaining his beliefs and justifying his position. He praised Ahmad ibn Hanbal, mentioned his madhhab, and affirmed the soundness of his creed.
ʿAbd al-ʿAziz ibn Harun said: When Abu Jaʿfar entered al-Dinur on his way to Tabaristan, some of the scholars there invited him.
When they gathered, I said, “O Abu Jaʿfar, it is not suitable that we meet and do not have a scholarly discussion.” Then ʿAbd Allah ibn Hamdan said, “I have already discussed with him and narrated to him eighty-five rare hadiths that were unfamiliar to him, and he narrated to me eighteen that were unfamiliar to me.”
ʿAbd al-ʿAziz said: After that I met Abu Bakr ibn Sahl al-Dinuri, who was among the scholars and memorisers of hadith, and I told him about this. He said, “By Allah, the One besides whom there is no god, he lied. When Abu Jaʿfar came to us, he was invited by the one known as al-Kisai, and he invited the scholars along with him.
I was present, and with us was Ibn Hamdan. So he read to Abu Jaʿfar the chapter on funerals from al-Ikhtilaf (the book of disagreements). Abu Jaʿfar said to him, ‘It is not appropriate that we part ways without a scholarly discussion. This is the chapter on funerals, so let us discuss its musnad (connected) and maqtuʿ (disconnected) reports, and what the Companions and the Followers and the scholars differed about.’
Ibn Hamdan said, ‘As for the musnad, I am willing to discuss it. As for the rest, I will not discuss it.’ So Abu Jaʿfar narrated to him eighty-three unfamiliar hadiths, and Ibn Hamdan narrated to him eighteen unfamiliar ones.
Among what Ibn Hamdan narrated to Abu Jaʿfar was more problematic than what Abu Jaʿfar narrated to him, because whenever Ibn Hamdan narrated a rare hadith, Abu Jaʿfar would say to him, ‘This is a mistake from such-and-such angle, and someone like me does not discuss with such narrations,’ so he would feel embarrassed and fall silent.”
When Abu Jaʿfar returned to Baghdad from Tabaristan after that, Abu ʿAbd Allah al-Jassas, Jaʿfar ibn ʿUrfah, and al-Bayyadi took a hostile stance against him. The Hanbalis came to him and questioned him in the main masjid on Friday about Ahmad ibn Hanbal and about the hadith concerning Allah sitting on the Throne.
Abu Jaʿfar said, “As for Ahmad ibn Hanbal, his disagreement is not even considered. I never saw anything narrated from him, nor did I find for him students who can be relied upon.”
They said to him, “But the scholars have mentioned him among those who differ.” He said, “I have not seen anything narrated from him, nor anyone among his companions worth relying on. As for the hadith of sitting on the Throne, that is impossible.” Then he recited:
سبحان من ليس له أنيس ولا له في عرشه جليس
Glory be to the One who has no companion and no seat-mate on His Throne
When the Hanbalis and the people of hadith heard this from him, they rushed at him and threw their inkwells at him. It was said that they were thousands. So Abu Jaʿfar stood up himself and went into his house, and they threw stones at his house until they piled up at his door like a great mound.
Nazuk, the chief of police, came mounted with tens of thousands of troops to protect him from the public. He stood at his door until the night and ordered the removal of the stones from it. On his door had been written:
سبحان من ليس له أنيس ولا له في عرشه جليس
Glory be to the One who has no companion and no seat-mate on His Throne
Nazuk ordered that it be erased, and one of the people of hadith wrote in its place:
For Ahmad ﷺ is a station, no doubt exalted
When he arrives to the Most Merciful as a guest
He is brought near and honoured with a seat
Despite those who hate him, it raises the nose of the jealous
On a Throne perfumed with sweetness
Above every scheme of one who plots and defies
He truly holds this noble rank
So narrated Layth from Mujahid
Then he secluded himself in his house and wrote his well-known book of apology to them. He explained his madhhab and his creed, and criticised those who misunderstood him. He read the book to them. In it, he praised Ahmad ibn Hanbal, described his madhhab, and affirmed the soundness of his beliefs. He continued to mention him until he passed away.
He never published his book Ikhtilaf al-Fuqahaʾ (Disagreements of the Jurists) until he died. It was later found buried in the dirt, so they took it out and copied it. That is what I heard from several people, including my own father, may Allah have mercy on him.
Muʿjam al-Udabaʾ By Yaqut al-Hamawi (6/2451)
Still, the Hanbali followers wronged him, as Imam Ibn Khuzaymah noted (Muʿjam al-Udabaʾ 6/2443).
This mistake by Imam Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud, may Allah have mercy on him, should be acknowledged but not exaggerated, nor should it be generalised to all followers of Imam Ahmad. One of the techniques used by those who cast doubt on Islam is to focus on rare and shameful incidents to discredit entire madhhabs.
This is far from sound academic research and contradicts honesty and integrity, which are the foundations of true scholarship. When we look at things objectively, we find that fanaticism is a human tendency, and it exists across different groups, whether in fiqh madhhabs or general views.
Fanaticism has no madhhab, no religion, and no creed. It is a disease that affects a person’s heart and has nothing to do with madhhab affiliation. Proof of this is that even some of those who claim to be free from madhhabs display even worse fanaticism than the followers of madhhabs. We also see among the general public those who blindly follow certain individuals or ideas with fanaticism.
Ash-Shawkani strongly condemned this disease, saying: “Here, the tears must be shed, and a lament raised for Islam and its people, because of what fanaticism in the religion has done to most Muslims, causing them to accuse one another of disbelief. Not based on the Sunnah or the Quran, nor by any statement from Allah or proof, but only because the pot of religious bias has boiled over, and Satan has succeeded in dividing the Muslims.
He taught them to impose upon one another things that are like dust in the wind or mirages in the desert. O Allah, and woe to the Muslims because of this calamity, one of the greatest tragedies of the religion, a disaster the like of which the path of the believers has never seen.
If you still possess some reason, some awareness of Allah, and some Islamic concern, you must know, as does everyone knowledgeable about this religion, that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was asked about Islam.
He clarified its meaning and its essence, saying: establishing prayer, giving zakat, performing Hajj to the House, fasting Ramadan, and testifying that there is no god but Allah. Hadiths of this meaning are mutawatir. Whoever establishes these five pillars properly is a Muslim, even if some people reject that.
So, whoever comes to you with anything that contradicts this, from the worthless words of ignorant people, strike it in his face and say: Muhammad ibn Abdullah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, has already refuted your nonsense”
Al-Sayl al-Jarrar al-Mutadaffiq ʿala Hadaʾiq al-Azhar p. 981
Fanaticism is a form of extreme attachment to people, ideas, and principles. It blinds one to the truth and makes truth dependent on people rather than making people follow the truth.
In reality, fanaticism is the refusal to accept the truth from whoever brings it, even when its proof is clear, due to hidden desires, biases, and partisanship.
The Meaning Of Ibn Jarir’s Words: “I Did Not See Anything Narrated From Him”
As for Imam Ibn Jarir, his statement “Ahmad has no narrations” means that there were no narrations of fiqh from him in the way that other jurists and madhhab founders had, like Abu Hanifah, Malik, and al-Shafi’i. Others have said the same.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: Many of the books authored by the companions of Imam Ahmad only mention that when a boy reaches the age of seven, he is given the choice between his two parents, while for a girl, the father has more right to her.
Those who stated this, such as al-Khiraqi and others, only received some of the reports from Ahmad on this issue, and did not receive all of his other reports. For the statements of Ahmad are numerous and widely spread, and few are able to compile all of his reports on many issues due to the vastness and dispersion of his words and the many people who transmitted knowledge from him.
As for Abu Bakr al-Khallal, he travelled across lands and collected from Ahmad’s reports on legal matters around forty volumes, and even then he missed many things that are not in his books. As for what he did collect from Ahmad’s words, it includes subjects from the foundations of the religion, like his Kitab al-Sunnah and around three volumes of similar material.
He also gathered in usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence) and hadith sciences, like his Kitab al-ʿIlm, and compiled Ahmad’s words on hadith defects in his Kitab al-ʿIlal, and from his words on the deeds of the heart, character, and etiquette, and from his speech on narrators and history. So, despite the great size of his compilation, he did not encompass everything that people transmitted from Ahmad.
Majmuʿ al-Fatawa (34/111-112)
Then Shayk Al Islam said: “As for what is well known from Ahmad, which is giving the boy the choice between his two parents, this is also the madhhab of al-Shafiʿi and Ishaq ibn Rahuyah.
His agreement with al-Shafiʿi and Ishaq is greater than his agreement with others, and his foundational principles are more similar to theirs than to those of others. He used to praise them and hold them in high regard, and he preferred the principles of their madhhabs over those whose foundational principles were not as strong as theirs. His view was that the usul (principles) of the jurists among the people of hadith are sounder than the usul of others, and al-Shafiʿi and Ishaq were, in his view, among the foremost jurists from the people of hadith in their time.
Majmuʿ al-Fatawa (34/113)
Even the issues that are narrated from him are based on the circumstances and understanding of those who narrated them.
