Early Learning and Teachers

Being his first teacher as well as his maternal uncle, Ibn Nasir introduced him to many other teachers. Ibn al-Jawzi shows his gratitude to Ibn Nasir by writing the following in his notice: “He heard numerous traditions, and had copious knowledge in that regard. He studied lexicography under Abu Zakariya. He is the one whom Allah Ta’ala appointed for the purposes of guiding me to knowledge. He would exert great effort on my behalf during my childhood and take me to teachers. He made me study the Musnad of Imam Ahmad by reading it to Ibn al-Husayn, as well as collections of shorter chains (‘awali). I, at that time, hadn’t a clue what learning is, due to my young age. He would make record of all traditions I heard. I studied with him for thirty years and did not benefit from anyone as I benefited from him.”[2]

Thus, Ibn al-Jawzi began his learning career from a very young age, and had over 90 teachers, three of whom were women.[3] His teachers who taught him traditions include Abu al-Sa’adat al-Mutawakkili, who gave him the authorisation (ijaza) to transmit works from al-Khatib al-Baghdadi; Ibn al-Husayn who taught him Musnad of Imam Ahmad; and of course, Ibn Nasir who started his career as a Shafi’i-Ash’ari, but later converted to Hanbalism in doctrine and jurisprudence, due to a dream he saw to that effect.[4]

Amongst his Qur’an teachers was Abu al-Karam al-Hashimi – another convert from Shafi’ism to Hanbalism, of whom Ibn al-Jawzi states: ‘He is the first to teach me the Quran when I was a child’[5] – and most notably Abu Muhammad al-Muqri’ from whom he learnt various modes of recitations.[6]

His education in jurisprudence began with one of the leading Hanbali authorities of the time, Ibn al-Zaghuni, which continued for several years. After the latter’s death in 527/1133, Ibn al-Jawzi became the student of Abu Bakr al-Dinawari until his death in 532/1137-8, after which he continued his law studies with other prominent Hanbali figures, such as Abu Ya’la al-Saghir, then finally, Abu Hakim al-Nahrawani. Later Ibn al-Jawzi became an assistant teacher for al-Nahrawani in his institute, and upon his death in 556/1161, Ibn al-Jawzi succeeded him as the professor.

His preaching career (wa’z) also began at a very young age, when his teacher Ibn Nasir introduced him to Abu al-Qasim al-‘Alawi al-Harawi, who taught him the art of preaching. It was not long before he encouraged Ibn al-Jawzi to ascend the pulpit and deliver his first sermon attended by a crowd of 50,000, at the tender age of ten.[7] However, al-‘Alawi soon left Baghdad, after which Ibn al-Jawzi’s training on wa’dh was continued by Ibn al-Zaghuni until his death in 527/1133.

In addition to his professors, he held in great admiration three scholars, even though he never personally met them: Abu al-Wafa’ ‘Ali b. ‘Aqil al-Hanbali; the Ash’ari-Shafi’i historian, a biographer and the author of Hilyat al-Awliya’, Abu Nu’aym al-Isfahani; and al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, a famous traditionist and a historian, a Hanbali who converted to Shafi’ism.[8]

His Preaching Career

Although, Ibn al-Jawzi was a prolific author, who wrote extensively on many topics and sciences, his fame is due to his glorious preaching career, which in turn made him an influential religious political figure in Baghdad.

As preceded, he gave his first sermon at the age of ten, but his career only advanced at the age of fifteen, upon the death of his teacher Ibn al-Zaghuni in 527/1133 when he requested that he should replace his teacher’s position. However, due to his young age, his proposal was turned down, yet his persistence led him to the vizier, who officially appointed him to deliver sermons in al-Mansur mosque.[9]

By year 544/1149, Ibn al-Jawzi was appointed by Ibn Hubayrah, the pious Hanbali vizier, to hold his sermons every Friday in his palace, which was open to the public. His ever increasing popularity moved the Caliph al-Mustanjid to appoint him to deliver sermons in the Palace mosque, which were regularly attended by 10,000 to 15,000. Ibn al-Jawzi used this opportunity to show great valour in defence of sunnah and briskly attacked the ever growing madhab fanaticism in his time, as well as scholastic theological schools such as Mu’tazilism and Ash’arism.[10]

However, after Ibn Hubayra became a victim of his rival conspirators and was subsequently martyred in 560/1164, life became difficult for Ibn al-Jawzi. The following year one of the colleges under the supervision of Ibn al-Jawzi was seized. Hence, his activism and influence vanished from the scene for five years, but reappeared after the death of Caliph al-Mustanjid in 566/1170.

During the reign of al-Mustadhi’, Ibn al-Jawzi developed strong ties with the Caliph, due to which he became of the most influential persons of Baghdad. This special relationship is illustrated by Ibn al-Jawzi’s work al-Misbah al-Mudhi fi Dawlat al-Mustadhi’, which he wrote in praise of the Caliph. In 567/1171 when Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi re-established the ‘Abbasid Khutba in Cairo after defeating the Fatimids, Ibn al-Jawzi demonstrated his rejoice by writing Kitab al-Nasr ‘Ala Misr, after which he was authorised by the Caliph in 568/1172 to deliver sermons at the Badr gate in presence of the Caliph. In the same year he delivered many popular sermons that attracted extraordinarily large crowds of 100,000 attendees.

In 569/1173, Ibn al-Jawzi was invited by the people of al-Harbiyya and Bab al-Basra, the two quarters of West Baghdad, to deliver a sermon in an open area between the two quarters. The sermon, however, was attended by people from all parts of the city. Ibn al-Jawzi led the multitude of congregation to the place of meeting and delivered the sermon. Since the meeting was held after sunset, the people of al-Harbiyya and Bab al-Basra – men, women and children – came out with candles to receive him. The number of attendees were estimated at 300,000, while the candles were estimated at a thousand, lighting up the plain and dramatising the occasion.

In 570 he built his own college at Darb Dinar and on the first day delivered a series of fourteen lectures on different sciences. In the same year, he concluded his exegeses of the Quran and prostrated on the pulpit, claiming to be the first one to have completed a series of Quran exegeses in sermons since it was revealed. In the same year he was given the custody of another college, on which the name of Imam Ahmad was inscribed, along with a declaration that it had been relegated to the supervision of the champion of the sunnah, Ibn al-Jawzi. Such a growing influence of Ibn al-Jawzi, and by extension the Hanbali Madhab, alarmed the members of other schools.

In 571/1178-9 the Caliph granted Ibn al-Jawzi inquisitorial powers to combat the increasing Rafidhite influence in Baghdad. Ibn al-Jawzi ascended the pulpit and proclaimed to the crowds: “Amir al-Mu’minin has heard about the growth of Rafdh, and has conferred upon me inquisitional powers to combat heresies. If you hear anyone from the public reviling the Companions, then inform me, for I will raze his house and land him in prison.”[11] It is said that it was during this period Ibn al-Jawzi penned his famous Talbis Iblis (The Devil’s Deception), in critique of numerous heresies, social ills, and in particular, the distorted version of Tasawwuf that had become widespread.

Ibn al-Jawzi’s career and popularity reached its zenith in the year 574/2278 AH, which in turn empowered the Hanbalis in Baghdad. At this same time, the Caliph ordered that an inscription be engraved on the tomb of Imam Ahmad stating: ‘This is the grave of the crown of sunnah, the most noble of the Ummah, one with high ambitions, the embodiment of the Book and the sunnah of Allah’s Messenger, al-Imam Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani – may Allah be merciful with him’, ending with the date of his demise and Ayat al-Kursi. However, the followers of other madhabs became concerned at the growing Hanbali influence on the Caliph and complained, since it was never customary for the ruler to bestow the title of ‘Imam’ to anyone other than a caliph.[12]

Ibn al-Jawzi writes, describing the pinnacle of his success in the same year: “Today I am the director of five colleges, and the author of 150 works in all subjects. More than 100,000 repented at my hands, and I cut off the hair of more than 10,000 lax young men.[13] No preacher saw a crowd as great as mine, which was attended by the Caliph, the vizier, sahib al-makhzan (Dhahir al-Din) and the senior scholars.”[14]

After the death of al-Mustadhi’, al-Nasir ascended to power in 575/1179. Whilst it has been noted that al-Nasir inclined towards Shi’ism, the early part of his reign did not appear to reflect any change in Ibn al-Jawzi’s relation with the caliphate. This, nevertheless, was soon to change and land Ibn al-Jawzi in utter disgrace in year 590/1194.

His Trial

Year 590/1194 marks Ibn al-Jawzi’s fall from grace. In this painful episode of his life, he was subjected to severe tribulation, exile and imprisonment. The cause of his trial was the bitter feud between him and the descendants of the famous Sufi Hanbali Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani.

During the vizierate of Abu al-Mudhaffar b. Yunus, – a supporter of Ibn al-Jawzi and like him, also a student of al-Nahrawani – a tribunal was setup for Rukn al-Din, the grandson of ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani. The tribunal, which took place in the presence of Ibn al-Jawzi and other leading scholars, concluded in burning of his books, which contained zandaqah, heresies, astrology and in particular rasa’il ikhwan al-safa. Consequently, Al-Jaylani’s institute, much to the disgrace of Rukn al-Din, was snatched away from him and placed in the care of Ibn al-Jawzi.

However, after the dismissal of the vizier Ibn Yunus in 590/1194, Ibn al-Qassab, described by Ibn Rajab as ‘a vile Rafidite’ (rafidhi khabith), was instated as the vizier. Ibn al-Qassab, then went in pursuit of his rival, Ibn Yunus and his supporters.

Rukn al-Din seized this opportunity to entrap Ibn al-Jawzi, and incited Ibn al-Qassab against him by suggesting that the former was a Nasibi (detractor of the Prophet’s family) and a descendant of Abu Bakr, enough reason for him to be disgraced and persecuted. Ibn al-Qassab, after seeking the permission of the Caliph al-Nasir, unleashed Rukn al-Din upon Ibn al-Jawzi. Rukn al-Din then proceeded to the house of Ibn al-Jawzi, where he publicly humiliated him and dragged him out of his house, which was then sealed off and his family dispersed. Ibn al-Jawzi was taken to Wasit in the middle of the night by Rukn himself and house arrested. Rukn, still seeking to further humiliate Ibn al-Jawzi, requested permission from the superintendent of Wasit to imprison Ibn al-Jawzi in an underground basement. The superintendent, who was also a Shi’ite, rebuked Rukn saying: “O ye Heretic! Should I throw him therein merely upon your request?! Bring me the written decree of the Caliph, for by Allah, if he was of my sect, I would have sacrificed my soul and wealth in his service!” Hence, Rukn simply returned to Baghdad.

Ibn al-Jawzi’s imprisonment in Wasit did not prevent him from utilising his time to write and teach, whilst cooking and cleaning, at a very old age without any help. It is reported that Ibn al-Jawzi would complete the Quran daily, yet omitting Surah Yusuf, due to his deep sorrow over his son who shared the same name.

It was after five years, in 595/1198-9 that his son, Muhiy al-Din Yusuf, became prominent through his preaching sessions, and successfully managed to intercede with the mother of the Caliph on behalf of his father, and thereby, facilitating Ibn al-Jawzi’s return to Baghdad.

His arrival in Baghdad was emotionally celebrated by the inhabitants, who enthusiastically came out to receive him with a warm welcome. It was then announced that he would be holding a preaching session the following Saturday. The people thus began to reserve places for themselves immediately after having prayed the Friday prayer. Despite heavy rains that night, the masses could not be deterred from the much awaited sermon. The next morning, Ibn al-Jawzi began to deliver his sermon to an extraordinary large audience, such that many, due to the vast numbers present, were unable to hear his voice.

His death and funeral

He continued to give sermons and author numerous works, until the Ramadan of 597/1200. On the 7^th of Ramadan, he sat at the mausoleum of the Caliph’s mother to deliver his last sermon. After addressing the congregation, he fell ill for five days, and passed away on Friday between Maghrib and ‘Isha at the age of eighty-six or eighty-seven. The next morning, his funeral was prepared and brought out of the house. The entire city of Baghdad came to a standstill as the masses gathered to attend the funeral. At first, his funeral was taken to the spot where he would deliver his sermons, and prayed over by his son, Abu al-Qasim. The crowds then carried the funeral to al-Mansur mosque, where he was prayed over again. By the time the crowds reached his grave, which was located near the grave of Imam Ahmad, it was time for the Friday prayer. It was one of the most extraordinary funerals in Baghdad, where the inhabitants of Baghdad showed their utmost remorse at the loss of an inspirational Islamic figure, a charismatic and earnest preacher, and a source of pride.

His Descendants

Ibn al-Jawzi left behind three sons and six daughters:

1) ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, his eldest son, who settled and preached in Mosul. He died at a very young age.

2) Abu al-Qasim ‘Ali, his second eldest son. He began his preaching career at a very young age but left shortly, and instead, degenerated into an idler and accompanied irreligious people. He was extremely rebellious towards his noble father, such that when the latter was sent in exile to Wasit, he sold most of his father’s books away for a dirt cheap price. Due to his behaviour, Ibn al-Jawzi had shunned him for years until he died. He would often say about his son: ‘I pray against him every last third of the night.’[15]

3) Muhiy al-Din Yusuf, his youngest son, who followed his father’s footsteps in learning and preaching. He also took responsibility for the ‘Ministry of Commanding Virtues and Forbidding Evil’ in Baghdad, taught his Hanbali colleagues at al-Mustansiriyya institute, and later formed al-Jawziyya institute in Damascus. He was killed, along with the Caliph at the hands of the Tatars upon Hulagu Khan’s invasion of Baghdad.

4) Sitt al-‘Ulama senior, the eldest daughter and the wife of the jurist, Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad al-Hammami; 5) Rabi’a, the mother of Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi; 6) Sharaf al-Nisa’, the wife of ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-‘Iyabi al-Hanbali; 7) Zaynab; Jawhara and 9) Sitt al-‘Ulama junior, the youngest daughter.[16]

Students

Ibn al-Jawzi produced many students, the most notable of them were:

• Yusuf b. al-Jawzi, Abu al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzi’s son who established al-Jawziyya institute in Damascus. He, along with his three sons, was killed by the Tatars upon the invasion of Baghdad by Hulagu Khan. His works include: Ma’adin al-Ibriz fi Tafsir al-Kitab al-‘Aziz in exegesis, al-Madhab al-Ahmad fi Madhab Ahmad, and al-Idah fi al-Jadal.
• Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi, his grandson from his daughter Rabi’a, a historian and a preacher like his grandfather. He was born and raised in Baghdad under the supervision of his grandfather, who then travelled to Damascus and settled therein. His works include: Mir’at al-Zaman fi Tarikh al-A’yan, al-Jalis al-Salih, al-Intisar wal-Tarjih, and many others. He was a convert from Hanbalism to Hanafism and apparently, Rafidhi-Shi’ism.
• ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi, one of the most prominent Hadith masters with outstanding knowledge on the narrators of traditions. He is the author of many famous works, such as al-Kamal fi Asma al-Rijal and ‘Umdat al-Ahkam.
• Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi, one of the major Hanbali authorities and the author of the profound and voluminous book on Law, al-Mughni, which became popular amongst researchers from all juristic backgrounds.

His Works

Ibn al-Jawzi is perhaps the most voluminous author in Islamic history. Al-Dhahabi states: “I have not known anyone amongst the ‘ulama to have written as much as he (Ibn al-Jawzi) did.”

According to Ibn al-Jawzi, he wrote his first book only at the tender age of thirteen.[17] It has always been difficult to determine the exact number of works authored by Ibn al-Jawzi. Al-Zirikli estimates it to be around 300[18], while Dr. al-‘Alwaji counted up to 574 works in his Mu’allafat Ibn al-Jawzi. However, this figure is far from accurate, and perhaps exaggerated, for al-‘Alwaji often repeats a title with a different wording, and gives it a separate count. Ibn al-Jawzi himself determined 150 works, at the time he was writing his rich historical piece al-Muntadham; and 250 by the time of his death.[19] Ibn Rajab lists over 180 compositions, whereas Ibn Taymiyyah, being an avid reader of Ibn al-Jawzi’s works, claimed to have counted over 1000 works, and later found even more, a claim that Dr. ‘Abd al-Rahman al-‘Uthaymin, deems gross exaggeration.

Although, Ibn al-Jawzi’s works range from law (fiqh), traditions (hadith), history and biography, his best contribution, as asserted by Ibn Taymiyyah were his Manaqib biographical series on some of the prominent Islamic figures.

The following is a list of his works as documented by Ibn Rajab:

Quranic Sciences

1) Al-Mughni fi al-Tafsir, 81 parts
2) Zad al-Masir fi ‘Ilm al-Tafsir, 4 volumes
3) Taysir al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Quran
4) Tadhkirat al-Arib fi Tafsir al-Gharib
5) Gharib al-Gharib
6) Nuzhat al-‘Uyun al-Nawadhir fi al-Wujuh wa al-Nadha’ir
7) Al-Wujuh wa al-Nawadhir fi al-Wujuh wa al-Nadha’ir, a summary of Nuzhat al-‘Uyun al-Nawadhir
Al-Ishara ila al-Qira’at al-Mukhtara, 4 parts
9) Tadhkirat al-Mutanabbih fi ‘Uyun al-Mushtabih
10) Funun al-Afnan fi ‘Uyun ‘Ulum al-Quran
11) Ward al-Aghsan fi Funun al-Afnan
12) ‘Umdat al-Rasikh fi Ma’rifat al-Mansukh wa al-Nasikh, 5 parts
13) Al-Musaffa bi Akuffi Ahl al-Rusukh min ‘Ilm al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh

Theology

14) Muntaqad al-Mu’taqid
15) Minhaj al-Wusul ila ‘Ilm al-Usul, 5 parts
16) Bayan Ghaflat al-Qa’il bi Qidam Af’al al-‘Ibad
17) Ghawamidh al-Ilahiyat
18) Maslak al-‘Aql
19) Minhaj Ahl al-Isaba
20) Al-Sirr al-Masun
21) Daf’ Shubhat al-Tashbih, 4 parts
22) Al-Radd ‘Ala al-Muta’assib al-‘Anid

Traditions and Asceticism

23) Jami’ al-Asanid bi Alkhas al-Asanid
24) Al-Hada’iq, 34 parts
25) Naqiy al-Naql, 5 parts
26) Al-Mujtab
27) Al-Nuzha, 2 parts
28) ‘Uyun al-Hikayat
29) Multaqat al-Hikayat, 13 parts
30) Irshad al-Muridin fi Hikayat al-Salaf al-Salihin
31) Rawdhat al-Naqil
32) Ghurar al-Athar, 30 parts
33) Al-Tahqiq fi Ahadith al-Ta’liq, 2 volumes (ISBN: 9775704480)
34) Al-Madih, 7 parts
35) Al-Mawdhu’at min al-Ahadith al-Marfu’at, 2 volumes
36) Al-‘Ilal al-Mutanahiya fi al-Ahadith al-Wahiya, 2 volumes
37) Ikhbar Ahl al-Rusukh fi al-Fiqh wal-Tahdith bi Miqdar al-Mansukh min al-Hadith (ISBN: 9771420054)
38) Al-Sahm al-Musib, 2 parts
39) Akhyir al-Dhakha’ir, 3 parts
40) Al-Fawa’id ‘an al-Shuyukh, 60 parts
41) Manaqib Ashab al-Hadith
42) Mawt al-Khidhr
43) Mukhtasar Mawt al-Khidhr
44) Al-Mashyikha
45) Al-Musalsalat
46) Al-Muhtasab fi al-Nasab
47) Tuhfat al-Tullab, 3 parts
48) Tanwir Mudlahim al-Sharaf
49) Al-Alqab
50) Fadha’il ‘Umar b. al-Khattab
51) Fadha’il ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz
52) Fadha’il Sa’id b. al-Musayyab
53) Fadha’il al-Hasan al-Basri
54) Manaqib al-Fudhayl b. ‘Ayadh, 4 parts
55) Manaqib Bishr al-Hafi, 7 parts
56) Manaqib Ibrahim b. Adham, 6 parts
57) Manaqib Sufyan al-Thawri
58) Manaqib Ahmad b. Hanbal
59) Manaqib Ma’ruf al-Karkhi, 2 parts
60) Manaqib Rabi’a al-‘Adawiyya
61) Muthir al-‘Azm al-Sakin ila Ashraf al-Amakin (ISBN: 9775227593)
62) Safwat al-Safwa, 5 parts, abridgment of Hilyat al-Awliya’ by Abu Nu’aym
63) Minhaj al-Qasidin, 4 parts
64) Al-Mukhtar min Akhbar al-Akhyar
65) Al-Qati’ li Muhal al-Lijaj bi Muhal al-Hallaj, a rebuttal against the supporters of al-Hallaj, the pantheist who was executed by the agreement of the jurists from four schools.
66) ‘Ujalat al-Muntadhar li Sharh Hal al-Khidhr
67) Al-Nisa’ wa ma yata’alluq bi adabihin
68) ‘Ilm al-Hadith al-Manqul fi Anna Aba Bakr Amma al-Rasul
69) Al-Jawhar
70) Al-Mughlaq

History

71) Talqih Fuhum Ahl al-Athar fi ‘Uyun al-Tawarikh wal-Siyar
72) Al-Muntadham fi Tarikh al-Muluk wal-Umam, 10 volumes
73) Shudhur al-‘Uqud fi Tarikh al-‘Uhud
74) Tara’if al-Dhara’if fi Tarikh al-Sawalif
75) Manaqib Baghdad

Fiqh

76) al-Insaf fi Masa’il al-Khilaf
77) Junnat al-Nadhir wa Jannat al-Nadhar
78) ‘Umad al-Dala’il fi Mushtahar al-Masa’il
79) Al-Mudhab fi al-Madhab
80) Masbuk al-Dhahab
81) Al-Nubdha
82) Al-‘Ibadat al-Khams
83) Asbab al-Hidaya li Arbab al-Bidaya
84) Kashf al-Dhulma ‘an al-Dhiya’ fi Radd Da’wa Ilkiya
85) Radd al-Lawm al-Dhaym fi Sawm Yawm al-Ghaym

Art of Preaching (wa’dh)

86) al-Yawaqit fi al-Khutab
87) al-Muntakhab fi al-Nuwab
88) Muntakhab al-Muntakhab
89) Muntakhal al-Muntakhab
90) Nasim al-Riyadh
91) Al-Lu’lu’
92) Kanz al-Mudhakkir
93) Al-Azaj
94) Al-Lata’if
95) Kunuz al-Rumuz
96) Al-Muqtabis
97) Zayn al-Qisas
98) Mawafiq al-Marafiq (ISBN: 2745134647)
99) Shahid wa Mashhud
100) Wasitat al-‘Uqud min Shahid wa Mashhud
101) Al-Lahab, 2 parts
102) Al-Mudhish
103) Saba Najd
104) Muhadathat al-‘Aql
105) Laqt al-Juman
106) Al-Muq’ad al-Muqim
107) Iqadh al-Wasnan min al-Raqadat bi Ahwal al-Haywan wal-Nabat, 2 parts
108) Nakt al-Majalis al-Badriyya, 2 parts
109) Nuzhat al-Adib, 2 parts
110) Muntaha al-Muntaha
111) Tabsirat al-Mubtadi’, 20 parts
112) Al-Yaquta, 2 parts (ISBN: 9775141494)
113) Tuhfat al-Wu’adh

Various sciences

114) Dham al-Hawa, 2 volumes
115) Sayd al-Khatir, 65 parts
116) Ihkam al-Ish’ar bi Ahkam al-Ash’ar, 20 parts
117) Al-Qussas al-Mudhakkirin (Also available in English: A critical edition, annotated translation and introduction by Merlin L. Swartz ASIN: B0007KE23O)
118) Taqwim al-Lisan
119) Al-Adhkiya
120) Al-Hamqa
121) Talbis Iblis, 2 volumes (A small part of the book has been translated and abridged into English by Dr. Bilal Philips)
122) Laqt al-Manafi’ fi al-Tibb, 2 volumes
123) Al-Shayb al-Khidhab
124) A’mar al-A’yan
125) Al-Thabat ‘ind al-Mamat, 2 parts
126) Tanwir al-Ghabash fi Fadhl al-Sud wal-Habash, 2 parts
127) Al-Hath ‘ala Hifdh al-‘Ilm wa Dhikr Kibar al-Huffadh
128) Ashraf al-Mawali, 2 parts
129) I’lam al-Ahya bi Aghlat al-Ihya, a criticism of Ihya ‘Ulum al-Din by al-Ghazzali
130) Tahrim al-Muhill al-Makruh
131) Al-Misbah al-Mudhi’ li Dawlat al-Imam al-Mustadhi’
132) ‘Atf al-‘Ulama ‘ala al-Umara wal-Umara ‘ala al-‘Ulama
133) Al-Nasr ‘Ala Misr
134) Al-Majd al-‘Adhudi
135) Al-Fajr al-Nuri
136) Manaqib al-Sitr al-Rafi’
137) Ma Qultuhu min al-Ash’ar
138) Al-Maqamat
139) Min Rasa’ili
140) Al-Tibb al-Ruhani
141) Bayan al-Khata wal-Sawab fi Ahadith Ibn Shihab, 16 parts
142) Al-Baz al-Ashhab al-Munqadh ‘ala man Khalafa al-Madhab, a treatise in Fiqh, and not another title of Daf’ Shubah al-Tashbih according to Ibn Rajab.
143) Al-Wafa bi Fadha’il al-Mustafa, 2 volumes
144) Al-Nur fi Fadha’il al-Ayyam wal-Shuhur
145) Taqrib al-Tariq al-Ab’ad fi Fadha’il Maqbarat Ahmad
146) Manaqib al-Imam al-Shafi’i
147) Al-‘Uzlah
148) Al-Riyadha
149) Minhaj al-Isaba fi Mahabat al-Sahaba
150) Funun al-Albab
151) Al-Dhurafa wal-Mutamajinin
152) Manaqib Abi Bakr
153) Manaqib ‘Ali
154) Fadha’il al-‘Arab
155) Durrat al-Iklil fi al-Tarikh, 4 volumes
156) Al-Amthal
157) Al-Manfa’ah fi al-Madhahib al-Arba’ah, 2 volumes
158) Al-Mukhtar min al-Ash’ar, 10 volumes
159) Ru’us al-Qawarir, 2 volumes
160) Al-Murtajal fi al-Wa’dh
161) Dhakhirat al-Wa’idh, several volumes
162) Al-Zajr al-Makhuf
163) Al-Ins wal-Mahabba
164) Al-Mutrib al-Mulhib
165) Al-Zand al-Wariy fi al-Wa’dh al-Nasiriy, 2 parts
166) Al-Fakhir fi Ayyam al-Imam al-Nasir
167) Al-Majd al-Salahi
168) Lughat al-Fiqh, 2 parts
169) ‘Aqd al-Khanasir fi Dhamm al-Khalifat al-Nasir
170) Dhamm ‘Abd al-Qadir, a censure of ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani
171) Gharib al-Hadith
172) Mulah al-Ahadith, 2 parts
173) Al-Fusul al-Wa’dhiya ‘ala Huruf al-Mu’jam
174) Salwat al-Ahzan, 10 volumes
175) Al-Ma’shuq fil-Wa’dh
176) Al-Majalis al-Yusufiyya fil-Wa’dh
177) Al-Wa’dh al-Maqbari
178) Qiyam al-Layl, 3 parts
179) Al-Muhadatha
180) Al-Munaja
181) Zahir al-Jawahir fil-Wa’dh, 4 parts
182) Al-Nuhat al-Khawatim, 2 parts
183) Al-Murtaqa li man Ittaqa
184) Hawashi ‘ala Sihah al-Jawhari
185) Mukhtasar Funun Ibn ‘Aqil, 10 odd volumes

Criticisms by Ibn al-Jawzi

Ash’ari theologians

Despite Ibn al-Jawzi’s doctrinal views on Allah’s Names and Attributes often appearing contradictory, as we will see, he was, nevertheless, an ardent follower of the traditional Hanbali hostility towards the Ash’aris.

His extremely hostile attitude towards the Ash’aris was well noted by Ibn Kathir as he states: “Ibn al-Jawzi mentions in this year[20], in al-Muntadham, the death of al-Ash’ari, where he spoke ill of him, disparagingly in accordance with the habitual criticisms by the Hanbalis directed towards the Ash’aris, past and present”[21]

Ibn Kathir is referring to the following note of Ibn al-Jawzi on al-Ash’ari: “He was born in 260 AH. He delved into the Kalam, and was upon the madhab of the Mu’tazila for a long time. He then decided to oppose them and proclaimed a doctrine which muddled up people’s beliefs and caused endless strife. The people never differed that this audible Qur’an is Allah’s Speech, and that Gabriel descended with it upon the Prophet – Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him. The reliable imams declared that the Quran is eternal, while the Mu’tazila claimed that it is created. Al-Ash’ari then agreed with the Mu’tazila that the Quran is created and said: ‘This is not Allah’s Speech. Rather, Allah’s Speech is an Attribute subsisting in Allah’s Essence. It did not descend on the Prophet, nor is it audible.’ Ever since he proclaimed this belief, he lived in fear for his life for opposing the orthodox community (ahl al-sunnah), until he sought refuge in the house of Abu al-Hasan al-Tamimi fearing his assassination. Then some of the rulers began to fanatically followed his madhab, and his following increased, until the Shafi’is abandoned the beliefs of al-Shafi’i and instead followed al-Ash’ari’s doctrine”[22]

The vehement defence of sunna and palpable attacks on unorthodox views, and in particular the Ash’arite views on the Qur’an, were a distinct feature of Ibn al-Jawzi’s sermons. His attacks against the Ash’aris include his famous remark, once made on the pulpit: “The heretics claim; i) there is none in the Heavens, ii) neither is there Qur’an in the Mushaf, and iii) nor is there a Prophet in the grave; ‘your three shameful facets’”[23]

Ibn al-Jawzi writes, while complaining about certain Ash’arites indoctrinating the masses with the Ash’arite dogma: “A group of Persian (a’ajim) heretics arrived in Baghdad and mounted the pulpits to sermon the masses. They would claim, in most of their gatherings: There is no ‘Speech of Allah’ on this earth, and is the mushaf anything but paper, galls and vitriol?[24] Allah is not in the Heavens, and the slave-girl to whom the Prophet said: ‘Where is Allah?’ was dumb and therefore pointed towards the sky, meaning: He is not from the idols worshipped on this earth.[25]

They then said: ‘Where are the ‘letterists’, who claim that the Quran is composed of letters and sound? Rather, the Quran is only an expression of Jibril!’ They continued in this vein, until the sacredness of the Quran diminished from the hearts of many.”[26]

He then mentions at length, the arguments for the orthodox approach towards the Quran, and commends Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal for his rigid stance on the issue, which united the Muslims on one belief: the Quran, which is contained in the Mushaf, is the uncreated Speech of Allah. He then denigrates al-Ash’ari, saying: “Then, people did not differ in this issue, until there appeared ‘Ali b. Isma’il al-Ash’ari, who at first, held the beliefs of the Mu’tazilites. It then occurred to him, as he claimed, that Allah’s Speech subsists in the Divine Essence (sifah qa’imah bil-that). His claim, therefore, necessitated that the Quran we have is created.”[27]

Sufis

Ibn al-Jawzi was, in his early youth, influenced by abstentious Sufism, which left him with illness for several years, until he decided to abandon it.[28] His experience with Sufism, which by then had vastly drifted away from the sacred law, transformed him into one of the fiercest critics of the Sufis.

His austere anti-Sufi stance was clearly demonstrated in his sermons and many of his works. Although, he was never a detractor of the ascetics amongst the early Muslims, his criticisms were mainly directed towards the deviant and abnormal tendencies that took root amongst the ascetics, and by his time, became known as Tasawwuf.

Ibn al-Jawzi says in Talbis Iblis, whilst commenting on the origins of Tasawwuf:

“The Sufis are generally from the ascetics (zuhhad). Although, we have already mentioned the devil’s deception of ascetics, except that the Sufis varied from the ascetics by having specific qualities and states, and became known with certain characteristics, and hence, we had to single them out with criticism. Tasawwuf is a path (tariqa), the beginning of which was complete asceticism; however, later its followers permitted the enjoyment of songs and dancing.

“At the time of the Prophet, the attribution was only to Iman and Islam, and hence it was said: so-and-so is a Muslim, or a Mu’min. Then the terms ‘zahid’ (ascetic) and ‘‘abid’ (worshipper) were introduced. Then, there came a people who adhered to asceticism and worship, gave up the worldly life, devoted themselves to worship, and embraced a unique path and character.”[29]

Some have argued that despite Ibn al-Jawzi’s cynicism towards the Sufis, he did not discredit Sufism as a genre. To the contrary, they claim, he was in favour of Sufism, and this is reflected by a number of his works, such as his abridgement of Hilyat al-Awliya by Abu Nu’aym, Ihya ‘Ulum al-Din by al-Ghazzali and various laudatory biographies of early ascetics, such as Hasan al-Basri and Ma’ruf al-Karkhi.

The above conclusion is not quite accurate, for while Ibn al-Jawzi undoubtedly paid great importance to asceticism, morals and manners, yet he did, nevertheless, regard the entire genre of Tasawwuf to be other than zuhd, and moreover, foreign to Islam and an absurdity. This is clearly reflected in his criticism of Abu Nu’aym’s Hilyat al-Awliya, where the latter considers the early generation of Muslims, including the Prophet’s companions and the four Imams, to be from the Sufis.

Thus, Ibn al-Jawzi states, while listing his objections against Hilyat al-Awliya: “The seventh objection comes against the ascription of Tasawwuf to the senior masters, such as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, al-Hasan, Shurayh, Sufyan, Shu’ba, Malik, Shafi’i, Ahmad, whereas they had no knowledge of Tasawwuf. If one were to say: [Abu Nu’aym] meant by that, abstentious worldly life (zuhd), since they were all zuhhad. We say in reply: Tasawwuf is a school well-known amongst its followers, which is not simply restricted to Zuhd. Rather, the school has particular qualities and disposition, known to its masters. If Tasawwuf was not something further added to Zuhd, there would not have been narrations from some of the aforementioned in condemnation of Tasawwuf. In fact, Abu Nu’aym himself narrated in the biography of al-Shafi’i – may Allah be merciful with him – that he said: ‘Tasawwuf is built upon lethargy. If a person were to practise Tasawwuf in the morning, he would not reach the noon, except that he has become obtuse.’ I discussed Tasawwuf extensively in my book called: Talbis Iblis. (Devil’s Deception)”[30]

Indeed, Ibn al-Jawzi dedicated two-thirds of his book Talbis Iblis to his scathing criticism of Tasawwuf. His abridgment of Hilyat al-Awliya, and summarisation of Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din by al-Ghazzali, is not a proof for his Sufi tendencies. On the contrary, it is an illustration of his deep antagonism towards Tasawwuf. The sole purpose of abridging such works was to purge, what he considered the unorthodox content from such works, to make them conducive to the intellectual wellbeing of the masses. Ibn al-Jawzi’s criticism of Tasawwuf did not spare the famous and respected ascetics, such as al-Junayd, Bishr al-Hafi, and even his co-Madhabist, ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani, in censure of whom he wrote Dhamm ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani (Censure of ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani).

Ibn al-Jawzi’s criticisms of the Sufis were directed at several fronts. He criticised them for the prevalence of pantheism amongst their ranks, and to that end he wrote Al-Qati’ li Muhal al-Lijaj bi Muhal al-Hallaj censuring al-Hallaj, the famous pantheist who claimed to be God, and was subsequently executed by the agreement of the jurists.[31]

He attacked the Sufis for demeaning all aspects of worldly life, such that they would wilfully and unwisely give away their belongings to remain poor. Ibn al-Jawzi states: “What the ignorant amongst the ascetics call ‘reliance’ (tawakkul), that is to spend all that one owns, is not legislated in religion. For the Prophet said to Ka’b b. Malik: Keep some of your wealth.”[32]

The Sufis were characterised by their deriding attitude towards the sacred knowledge, in favour of asceticism. Ibn al-Jawzi criticised them saying: “From the amazing ways in which the devil plays his tricks, is by beautifying abandonment of knowledge. Yet, they [the Sufis] did not simply stop at that, but also engaged in insulting those busy with knowledge. This, only if they understood, is tantamount to insulting the Shari’ah; for the Messenger of Allah said: ‘Convey from me’”[33]

Ibn al-Jawzi’s remarks, ridiculing the early ascetics, only underline his rigid anti-Sufi attitude. He says about the early ascetics: “I saw most of them in confusion. Those of them with good intentions are also not following the mainstream path in most of their affairs. A number of early ascetics wrote various books for their followers that are crammed full of abominations, and inauthentic reports, in which the authors instruct with that which is at odds with the Shari’ah; such as the works of al-Harith al-Muhasibi or Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Tirmidhi, Qut al-Qulub by Abu Talib al-Makki, or al-Ihya of Abu Hamid [al-Ghazzali] al-Tusi. If a beginner were to open his eyes and desire to tread the path through these books, they would have led him to blunders, for they based their works on awkward narrations.

“I saw most of the people deviating from the Shari’ah, to whom the words of the ascetics became the Shari’ah itself. Hence, it was claimed: Abu Talib al-Makki said: ‘From the Salaf were those who would weigh their daily intake against fresh branch-ends from palm-trees and notice it decreasing everyday!’ This practise was not known by the Messenger of Allah nor his Companions, rather they would eat but not to their fill.

“The life of the Messenger of Allah and his Companions was not like that of the ascetics of today. For the Messenger of Allah would laugh, joke, choose the best of things, race with ‘A’isha – may Allah be pleased with her. He would eat meat, love sweet dishes and water will be sweetened for him to drink. This is also how his companions were, until the ascetics discovered paths (tara’iq), as if it were the beginning of another Shari’ah.”[34]

It is also vital to bear in mind that the remarks above were directed to a very small minority of the Sufis. As for the vast majority, for them Ibn al-Jawzi had the following to say: “As for those who had incorrect intentions, from the hypocrites and the pretentious ones, for the sake of worldly gains, and for their hands to be kissed out of respect, then there is no discussion with them, and they are the majority of the Sufis!”[35]

Philosophers

Ibn al-Jawzi dedicated a section of Talbis Iblis to the philosophers who had taken a route, other than that of the prophets in their search for the truth. He describes their intellectual ailment saying: “They believed in what their speculations dictated to them without referring to the prophets. From them are those who believed in the doctrine of al-Dahriyya that the world has no creator… Most of them affirmed an eternal cause (‘illa qadima) for the world, and then stated that the world is eternal, which has always been in existence along with Allah… They also concealed their doctrine by saying: ‘Allah is the creator of this world’, meaning: figuratively and not literally… Their doctrine also includes that the world is ever lasting; just as its existence has no beginning, it has no end.

“They also believed that Allah’s knowledge and ability is in fact His essence, in order to avoid affirming multiple eternal entities… The philosophers also denied the resurrection, the return of souls to the bodies, and the bodily existence of Paradise and Hell, claiming that the two were merely paradigms for people to understand the concept of spiritual reward and punishment.”

He then turns to the devil’s deceptions of the Muslim philosophers, who admired Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and others for their excellence in metaphysics, yet didn’t realise their mediocrity in theology. They were consequently, intellectually suspended in a world between Greek philosophy and Islamic theology. Ibn al-Jawzi remarks: “We noticed the philosophers from the adherents to our religion, that their philosophical path earned them confusion, hence, they adhered to neither philosophy, nor Islam. In fact, amongst them is one who fasts the Ramadan and prays, and then begins to object at the Creator and prophethood, and denies the resurrection.”

Ibn al-Jawzi then wonderfully summarises the underlying cause of deviancy amongst the so-called ‘Muslim philosophers’ and the ‘Muslim monks’, saying: “Because the philosophers were close in time to the advent of our Shari’ah, as were the monks; some of our co-religionists stretched out their hands for the former, while the others for the latter. Hence, you see many of the dull-witted, when they look into doctrine, they become philosophers; and when they look into asceticism, they became monks. We ask Allah to make us steadfast upon our religion”[36]

Other Philosophies and Schisms

Ibn al-Jawzi’s masterpiece Talbis Iblis, in part, is regarded to be a critical heresiographical work which accounts the doctrine and criticisms of various religions and sects. Amongst the list of religions and philosophies criticised by Ibn al-Jawzi were Sophisticism (sawfastaiyya), al-Dahriyya, Taba’iyyun, Dualism (thanawiyya), Paganism, Zoroastrianism, the pre-Islamic ignorance (jahiliyya), the denial of prophethood, the Jews, the Christians, the Sabians, Astrologers, deniers of resurrection, and the believers in metempsychosis (tanasukh). The schisms and sects criticised by Ibn al-Jawzi include the Khawarij, the Rafidites (shi’as) and the Esoterics (batiniyya).

Social and Ethical Ills

Ibn al-Jawzi’s age saw many social and ethical ills creeping amongst the ranks of notables such as the jurists, traditionists, linguists and preachers. Naturally, a considerable portion of Talbis Iblis reflects his efforts in challenging the growing corruption and an endeavour to bring about change.

He mentions the recitors of the Quran who, on one hand, devoted their lives learning the most eccentric modes of recitation, whilst neglecting the basics of Islamic knowledge. This, according to Ibn al-Jawzi, often caused the recitors to introduce practises and traditions previously unheard of in Islamic history.[37]

The traditionists also became a target of his criticisms for their excessive focus on transmission of the texts without understanding the essence and the meaning of those traditions. Their lack of understanding often forced them to pass erroneous and baseless verdicts. Another illness to be found amongst the traditionists at the time of Ibn al-Jawzi was their desire for fame by travelling far and wide in search of the shortest chains, or peculiar traditions. Some of the traditionists were accused by Ibn al-Jawzi of disparaging their colleagues whom they were jealous of, under the guise of al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil.[38]

Although, the jurists had always taken pride in objective and unbiased attitude towards juristic research, by the age of Ibn al-Jawzi, blind partisanship towards the established madhabs began to take root, which eroded the spirit of objectivity to an extent, and gave birth to madhabist bias in juristic discourse. Ibn al-Jawzi challenged the growing trend by saying: “Lethargy prevailed over the latter jurists that they could not study the science of traditions; so much so, that I noticed some of the senior jurists remark in their works about traditions found in authentic collections: ‘It is not possible for the Prophet to have said such-and-such!’ I then noted that he would support his argument in an issue saying: ‘Some of them narrated that the Prophet said such-and-such.’ He would then respond to the authentic tradition, which his opponent used in support of his argument, saying: ‘This tradition is not known!’ All of this is a crime against Islam.”

Ibn al-Jawzi equally criticised the jurists for associating with the authorities without censuring them for their oppression and unjust dealings, which, as he argues, resulted in three vices: “One: The ruler assumes, ‘if I was not correct, the jurist would have censured me. How can I not be right, when the jurist is happy to consume from my wealth?’ Two: The layperson assumes, ‘There is neither anything wrong with this ruler, nor his wealth, or his actions, for such-and-such jurist barely leaves his company.’ Three: The jurist, who thereby, corrupts his religion.

“The devil also deceived a group from the scholars, who remained aloof from the rulers and turned to worship and religion instead. The devil then beautified for them to backbite those of the scholars who enter upon the rulers, and therefore accumulated for them two wrongs: back biting others, and praise of one self.”[39]

Ibn al-Jawzi also focuses his criticisms on the preachers who failed to act upon that which they preached and sought fame; the poets and linguists who often lacked religiosity; the rulers who habitually bypassed the Shara’i injunctions in pursuit of their political goals; and the masses for their heedlessness and ignorance of their religious, social and moral responsibilities.

Ibn al-Jawzi’s criticisms, as presented in Talbis Iblis, proved to be a timeless collection of guidance and wisdom for the individual and the society, perhaps arguably, but sadly, more applicable in our time than his.

Criticisms of Ibn al-Jawzi

Ibn al-Jawzi, being a remarkable critic, was censured himself on a number of issues, some of which follow:

Profuse errors in his works

Although Ibn al-Jawzi is remembered as a voluminous writer, the obvious disadvantage was the subsequent colossal number of errors in his works. For often, he would finish a book, and instead of revisiting it for corrections, he would begin another one; similarly, at times, he would write two books in different subjects simultaneously. He would frequently quote passages from various sources in different sciences, without thoroughly studying and researching. Thus, it is reported that he would say: “I am a compiler and not an author.”

His errors in Hadith

Although, Ibn al-Jawzi displayed great dislike for many authors to narrate week, and sometimes fabricated traditions in their works, while al-Ghazzali being the foremost of his victims; he, ironically, was guilty of the same.

According to al-Dhahabi, while he was known with the exalted title of ‘al-Hafidh’, it was not due to his mastery in the science of traditions, but as a result of his vast knowledge and memorisation of copious narrations.

Al-Dhahabi also mentions Ibn al-Akhdar being asked about Ibn al-Jawzi: “Would not you respond to some of the errors of Ibn al-Jawzi?” He said in reply: “One can only critically study someone whose errors are relatively few. As for him, then he has countless errors.” Al-Dhahabi then quotes al-Sayf’s unwarranted comment: “I have never seen anyone who is relied upon in his religion, knowledge and intellect, admiring Ibn Al Jawzi.” Al-Dhahabi then beautifully concludes: “If Allah is pleased with him, then they are irrelevant”.[40]

Al-Mawdhu’at is amongst the famous works of Ibn al-Jawzi on fabricated traditions, which received wide acceptance as well as criticisms, the primary reason for which was his inclusion of numerous traditions that were, perhaps weak (dha’if), but not at all fabricated (mawdhu’). Many of such traditions are found in the books of Sunan, and in fact, one in Sahih Muslim. A number of latter traditionists pursued his errors, such as al-Hafidh al-‘Iraqi, Ibn Hajar and al-Suyuti in his work al-La’ali al-Masnu’ah.

Self-eulogy

Ibn Rajab quotes Ibn al-Qadisi from his Tarikh that from the objections many had against Ibn al-Jawzi was that “his speech consisted of eulogy, pride, presumptuousness, and frequent claims; no doubt he was guilty of some of that, may Allah overlook his faults.”[41] Ibn al-Jawzi’s description of his sermons, fame and glory in his al-Muntadham are an obvious reflection of such objections, which often puzzles the average reader with respect to his piety and humility on one hand, and his eulogy and assertions on the other.

However, it seems Ibn al-Jawzi was well aware of such criticisms, and perhaps he even responded to them, albeit indirectly, saying: “After I had devoted myself to a study of these latter (i.e. the traditions) and to the sciences which fall under rubric of hadith, scarcely a tradition was mentioned to me but that it was possible for me to say: ‘It is a sound tradition (sahih),’ or ‘a good tradition (hasan),’ or ‘an absurd tradition (muhal).’ There are to be found in my books of wa’dh, achievements which even those experts [in this art] find impossible to match. I mention these achievements only out of gratitude, not out of pride, because those who see them will be astonished. But as for myself, I see only the excellence of the One who has made possible these achievements, and the inadequacy of my thanksgiving. Most assuredly, it was He who empowered me to speak extemporaneously for entire meetings without having to recourse to what I had memorised. Sometimes as many as fifteen verses [from the Quran] were recited in my presence at these meetings, following which I would immediately deliver a khutba relevant to each of the verses. And now I implore God to give me sincerity of purpose and assist me in profiting from my learning so that He may be the Master of that [learning] and the Sovereign Lord over it”[42]

Theological errors

Ibn al-Jawzi created a storm in the traditionalist-textualist Hanbali school by writing his infamous book Daf’ Shubah al-Tashbih bi Akuff al-Tanzih (Rebuttal of the Insinuations of Anthropomorphism at the Hands of Divine Transcendence), which drew fierce attacks from all corners of the Hanbali world. The book came is a reaction to Ibn Hamid, Abu Ya’la and his Shaykh Ibn al-Zaghuni, who too were accused of fanaticism in their approach to affirming Allah’s Attributes, for often they would use baseless and unfounded narrations to affirm them.

Ibn Taymiyya writes about the three aforementioned:

“…from the third category are those who heard the traditions and the narrations, glorified the beliefs of the early Muslims, yet also shared some of the principles of the Jahmite-Mutakallimun. They did not have as much expertise in the Quran, Hadith and traditions, as did the Imams of sunnah and hadith; neither from the angle of distinguishing between the Sahih and the Dha’if, nor from the angle of grasping the meanings of those texts. They also deemed some of the rational arguments of the Jahmite-negators to be correct, and therefore, saw a visible contradiction between the two (text and rationale). This was the case with Abu Bakr Ibn Furak, al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la, Ibn ‘Aqil, et al. Due to this, they would sometimes prefer the method of allegorical exegesis (ta’wil), as did Ibn Furak and his likes while commenting on problematic traditions; or sometimes, they would ‘leave the meanings to Allah’ (tafwidh) saying: the apparent meaning must be retained (tujra ‘ala dhawahiriha), as did al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la and his likes; and sometimes, their opinions would differ, hence, they would prefer the former method at times, and the latter at other times, as was the case with Ibn ‘Aqil and his likes. Moreover, they would often mention amongst the problematic traditions, narrations that were false and fabricated, not knowing that they were forged; or not knowing the same tradition with a different wording which may solve the dilemma.”[43]

Ibn al-Jawzi was more impressed with Ibn ‘Aqil than the others mentioned by Ibn Taymiyya, due to which he would often favour tafwidh, while sometimes opting for ta’wil. Such a contradictory stance is demonstrated by his interpretation (ta’wil) of the Face of Allah, as referring to Allah’s essence in Daf’ Shubah al-Tashbih[44]; and then the rebutting the Mu’tazilites for the very interpretation he is guilty of in Majalis Ibn al-Jawzi.[45] In a similar vein, he censures those who opt for Ta’wil and brands them ‘negators of Attributes’, and further denounces the Mu’tazalite interpretation of Hands as bounties, Ascension (istawa) as seizure (istawla), or Descent (nuzul) as mercy; yet he is found guilty of the same errors in Daf’ Shubah al-Tashbih.[46]

Towards the end of his work, Ibn al-Jawzi remarks: “When a group of ignorant ones learnt of my book, they were disappointed, for they had become accustomed to the beliefs of their anthropomorphist leaders. Thus they said: ‘This is not the madhab.’

I say (Ibn al-Jawzi): This is not your madhab, nor the madhab of your teachers whom you blind follow. I have, however, exonerated the madhab of Imam Ahmad, and cleared him from the false narrations and nonsense utterances, without blind following anyone in my beliefs.”[47]

No doubt, none can challenge Ibn al-Jawzi’s assertion with respect to himself; but as for exonerating Imam Ahmad of beliefs he considered anthropomorphic, then the scarcity of quotes from Imam Ahmad in his work, despite their copious presence in other popular and widely accepted Hanbali sources, remains a far cry from his claim. Al-Dhahabi also noticed Ibn al-Jawzi’s departure from the doctrine of Imam Ahmad and remarked: “… his excellence continued to increase and gain popularity until he died. May Allah have mercy on him and forgive him! Only if he had not indulged in allegorical exegeses (ta’wil) and opposed his Imam!”[48]

Inevitably, he received criticisms by various Hanbali authorities, from his age up until the present time. Amongst his contemporary critics was the Hanbali ‘Shaykh of Iraq’, Abu al-Fadhl Ishaq b. Muhammad al-‘Althi, who addressed Ibn al-Jawzi in harsh words in a letter, most of which was quoted by Ibn Rajab in Dhayl[49].

From the highlights of the letter, is al-‘Althi’s remarks addressing Ibn al-Jawzi:

“Amazing is of one who adheres to the madhab of the Salaf, and does not deem permissible to indulge in Kalam, who then moves to interpret that which he did not tolerate at first. He then says: If we say such and such, it would lead to such and such.

“If you interpret the divine Attributes based upon linguistic interpretations, deeming it permissible for you, and refuse to accept the advice, (then know that) this is not the madhab of the great Imam, Ahmad b. Hanbal – May Allah sanctify his soul. Therefore, it is not fitting for you to attribute yourself to him with such beliefs. So chose for yourself a different madhab, if it is possible for you. For our (Hanbali) colleagues have not ceased to proclaim the blatant truth at all times, even if they were struck with the swords, not fearing anyone’s criticism.”

Thus, Ibn al-Jawzi’s account in nearly all Hanbali biographical works remained tainted with this criticism. Ibn Rajab quotes Ibn al-Qadisi’s remarks on Ibn al-Jawzi’s controversy:

“[The error] for which he was criticised by a group of our scholars and Imams from the Maqdisis and the ‘Althis [Hanbalis], was his tendency towards allegorical exegesis (ta’wil) in some of his speech. Their criticisms were severe in that regard. No doubt, his beliefs in this issue were quite contradictory. Even though he was well-versed in traditions and narrations regarding the subject matter, he was not well-aware of the responses to the doubts of the Mutakallimun, nor the extent of their fallacy. He would also hold Abu al-Wafa Ibn ‘Aqil in great respect, and follow most of his beliefs, in spite of refuting him in some issues. Despite Ibn ‘Aqil’s excellence in Kalam, he was not au fait on traditions and narrations, due to which he was inconsistent in this subject, with variegated opinions. Ibn al-Jawzi’s opinions were as vegetated as his.”

Ibn Rajab then quotes Ibn Qudama saying:

“Ibn al-Jawzi was the leading authority on the art of preaching in his age. He also authored excellent works in various sciences, and his efforts were generally accepted. He would teach law (fiqh) and author works to that end, just as he had memorised traditions and also authored in that respect. However, we are not pleased with his writings with respect to sunnah (doctrine), nor his approach.’[50]

The latest rebuttal of Daf’ Shubhat al-Tashbih is a two volume book by a contemporary Hanbali theologian and a traditionist, Sulayman b. Nasir al-‘Alwan called: Ithaf ahl al-Fadhl wal-Insaf bi Naqdh Kitab Ibn al-Jawzi Daf’ Shubah al-Tashbih wa Ta’liqat al-Saqqaf (An Offering to the Noble and Just, by Rebuttal of the book by Ibn al-Jawzi Daf’ Shubah al-Tashbih, and commentary of al-Saqqaf thereupon)

Due to Ibn al-Jawzi’s theological slips, some modern-day, and rather zealous Ash’arites have described him as an Ash’ari who ‘took a staunch Ash`ari stance in doctrine’; which is a rather astonishing claim, since none from the Muslim biographers or historians ever described him as such. On the contrary, despite sharing some aspects of doctrine with the Ash’arites, he was nevertheless, a staunch Ash’ari detractor, as demonstrated above and in a number of his works.

Conclusion

Ibn al-Jawzi lived for over eighty-six years, which he dedicated to learning, teaching, preaching and correcting the ills in the society. He delivered his first sermon at the age of ten, and continued with his profession until he died, thus having preached for 71 years of his life, taking into account his detention in Wasit. After the birth of the publishing industry, many of his works gained extraordinary popularity amongst the masses, and were thus reprinted by various publishers, and even rendered into English and French by academics. Ibn al-Jawzi has also become a subject of numerous research papers and studies, which include: Ibn al-Jawzi by ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Ghazzawali; Ibn al-Jawzi wa maqamatuhu al-Matbu’ah by ‘Ali Jamil Muhanna; Abu al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzi wa Ara’uhu al-Kalamiyya wal-Akhlaqiyya by Dr. Amina Muhammad Nasir; al-Usul al-Nafsiyya li al-Tarbiya ‘ind al-Imam Abi al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzi by Hasan ‘Abd al-‘Aal; Mu’allafat Ibn al-Jawzi by Dr. ‘Abd al-Hamid al-‘Alwaji; and in the orientlist world he has been a subject of various studies by H. Laoust and Merlin Swartz.

When our interests became worldly

During the past two centuries, the Islamic nation has witnessed unceasing catastrophes in succession; from the colonisation of Muslims lands, the fall of Khilafa, the loss of the third holy site and the spread of secularism resulting in the abandonment of the Shariah in courts, leading to mass distortion of certain key concepts that had defined the Islamic civilisations for centuries, such as the concepts of worship, divine destiny, the temporal life and the afterlife, civilisation, Jihad, cultivation and education, morals and manners, etc. The concept of ‘Islamic Public Interests’ were similarly reduced to ‘Public Interest’ without ‘Islamic’, which became the source of confusion for those who espoused the idea of the ‘letter’ contradicting the ‘objectives’ of Shariah. Such calamities that befell us caused some Muslims to lose hope and embrace defeatism, to an extent that many prominent figures, such as Taha Husain would openly and explicitly proclaim that the way to revival is nothing but following the footsteps of Europe and to be their counterparts in civilisation.

In contrast, the religious clergy at the time were heavily dominated by those who viewed the doors of Ijtihad to be forever barred, and this view – much to the frustration of the defeatists – failed to provide answers and solutions to the speedy transformation the Muslim world was going through. This naturally gave rise to the modernists, who not only challenged the religious clergy who had monopolised the religious education for centuries, but went as far as questioning everything that the Muslims had agreed upon for the past 1400 years. Hence, they attacked the authority of the Sunnah, challenged the understanding of the first three blessed generations, attempted to distort many passages of history, and even the Qur’an they did not spare, for they called for freestyle re-interpretation of legal texts pertaining to commerce, inheritance, marriage and divorce, the Hijab, and the Hudud, within the context of the modern world.

It is important to note that Modernism since its inception has never been a uniform methodology of thought; rather, many prominent personalities and heroic figures in our history in fact received their tutelage under the heavy influence of the Modernist school, just as modernism equally gave rise to numerous secularists, who dedicated their career to warring against the Shariah. In the context of modern history, Egypt has been a major battleground between the Modernist-Islamists campaigning for the Shariah on one hand, and the Modernist-Secularists protesting against the Shariah on the other. Amongst the latter, there were arguably few who made their thoughts manifest and called for secularism openly in the style of ‘the French Revolution’, and understandably, their calls fell on deaf ears due to the deeply rooted veneration for religion in the hearts of the masses. Most of the secularists, however, chose to become the fifth column by referring to their call by a name other than secularism and at the same time providing justifications for secularism from Islamic precepts, thereby successfully becoming the ‘colonialists within’.

Modernism and Secularism: Post 9/11

After the events of 9/11, Islam and Muslims across the globe and in particular in the West came under a fierce ideological attack. There is no doubt that the West realised the revival of Islam as a political entity on an international level, and feared the imminent return of the Shariah, and since has doubled her efforts in secularising Islam by using the ‘fifth column’ to shed much of its political, cultural and spiritual aspects, and regionalise our faith by calling for a European and an American version of Islam which preserve only the values and the beliefs that are in line with the post-9/11 Western agenda.

This effort was specifically noted on March 18, 2004 with the release of the RAND Corporation Report on the adapted strategy to divide and rule the Muslim population in the West and back in their home countries. The report categorised the Muslims into the ‘fundamentalists’ represented by the wahhabist/salafist, the ‘traditionalists’ represented by the Ash’arites and the Sufi mystics, the ‘modernists’ and finally the ‘secularists’. The report then laid out its strategy to pit each group against the others , causing division on one hand, and to provide strategic state support to the last group, namely the secularists on the other, in order to help them win acceptance amongst the rest of the Muslim population.

Interestingly, exactly a year after the report was released, Amina Wadud lead the first Friday congregational prayer, in a public event organised entirely by the secularist extremists, attended by no more than a hundred men and women, but nevertheless, given wide media coverage, with the objective of sending shockwaves throughout the Muslim world, either in an attempt to encourage the Muslims to challenge and question their faith, or merely as an exercise to test the waters.

Only twelve days after the Amina Wadud incident, came yet another attack on the Shariah, this time by a prominent professor and ‘Islamist’, Dr. Tariq Ramadan, who made ‘An International call for Moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty in the Islamic World’. This article comes as a response to the latter call.

But before we begin…

There are many valid objections that the bulk of Islamists have raised, which includes the modernists, the so-called ‘traditionalists’ and the ‘salafists’ that need answering, such as; Firstly, for anyone to make such a call at a time when there is already a moratorium in place on most of the Shariah, including the Hudud in nearly all Muslim countries, places a great question mark on the motive.

Secondly, the professor’s field of discussion has always been around the theme of ‘European Islam’, integration and identity. What is it that abruptly caused him to write on such a global issue?

Thirdly, the world today is witness to some of the most heinous crimes against human rights and the rule of law, such as indefinite detention without trial, rendition to countries known for practising torture, the use of evidence extracted under torture, the ignominy of Guantanamo Bay where detainees are beaten, their eyes gouged out of their sockets and fingers broken, where the best justice they can hope for is military tribunal, while yet others still are held in unknown locations as ghost detainees, men, women and children tortured out of sight and out of mind, a phenomenon which has captured the hearts and minds of the human rights activists internationally; one wonders why would an ‘Islamist’ ignore such ongoing brutality, and choose to focus instead on the Hudud that exist more in theory than in practise?

Fourthly, indeed the misapplication of the Hudud and the lack of justice is a fundamental problem that leads to a complete collapse of any society. But the question here is, if there are instances where the Hudud is applied in certain Muslim countries where its pre-conditions are not being fulfilled, what then is the most viable and effective way of addressing such a problem? Does the remedy lie in writing to the ruling and the religious authorities and urging them to restore justice and apply the required conditions of Hudud and petitioning them to this end? Or is it by publishing a call for a suspension of the Hudud in the Western media outlets in various languages, and thereby, unknowingly aiding them in their objective of removing Shariah from our lives? Hence, it comes as no surprise that none of the Islamist media outlets published the call, and that the only ones to rejoice in this appeal, such that they decided to publish it, were the liberals and Socialists.

Any Muslim with a living conscience who contemplates the aforementioned questions realises the answers and the underlying dangers without any need for articulation.

First things first:

The theologians are in agreement that anyone who seeks to alter any aspect of Islamic law, which is established by explicit legal texts from the Quran and the Sunnah and agreed upon by the Muslim scholars, is guilty of infidelity (Kufr), irrespective of whatever his motives and justification may be, even if it be Islamic. Islamic history demonstrates the consensus amongst the scholars with regards to the disbelief of any individual or a society that lifts an agreed upon aspect of Shariah. For instance, after the Prophet’s demise, many factions from amongst the Arab tribes either clearly apostatised, or refused to give the Zakah. Abu Bakr, the first righteous Caliph fought them all without distinction under the pretext of a ‘war on apostasy’. al-Juwaini, in the 4^th Islamic century, also pointed to a faction of Muslims (who could possibly be described as secularists) who wished to add to the Hudud in favour of public interests (Maslaha). He subsequently declared that they were outside the fold of Islam by adding or subtracting from the Shariah, merely based on what they considered to be in the ‘public interest’. Al-Ghazzali, the great 4^th century scholar, wrote extensively in refutation of the so-called ‘esoterics’ (al-Batiniyah) and declared their infidelity for abandoning various aspects of Shariah. During the 7^th Islamic century, the invading and rampaging Mongols embraced Islam but refused to implement the Shariah, due to which Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah pronounced their disbelief and rallied the Muslims to defeat them. The last two centuries saw the ‘moratorium’ on Shariah in many Muslim countries, and the response from the scholars, as always, has been decisive and in line with the previous religious authorities.

What is important to note here, is that the verdict has not only been directed to the ruling authorities; rather it equally engages the subjects, irrespective of their political leanings, be they capitalists, socialists or Islamists, and therefore, calling for secularism albeit with an Islamic justification still does not exclude the so-called ‘Islamists’ from the ruling. A cessation of the Hudud punishments due to the consideration of other interests, is no different to a cessation on other aspects of the Shariah, such as the law of inheritance, for both entail the abolishment (Ilgha’) of the Shariah, irrespective of whether it is permanently or temporarily (Ta’liq), and are therefore acts of infidelity; and this is what makes it inconceivable for such a call to emerge from an ‘Islamist’. Similarly, the fact that a moratorium on the Hudud is temporary in its nature does not change the Islamic verdict for revoking well established aspects of Shariah, for the cessation entails the replacement of well established Islamic measures with man-made laws. In reality, it would lead to a permanent lifting of the Hudud since such a debate would not cease after decades of discussion. This shows that the call is grossly at odds with the fundamentals of Islam as well as its practical implementation; and that is of course – provided that the Hudud are being applied, which certainly is not the status quo.

‘From Islam’s objectives (Maqasid): Self-destruction’:

This is the doctrine – in a nut shell – of those secularists who claim to have grasped the objectives of Shariah, such that they are able to determine which of the legal texts (Nusus) from the Quran and the Sunnah conflict with Allah’s interests, and thereby render the legal texts null and void. They claim that Islam only came to serve our interests (Masalih), and therefore, if ever an interest is in conflict with a legal text, then the legal texts are not strong enough to withstand the conflict and thus they collapse. In other words, a ‘legal ruling’ (Hukm Shar’i) to them is that which is based on textual evidences and the consensus of the Muslims, only if it is not in conflict with their interest (Maslaha). As is apparent, this approach opens the door to the destruction of the entire Shariah since it renders the rulings based on explicit legal texts and consensus open to abrogation by anyone’s interpretation of interests.

The doctrine of favouring interests over legal texts was pioneered by the 8^th century Hanbalite scholar, Najm al-Din al-Tufi who claimed that the Islamic interests are stronger as proofs and able to override legal texts. However, his rational arguments to support this claim were full of inconsistencies, the pinnacle of which is his claim that legal texts actually contradict Islamic interests, while at the same time arguing that the legal texts were only revealed to serve Islamic interests. His textual proofs were some of the narrations from the companions where he has assumed that they ignored the legal texts in favour of ‘Islamic’ interests. What is worth noticing here is that al-Tufi restricted his doctrine to the realm of transactions and governmental affairs (Mu’amalat), despite the fact that the legal texts he presented as proofs for this make no such distinction, and are applicable to aspects of worship as well. Hence, Amina Wadud’s understanding of this doctrine seems to be more in line with the legal texts brought by al-Tufi in support of his argument.

The Unholy Resurrection:

al-Tufi has always remained isolated along with his doctrine throughout Islamic history, and his opinion has always been discarded as strange (Shadh) and shunned by the Islamic nation due to its rational inconsistencies and lack of support from legal texts. However, the post-colonialism era in the Muslim world witnessed a well-organised mass rebellion against the Shariah, in the name of Islam and Muslims. The secularists either knew that their call to challenge the legal texts would go unheeded, or that they simply wanted to progress in the footsteps of Western liberalism while maintaining their ‘Islamic’ identity; to this end they adopted an ‘Islamic’ approach to further their unholy cause, and al-Tufi’s doctrine on ‘public interests’ (Maslaha) was precisely what they were seeking.

Hence, the Islamic world saw al-Tufi’s doctrine being revived and discussed for the first time in seven centuries. The resurrection of this unholy doctrine from its ruins came as a relief for many secularists posing as Islamists who resolved to preserve the ‘objectives’ of Shariah by the shedding of the ‘letter’. This led individuals like ‘Ali ‘Abd al-Razzaq in the early 20^th century to call for the abolishment of the Khilafa because, in his opinion, the Khilafah has always been a calamity for Islam and Muslims, and a source of all evil and corruption, as he likewise called for a suspension of Jihad since he considered that Jihad had only been a tool for the kings to expand their dynasty, and not to call to Allah. ‘Abdullah al-’Alayali demanded a temporary removal of the Hudud, since the objective (Maqsad) behind these Hudud is the prevention of crime, and if the objective (Maqsad) could be reached through means other than ‘cutting, maiming and dismembering’, the Hudud should not be applied. Muhammad ‘Ammarah openly invited people to embrace secularism, as according to his beliefs one would only be required to follow (what he refers to as) the Prophet’s legislative tradition (al-Sunnah al-Tashri’iyah), which governs the aspects of worship in its narrowly defined sense. As for what he refers to as non-legislative traditions (Sunnah Ghair Tashri’iyah), such as the Prophet’s actions, statements and decisions in politics, war, peace, society and the justice system, then the only way one can emulate him in these aspects is by abiding by the only maxim the Prophet adhered to as a leader, namely the consideration of ‘public interests’ (Maslaha); therefore, that which was considered a Maslaha in his time, might not be considered a Maslaha in our socio-political context, which is why we need to separate the religious orthodoxy from the state, and simply adhere to whatever the Maslaha dictates.

There are some issues, however, where the proponents of this doctrine make a U-turn and become the guardians of religion by upholding the ‘letter’ over the ‘objectives’. However this only occurs in response to the militants randomly targeting innocent Western civilians in the name of serving their view of Islamic ‘public interests’. Surely, one could only wish that the proponents of this doctrine that ‘the objectives’ given preference over ‘the letter’, remained faithful to their view at all times, but their inconsistencies in the application of their principles are the strongest of proofs against their arguments.

Did ‘Umar call for a moratorium?

The question in fact should be: Does ‘Umar have the right to call for a moratorium on any aspect of Shariah? Does the Prophet have the right to place a moratorium? When one glances at the Prophetic narrations with respect to the application of Hudud amongst the early Muslims, it becomes clear that the right of legislation was exclusively maintained for Allah alone, and why would it be otherwise, when that is considered the twin-half of faith? To quote one example, once a companion caught a thief and brought him to the Prophet. When the Prophet ordered the Hadd of theft to be applied to him, the companion pitied the thief and decided to forgive him, but the Prophet in response rebuked the companion for not pardoning the thief before he came to him, for when a case reaches the ruler, then there is no alternative but the application of the Hadd punishment. The Prophetic traditions tell us of incidents where the Prophet would intercede on behalf of the murderer with the victim’s family to spare the murderer from the act of retribution (Qisas), but never did he have the right to prevent any family from demanding and carrying out retribution, and this is in spite of him being the Messenger of Allah. Therefore, if even the Prophet himself did not have the right to call for the suspension of the Hudud, how can anyone besides him be given that right? For the same reason, how can it be thought of a righteous Caliph like ‘Umar to call for a cessation of the Hudud for which he has no authority?

Nevertheless, the secularists often cite the incident when ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second righteous Caliph, supposedly suspended the punishment for stealing in the year of famine. They claim that since theft became so rampant at that time that Caliph Umar saw it befitting to lift the Hadd punishment on stealing altogether, as opposed to leaving half of the nation amputees.

In response, we can confidently say that ‘Umar’s moratorium on the Hadd punishment for stealing is no more than a myth, for the incident clearly states that when the crime was reported to ‘Umar, he ordered that the thieves’ hands be cut – in the very year of the famine – and he only revoked his order upon seeing the thieves in a state of starvation. Hence, ‘Umar only applied the principle of ‘avoiding Hudud punishments due to the doubt factor’, very much in line with ‘the letter’ as reported from the Prophet: ‘avoid the Hudud in doubtful cases’. For this reason, if a woman steals from her husband’s wealth, since a portion of the man’s wealth is meant for his wife, the Hadd punishment is not applied to her, due to doubt, without the need for such a call. Therefore, ‘Umar did not shift any boundaries; rather he carried out the trust bequeathed to him by his two predecessors, the Prophet and Abu Bakr with a full sense of responsibility.

Objectives of Shariah: between saving one life, and saving the society:

What makes this entire debacle even more ironic is that Hudud have been under a moratorium for a considerable length of time in nearly all Islamic countries since Islam was restricted to the four corners of the mosque by the secularists. In fact, most of the Hudud if they are ever applied, tend to be at the behest of secularist despotic rulers in the Middle East, who carry out the so-called ‘Hudud’ on their political opponents (most of them just happen to be Islamists) along with their families in the name of Islam, as was done to the members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt during Nasir’s reign. If we were to accept, for argument’s sake, that the Hudud that are supposedly being applied in the Muslim countries have excluded the rich and the privileged, then the call for a suspension of the Hudud still does not solve the dilemmas of social exclusion and equality before the law, and that is the crux of the problem and not the Hudud. On the other hand, the call becomes the exact recipe for social chaos where the values of religion, human life, dignity, property and intellect are devalued, precisely the objectives Allah decided to preserve through the implementation of Hudud.

Surely, the abolishment of the entire Shariah that we have witnessed even prior to 1925 deserves the largest share of the blame for the devaluation of the five bare essentials, such that we hear about mass murders taking place in Muslim countries with absolutely no apparent motive or explanation, immorality is spreading like wildfire, the crime rate has been on the increase as ever and the consumption of alcohol is slowly but surely on its way to becoming socially acceptable, if it already is not the case in many Muslim countries; and as for drug abuse, then it needs no mention that its impact on the future Muslim generations has been far more detrimental than alcohol. Hence, considering the current social chaos and the ever-diminishing moral values due to the absence of most of the Shariah in Muslim countries, which Islamist in his right mind would wish to remove the little we may have left of the Shariah, especially at a time when the Shariah is noticeably making a return after its absence for almost a century?

The secularists would argue that to temporarily lift the Hudud is perfectly in line with the objectives of Shariah – that is to preserve life – if it involves lifting the Hudud even to save one innocent soul. The argument only sounds reasonable to those who lack a deep understanding of the Shariah objectives behind the legislation of each of the Hudud with its respective set of rigorous conditions and impediments. This is because what they do not realise is that they may be saving the lives of a handful of innocent people by halting the Hudud, whereas on the other hand, they are opening the floodgates for all kinds of crimes and vices in the society, along with the mass devaluation of human life on a social scale, and that is a far worse outcome than a handful of innocent victims losing their lives or limbs. The ever-increasing crime rate and immorality in the Muslim countries, since the abolishment of the Shariah in its entirety, is perhaps the greatest proof against the practicality of the call for moratorium on Hudud.

Hudud: a part of the problem or the solution?

Some secularists argue that since poverty is rife, ignorance is prevalent and the level morality is lacking and slowly fading away in the Muslim countries, it follows that the application of Hudud in our current social context would result in mass executions and amputations, and hence, they declare that a moratorium is needed until the society is revived through educational and spiritual processes, not before poverty is defeated and moral values are restored, particularly when the Hudud are not the sole factor in defining a society to be Islamic. Upon analysis, we find that their argument is based on two misconceptions; firstly, that it is possible to revive a society morally and spiritually without the need of Hudud; and secondly, that the application of Hudud in a corrupt society leads to mass executions and amputations, and not to the restoration of social peace and security.

In response to the first misconception, we may confidently assert that those troubled with this argument simply have not grasped the objectives of Shariah behind the legislation of the Hudud. This is because the Hudud are primarily sanctioned for the prevention of crime, in as much as they are a measure to keep the society in shape morally, spiritually, socially and economically; although there is no doubt that the Hudud alone cannot completely rid the society of all evils, for surely the combination of morality, theology and spirituality has been the bedrock of any Islamic civilisation. The point being made here, however, is the Hudud are an essential component of the comprehensive Islamic solution for social reform. Allah promises the righteous in this world with a prosperous hereafter, as it also reminds them of the severe torment as a deterring factor from committing vice; similarly, Islam promises those who follow the moral and spiritual code of Islam, a prosperous and happy life in this world, just as it sanctions the Hudud and other measures as a deterring factor from committing crimes. Hence, a reform must be composed of both of these two components, for one without the other is bound to fail. It is also true that Hudud is not the Shariah in its entirety, but it nonetheless is a fundamental aspect of the construction of the entire Shariah, such that its absence renders a society to be un-Islamic, just as the presence of Hudud without other essential components of Shariah does not necessitate that a society is Islamic.

In response to the second misconception, it is inconceivable that the application of the Hudud with all its applicable conditions and impediments would fail to reform a corrupt society and result in mass amputations. In fact, anyone who objectively analyses the Hudud system in Islam will no doubt agree that it is the wisest and the most effective solution to criminality and to moral decline by being a two-edged sword, because it efficiently decreases the crime rate on the one hand by the harshness and the fear factor, and on the other hand, the preliminary conditions for the Hudud make it more than difficult for the punishments to be applied. If we look at the Hadd punishment for adultery, for instance, the punishment for which is stoning to death, applicable equally to both male and female, we find that such punishment cannot be carried out except in two cases. One such case is for four upright men known for their integrity (‘Udul) to testify in the court that all four of them literally witnessed the penetration. Such a condition is nearly impossible to fulfil, for in most cases it is inconceivable for four righteous and upright men, who are known for their integrity to be bystanders while unmarried couples engage in sexual intimacy. They are also required to testify that they literally ‘witnessed the male organ in the private part of the female’, for if they do not, then there is always the doubt factor that the couples may have been caught in an act of intimacy not reaching the level of intercourse, for which they deserve a punishment at the discretion of the judge, but the Hadd is not to be applied to them. Moreover, those who agree to testify against a person in a court always carries the risk of the Hadd of slander, if their testimony were to fail due to other factors; as well as the fact that a Muslim society is encouraged not to report such crimes, in order to hide the sins of others, and preserve the marriage in hope that the person will repent, unless of course, the person is a criminal by profession who will not be stopped by anything except the Hadd punishment. Hence, it is nearly impossible for a case to be proven against anyone through four testimonies in a court, but nevertheless, the punishment is there as a deterrent for anyone who even thinks about destroying people’s families.

The other case where a man or a woman may deserve the Hadd punishment for adultery is by self-confession in the court, and that is for the man or the woman to explicitly confess to adultery four times by stating that penetration did occur, for anything less than that does not merit a Hadd. If later on the person changes his mind and retracts the confession even during the process of the stoning, then the Hadd is not to be applied, and similarly if one runs away due to fear while being stoned, he is not to be chased after, rather he is to be left alone. Interestingly, the cases where adultery is proven by testimony are very difficult to find in our history, unlike the cases proven by self-confession. Such incidents were always regarded to be the proof for the society reaching the pinnacle of moral values, and the ultimate awakening of the social consciousness and the sense of personal accountability. This is why most of these incidents only occurred during the golden age of the Islamic civilisation when the Prophet was in our midst. Those who were driven by their conscience to confess for such crimes were regarded to be the saviours of those who need no salvation, such that the Prophet spoke of the woman who demanded the Hadd for herself, that her repentance would suffice the entire near-utopian Madinan society. Such incidents were hardly repeated after the demise of the Prophet, except when in the 12^th Islamic century, when Sheikh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab responded to the woman who demanded the Hadd, the news of this incident alone sent shockwaves around the corridors of power in the peninsula because it signified the success of the Sheikh’s Da’wah and the sincerity of his followers.

We do, however, accept their argument that when we hear of a Hadd being applied today (and that is if it is applied), it is possible that the rigorous aforementioned conditions are not met, and that is surely wrong by agreement. But the question remains, what then is the solution? Is the solution to correct the wrong by demanding the application of Hudud along with its conditions and impediments? Or is it by multiplying the injustice by lifting both, the Hudud as well as its conditions and impediments?

Conclusion

The Islamists are in agreement that our decline is primarily due to our own disregard for the application of Shariah, and that the only way to a social reform is precisely to adhere to the teachings of Islam in all aspects of human life, from worship to politics. This recent call emerges in manifest opposition to the agreed upon solution. Although, the call itself is more theoretical than practical, since the Shariah is already absent in most Muslim countries, it still poses a great threat to the Islamic thought process, known traditionally as the Principles of Jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) as well as fundamentals of Islamic theology, which categorically regards ruling with other than the Law of Allah as tantamount to witchcraft. The call today is only directed at the Hudud based on a false Islamic justification, and tomorrow the same justification will be brought to dismantle the rest of the Shariah laws related to inheritance, marriage and divorce, commerce, and indeed, even theology will not be spared.

This begs the question: How should the Muslims respond to such a call? For surely it is only a part of a global secularisation campaign against Islam. We need to realise that there is a concentrated effort being made in this regard by promoting various secularist and modernist individuals and institutes. This necessitates that we recognise that we have come under an immense ideological attack externally and from within, and the way to withstand this attack is for us to further educate ourselves with regards to our way of life and its application in the modern world. We must remember the causes that gave rise to the modernist approach in the beginning of the last century. Modernism came as a reaction to the failure of the religious clergy in finding solutions to modern day problems, since the doors of Ijtihad for them were closed. We must realise the need to revive the Islamic Jurisprudence (Fiqh) by its implementation in the real world, and finding solutions to new problems. This cannot happen except by opening the doors of Ijtihad, but only to those who are legally qualified for Ijtihad, and it should be never be made into a tool in the hands of the secularists to alter the Shariah into whichever shape or form they wished. There is a pressing need today for the mainstream Muslim scholars and thinkers to tackle fundamental questions about identity, citizenship and integration, preserving and practising our faith in Western countries, before they are answered for us by the unqualified.

Finally, every member of the Muslim community is to regard himself a soldier guarding the breach in the frontline, and therefore everyone is equally responsible for openly rejecting and condemning such calls and attempts to redefine our faith. We are likewise required to rally behind our scholars and thinkers in support of our faith in these pressing times, in order to fail all Western attempts in isolating our champions of faith into the ‘wahhabists’ or the so-called ‘traditionalists’ fringe. We must realise that we as individuals are as much a part of the game as the scholars, and the latter would not be able to do much without our support. Only we are responsible for making our voices heard loud and clear, and to show that we wholeheartedly reject all attempts to alter the ‘objectives’ or the ‘letter’ on which the Shariah is based, for if we do not fulfil our responsibility now, the future generations may never forgive us.

Childhood

He was a distinguished child known for his piety, cleanliness and asceticism. Once, his uncle sent him with several documents containing information about some people to the Caliph’s office. Ahmad took those papers and did not see his uncle for a long time. When his uncle eventually met him, he asked him about the documents and discovered that Ahmad – who was then a boy – did not deliver them. When asked why, Ahmad replied: “I wouldn’t hand in those reports, and I have thrown them in the sea!” To this, his uncle replied: “This little boy fears Allah so much! What then of us?” Thus, Ahmad refused to act as an informant, even on behalf of his uncle, due to the fear of Allah that had been instilled in his heart from such a young age.

Youth and Education

He started his career by learning jurisprudence (Fiqh) under the celebrated Hanafi judge, Abu Yusuf, the renowned student and companion of Imam Abu Hanifah. He then discontinued his studies with Abu Yusuf, in the pursuit of Hadith, travelling around the Islamic Khilafa, at the tender age of 16. As a student, he was held in awe by his teachers, to the same degree that they would respect their own.. Ibn al-Jawzi states that Imam Ahmad had 414 Hadith masters whom he narrated from. Imam al-Shafi’i was from the most beloved of Ahmad’s teachers, held in high esteem by him for his deep insight into jurisprudence. Al-Shafi’i equally admired Ahmad, for his expertise in jurisprudence and Hadith. He would often say to Imam Ahmad: “Tell us if you know of an authentic Hadeeth so that we may act on it.” What demonstrates Imam Ahmad’s love and admiration for al-Shafi’i is that when the latter would pass by him riding a mule, Imam Ahmad would follow al-Shafi’i on foot to enquire about various issues of jurisprudence. The great affectopm and regard between the two Imams is clearly reflected in the resemblance between the Shafi’i and Hanbali schools of jurisprudence.

Imam Ahmad did not suffice himself with seeking knowledge, but he also adorned it with actions, by making Jihad, performing the guard duty at Islamic frontiers (Ribat) and making Hajj five times in his life, twice on foot.

Expertise in Various Sciences

The Imam spent 40 years of his life in the pursuit of knowledge, and only thereafter did he assume the position of a Mufti. By this time, Imam Ahmad had become a leading authority in six or seven Islamic disciplines, according to al-Shafi’i.

Imam Ahmad became – unquestionably – a leading authority in Hadith, and left a colossal Hadith encyclopaedia, al-Musnad, as a living proof of his proficiency and devotion to this science. He is also remembered as a leading and the most balanced critic of Hadith (Naqid) of his time.

Imam Ahmad became a principal specialist in jurisprudence, since he had the advantage of benefiting from some of the famous early jurists and their heritage, such as Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Shafi’i and many others. Imam Ahmad further improvised and developed upon previous schools, such that he became the founder of a new independent school, that was to be attributed to him as the Hanbali school. Some scholars, such as Qutaiba b. Sa’id noted that if Ahmad were to witness the age of Sufyan al-Thawri, Malik, al-Awza’i and Laith b. Sa’d, he would have surpassed them all.

Imam Ahmad, despite being bilingual, became an expert in the Arabic language, poetry, grammar. He gave great importance to the Arabic language, the proper application of grammar and correct pronunciation, such that he would often discipline his daughter for making a grammatical error in her everyday speech.

Imam Ahmad established himself as the Imam in the sciences of Quran, authoring works in exegesis (Tafsir), science of abrogation (al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh), as well as the different modes recitations (Qira’at), preferring some modes of recitation over others, and even expressing dislike for the recitation of Hamza due to its exaggerated elongation of vowels.

Imam Ahmad notably evolved into the most celebrated theologian, to be known as the ‘Imam Ahl al-Sunnah’, the leading authority on the Orthodox doctrine. Imam Ahmad personified the theological views of the early orthodox scholars, and in particular, the founders of the three juristic schools before him, Hanafi, Maliki and al-Shafi’i. This proved to be historically significant, since the Hanbali doctrine remained the only school representing the views of the founders of the other three juristic schools, that later became dominated by Ash’arites or the Maturidis. What also gained him a resounding reputation was his vigorous refusal to accept the dogma of the ‘creation of the Quran’, in spite of going through a protracted, arduous period of severe persecution. He is often likened to Abu Bakr, as the lone champion of Islam during the wars of apostasy.

Imam Ahmad was equally considered to be a leading example in Zuhd (material and spiritual asceticism), for he lived a very simple life, detached from worldly pleasures. His work on Zuhd (Kitab al-Zuhd) is regarded to be the most profound contribution to the Islamic heritage. Abu Dawud, the famous compiler of Sunan, observed that sessions with Ahmad were sessions devoted to the Hereafter, for he would never mention anything of this world.

Ahmad’s Five Basic Juristic Principles

Despite being an exceptional jurist, Imam Ahmad detested that his opinions be written and compiled, fearing that it may swerve his students away from studying the sources of Law, the Quran and the Sunnah. Yet, as Ibn al-Jawzi comments, Allah knew the sincerity in his heart and raised around him faithful students who would record his opinions, such that an independent school of jurisprudence and theology was formed and attributed to Imam Ahmad.

Imam Ahmad employed exceptional caution while formulating juristic opinions and issuing verdicts, and would frequently warn his students of speaking in a matter in which you have no reputable predecessor. This prudent attitude is clearly demonstrated in the thought process applied by Ahmad in extrapolation of laws from the divine sources, which is as follows:

1) Divine text (Nass) from the Quran and the Sunnah was the first point of reference for all scholars of jurisprudence, and in this, Ahmad was not an exception. Whenever he noticed a divine textual evidence for an issue, he never referred to other sources, opinions of the Companions, scholars or resorted to analogical deduction (Qiyas).

2) Verdicts issued by the Companions were resorted to when no textual evidence was found in the Quran or the Sunnah. The reasons for ranking the verdicts of the Companions after the Quran and the Sunnah are obvious: The Companions witnessed the revelation of the Quran, and its implementation by the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam, who advised the Ummah to adhere to the rightly-guided caliphs, hence, the Companions ought to have a better understanding than the latter generations.

Imam Ahmad, would likewise, never give precedence to a scholarly opinion or analogical deduction (Qiyas) over that of the Companions’, to the extent that if they were divided into two camps over an issue, two different narrations would similarly be documented from Imam Ahmad.

3) In a case where the Companions differed, he preferred the opinion supported by the divine texts (Nass).

4) In instances where none of the above was applicable, Ahmad would resort to the Mursal Hadith (with a link missing between the Successor and the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam) or a weak Hadith. However, the type of weak Hadith that Ahmad relied on was such that it may be regarded as ‘fair’ Hadith due to other evidences (Hasan li Ghairihi), not the type that is deemed very weak and thus unsuitable as an evidence for Law. This was due to the fact that, during his time, the Hadith was only categorised into ‘sound’ (Sahih) and ‘weak’ (Dha’if). It was only after Ahmad, that al-Tirmidhi introduced a third category of ‘fair’ (Hasan).

5) Only after having exhausted the aforementioned sources would Imam Ahmad employ analogical deduction (Qiyas) due to necessity, and with utmost care.

Ahmad’s doctrine

As demonstrated previously, Imam Ahmad became the leading authority on the Orthodox doctrine of Islam, which represented the first three blessed generations of Islam, untainted with foreign dogmas. Ahmad’s doctrinal influence can be measured by the fact that, out of the four traditional schools, the Hanbali school alone maintained its own theological view, unlike the Hanafi school which adopted the Maturidi doctrine, or the Shafi’i and Maliki schools that adopted the Ash’ari doctrine. The secret for this was the depth and length at which Ahmad spoke in matters of theology, due to the prevailing unorthodoxy in his age, headed by the Mu’tazilites. Due to this it is noted that there have been, in comparison to other schools, very few Hanbalis who inclined towards unorthodox views, for the copious volume of narrations from Imam Ahmad dealing with specific issues of doctrine made it extremely difficult for his followers to adhere to any other, yet still remain faithful followers.

Imam Ahmad’s doctrine could be summarised as follows:

1) He would believe in the description that Allah gave to himself in the Quran, or inspired the Prophet with, and affirm them at their face value (Dhahir), while generally negating any resemblance between the Creator and the creation.

2) He would vigorously reject negative theology (Ta’til), as well as allegorical exegesis (Ta’wil), with respect to belief in Allah, which was heavily employed by the Jahmites, Mu’tazilites and the Kullabites (later to be known as the Ash’arites) to justify their philosophical approach to God.

3) He believed that Allah Speaks with letters and sound, for he believed every word and letter of the Quran to be the word of Allah, contrary to the Kullabites, who, in their opposition to the Mu’tazilites, affirmed eternal Speech for Allah, yet still agreed with them in that they believed that the Quran, which is composed of letters, was created.

4) He believed that Allah literally Hears and Sees; that He has two Hands with which He created Adam; that Allah has a Face

5) He believed that Allah literally Rose over the Throne after Creating the heavens and the Earth in six days.

6) He believed that Allah is High above and distinct from His creation

7) He believed that Allah is all Knowing, All Wise, All Power and All Able, and that Allah has His own Will, He Does what He likes out of His Wisdom. Whatever Allah has Written and Decreed upon His creation, must come to pass. Nothing leaves His knowledge, or happens without His Permission or Will.

He believed that Allah becomes Pleased when obeyed and Displeased when disobeyed.

9) He would regard the Jahmiyah (followers of al-Jahm ibn Safwan), and the Rafidha (the Imami Shias) who curse the Companions, to be disbelievers (Kuffar).

10) He held that the sinners amongst the Muslims are under the threat of Allah’s punishment; that if He wishes He may Punish them or Forgive them; Contrary to the Khawarij. He would not declare a Muslim to be a disbeliever (Kafir) on account of his sins, nor would he exclude actions from Iman unlike the Murjia. Once he was asked about those who declare their belief in the five pillars of Islam, yet refuse to perform them; he said, in reply, they are disbelievers (Kuffar).

11) He believed in the miracles that occurred at the hands of the Awliya (pious Muslims) as a favour from Allah.

12) He believed that Abu Bakr is the best of the Companions, followed by Umar, then the six companions chosen by the latter as Ashab al-Shura (members of Shura council): Uthman, Ali, al-Zubair, Talha, ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Awf and Sa’d b. Abi Waqqas; followed by the fighters of Badr from the Emigrants (Muhajirin) and then the Helpers (Ansar).

13) He prohibited discussions on the differences between the Companions or dislike of any of them; for the honour of Companionship with the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam – is sufficient a virtue to rank them higher than the entire Muslim Ummah until the end of time.

The Trial

Imam Ahmad is remembered as a legendary figure in the Islamic history for his uncompromising stance and for withstanding immense pressure during the trial of ‘the creation of the Quran’. The Caliph at the time, Ma’mun, subjected the scholars to severe persecution, at the behest of the Mu’tazilite theologians who attributed themselves to Imam Abu Hanifa in jurisprudence. The Mu’tazilites were a heretical Muslim sect, who sanctified their intelligence above the revelation and espoused the belief that, even though, the Quran is the speech of Allah, He created that speech as a distinct entity and called it ‘the Quran’. This was in opposition to the orthodox belief that Allah spoke every word of the Quran, and indeed: ‘Allah spoke to Moses directly’, as Allah states in the Quran.

The Mu’tazilites were discredited throughout the Umayyad rule and never given the position of prominence and influence, until the Caliph al-Ma’mun came to power, during the ‘Abbasids, who took them into confidence and bestowed them with official positions within the state as judges. Bishr al-Marrisi and Ahmad b. Abi Du’ad were the two important figures behind the Mu’tazilite inquisition, which systematically placed many jurists and traditionists on trial until they were forced to acknowledge that the Quran is created, and their acknowledgement publicised in all major cities.

Nearly all the scholars of Baghdad from the jurists and the traditionists were tested, and all of them acknowledged the doctrine of the created Quran, with the exception of the two; Ahmad b. Hanbal and Muhammad b. Nuh. This greatly pained and angered Imam Ahmad, such that he boycotted some of the great traditionists for their acknowledgement, and often refused to narrate from them. Amongst those boycotted were a close companion and a colleague of Imam Ahmad, Yahya b. Ma’in, about whom, it is said that Imam Ahmad refused to speak to him until he died and composed the following lines of poetry censuring his acknowledgement of heresy:

Ya ibn al-madini al-ladhi ‘uridat lahu

Dunya fa Jada bi dinihi li yanalaha

Madha da’aka li intihali maqalatin

Kunta taz’umu kafiran man qalaha

O Ibn al-Madini, to whom the world was offered,

So he strove to attain it at the expense of his religion

What made you embrace a dogma (about which)

You would impute disbelief on the one who adopts it!

Finally, Ahmad b. Hanbal and Muhammad b. Nuh were also put to the test on the order of al-Ma’mun, but they refused to acknowledge the creation of the Quran. Consequently, they were despatched in irons to be dealt with by al-Ma’mun himself. On the way, Imam Ahmad supplicated to Allah to prevent him from meeting al-Ma’mun. His prayer was answered in the sudden death of al-Ma’mun due to which they were both sent back. Muhammad b. Nuh passed away on their return journey, and there was none to prepare his funeral, pray over, and bury him, except Imam Ahmad.
He remained imprisoned in Baghdad until al-Mu’tasim assumed power. Al-Mu’tasim, unlike al-Ma’mun, was a destitute to knowledge. Nevertheless, he continued the Mu’tazilite inquisition as explicitly requested by al-Ma’mun in his will. His rule was perhaps the most brutal towards Sunni scholars in general, and Imam Ahmad in particular who intransigently continued to resist all attempts by the authorities to force him to acknowledge the creation of the Quran. The frustrated Caliph finally ordered Ahmad to be flogged in public, which resulted in Ahmad falling unconscious. Imam Ahmad was released shortly afterwards, when al-Mu’tasim feared that the commotion caused in Baghdad due to mistreatment of Ahmad may reach an uncontrollable pitch.

After al-Mu’tasim’s death, al-Wathiq took over the office of Khilafa, and ordered his loyal Mu’tazili judge in Egypt, Ibn Abi al-Layth to press hard with the inquisition. This caused many to flee from Egypt, while the prisons became full of jurists and traditionists who resisted the government demands. In Baghdad, however, the general public had become enraged over the policies of the government, which made it difficult for al-Wathiq to pursue the inquisition with the same vigour. He therefore, instead of re-imprisoning Imam Ahmad, resolved on banishing him from Baghdad, saying: “Do not live with me on this earth!”, and henceforth, Ahmad b. Hanbal went into hiding.

Towards the end of al-Wathiq’s reign, a close student of al-Shafi’i, Ahmad b. Nasr al-Khaza’i was caught by the officials and charged for organising an uprising in Baghdad. When Ahmad al-Khaza’i was brought to al-Wathiq in chains, the latter, instead of asking him about his role in the uprising, questioned him about his belief in the creation of the Quran, to which Ahmad al-Khaza’i gave the standard Sunni reply. The enraged Caliph, upon hearing his response, personally decapitated him. His head remained in Baghdad, while his body remained on a crucifix in Samurra for six years, as a grisly warning to potential rebels.

After al-Wathiq’s death, his brother al-Mutawakkil took charge of the office. Al-Mutawakkil, unlike his predecessors had the utmost respect and admiration for the Sunni school, and through him, Allah decided to put an end to the inquisition. Promptly after assuming the position as Caliph, he sent orders throughout the Khilafa to put an immediate end to all discussions regarding the Quran, released all the prisoners of faith, dismissed the Mu’tazili judges, and more significantly deported the chief instigator of the inquisition, Ahmad b. Abi Du’ad along with his family. He further ordered that the Mu’tazili judges responsible for the inquisition be cursed from by the pulpits, by name.

Al-Mutawakkil, on the other hand, showed his utmost reverence to the Sunni hero of the inquisition, Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal, and wished to take care of all his affairs. Ahmad, however, turned down the offers due to his general dislike of being close to the rulers. Al-Mutwakkil, knowing that Imam Ahmad would refuse his offerings, instead presented some gifts to his son, Salih b. Ahmad. When it came to his knowledge, Imam Ahmad showed strong disapproval and refused to consume anything from his son’s wealth.

Illness, Death and Funeral

After Imam Ahmad turned 77, he was struck with severe illness and fever, and became very weak, yet never complaining about his infirmity and pain until he died. In spite of his debilitation, he would urge his son, Salih b. Ahmad, to help him stand up for prayer. When he was unable to stand, he would pray sitting, or sometimes lying on his side. After hearing of his illness, the masses flocked to his door. The ruling family also showed the desire to pay him a visit, and to this end sought his permission. However, due to his desire to remain independent of any influence from the authority, Ahmad denied them access.

Once during his illness, an old man entered upon Imam Ahmad and reminded him of his account before Allah, to which Imam Ahmad began to weep profusely. On another occasion, a man who partook in the beatings inflicted on Imam Ahmad, came to Salih b. Ahmad, the son of the Imam, and begged him to seek permission from his father to allow him to enter, for he felt the guilt of his involvement in the suffering of the Imam. When he was finally given permission, he entered upon the Imam and wept, begging for his forgiveness. Imam Ahmad forgave him on the condition that he would never repeat his actions. The man left the Imam, and all those present, in tears.

‘Abdullah b. Ahmad b. Hanbal narrates, that while Imam Ahmad was on his death bed, he kept drifting in and out of consciousness, and gesturing with his hands saying: ‘No… No… No…’ When enquired about it, Ahmad replied: ‘The Devil was standing near me, trying his hardest to mislead me, saying: ‘Come on, Ahmad!’, and I was replying back: ‘No… No…’

On Friday, the 12 of Rabi’ al-Awwal 241 AH, the legendary Imam breathed his last. The news of his death quickly spread far and wide in the city and the people flooded the streets to attend Ahmad’s funeral. One of the rulers, upon hearing the news, sent burial shrouds along with perfumes to be used for Ahmad’s funeral. However, respecting the Ahmad’s wishes, his sons refused the offering and instead used a burial shroud prepared by his female servant. Moreover, his sons took care not to use water from their homes to wash Imam Ahmad as he had refused to utilise any of their resources, for accepting the offerings of the ruler.

After preparing his funeral, his sons prayed over him, along with around 200 members of the ruling family, while the streets were teeming with both men and women, awaiting the funeral procession. Imam Ahmad’s funeral was then brought out and the multitudes continued to pray over him in the desert, before and after his burial at his grave.

During the trial of Imam Ahmad, he would often say: “Say to the heretics, the decisive factor between us and you is the day of funerals”; meaning, the adherents to the orthodox doctrine always have a good end, for they earn the love of Allah, as well as the affection of the multitudes, and their death has a great impact on people’s lives. This is exactly what took place in this instance, for it is estimated that about 1 300 000 people attended his funeral. One of the scholars said in relation to this that such a massive attendance at a funeral has never been equalled in the history of the Arabs, neither in the pre-Islamic era (Jahiliyah) nor in Islam. The masses were engulfed in the genuine popular emotion, while the scene of his grave became overwhelmed by such sentiments that the graveyard had to be guarded by the civil authorities.

Another scholar relates that when he attended the funeral of Ahmad, he wanted pray over him at his grave. But the crowds were so awe-inspiring that he didn’t reach the grave until after a week. The funerals of the famous opponents of Imam Ahmad, however, were in stark contrast, which where not attended by more than a handful. The funeral procession of the Ahmad ibn Abi Du’ad – the chief instigator of the inquisition – went largely unnoticed, with none willing to carry his funeral to the graveyard, except a few from the ruling family. Such was also the case with al-Harith al-Muhasibi – a theologian and an ascetic – who, despite being a bitter enemy of the Mu’tazilites, was still discredited by Imam Ahmad for his interests in Kalam (speculative theology). Only three or four people prayed over al-Muhasibi, and a similar fate met Bishr al-Mirrisi.

In the Islamic history, Ahmad’s funeral is noted as the day when the Mu’tazilite doctrine was brought to a decisive and a humiliating end, whilst the Sunni Islam and the Prophetic guidance were the order of the day. Ahmad’s death had proven the ineffectiveness of the Caliph’s role in defining Islam, and further unquestionably acknowledged that it were the scholars, rather than the Caliphs, who were the true ‘inheritors of the Prophets’. Ahmad’s funeral was marked by the multitudes flocking, and openly cursing al-Karabisi and al-Marrisi, the chief heretics. This became a frequent practise amongst the subsequent Hanbali funerals throughout Islamic history, where the masses would rally behind prominent Hanbali funerals proclaiming: This day is for Sunnis and Hanbalis! Not Jahmis, Mu’tazilis or Ash’aris!

The Madhab of Imam Ahmad

After the death of Imam Ahmad, his students travelled across the Muslim world along with the responsa (Masa’il) of Ahmad concerning theology, jurisprudence and traditions. From the foremost of his students are: his two sons, Salih and Abdullah, Hanbal ibn Ishaq, al-Marrudhi, al-Kawsaj, Ibn Hani, Abu Dawud (compiler of Sunan Abi Dawud), al-Athram, Abu Zur’ah al-Razi, Abu Hatim al-Razi, ‘Abdul-Wahhab al-Warraq, al-Tirmidhi and many others.

However, it was not until al-Khallal travelled the Muslim world, collecting the responsa of Imam Ahmad from his students scattered across the Khilafa, that the Madhab of Imam Ahmad was compiled in an organised form. This vast compilation became known as al-Jami’, which is still used in the 8^th Islamic century by Ibn Taymiyah and his contemporary Hanbali jurists.

This collection was then summarised into a short treatise on the Fiqh of Imam Ahmad by the Baghdadi-Hanbali jurist al-Khiraqi, which became known as Mukhtasar al-Khiraqi. This treatise was the first Fiqh manual ever written in the Madhab, and its first ever commentary was also written by its very author, thus, making al-Khiraqi the first author of a Fiqh manual in the Madhab, the first one to write a commentary on a manual, and indeed the first Hanbali to comment on his own manual.

The summarised treatise on Fiqh by al-Khiraqi proved to be the most important contribution to Hanbali Fiqh, with over 300 commentaries, according to Yusuf b. ‘Abd al-Hadi, which even today remains an excellent introductory manual to the Hanbali school of jurisprudence. The famous commentaries to al-Mukhtasri include, but are not restricted to: a commentary by Ibn Hamid, then al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la, then Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi, whose commentary, famously known as al-Mughni, is considered to be a timeless masterpiece.

Hanbali Books on Theology

Since Hanbalism is as much a school of theology as it is a school of Law, the Hanbali theologians have contributed several works, at various intervals in history, representing the doctrine of Ahmad b. Hanbal. Imam Ahmad himself played a leading role in authoring books on doctrine, such as the Kitab al-Sunnah (Book of Sunnah) and al-Rad ‘Ala al-Zanadiqah wa al-Jahmiyah (The refutation of the Heretics and the Jahmis). Apart from these two works, Imam Ahmad wrote several letters addressed to some of his contemporaries, explaining the orthodox creed, found in the Tabaqat of Ibn Abi Ya’la, although not all of the letters are authentic.

Subsequently, the students of Ahmad in particular, and the rest of his followers, continued to contribute works in theology. Several Hanbalis authored books, in the footsteps of their Imam, with a common title: Kitab al-Sunnah, such as al-Athram, ‘Abdullah (the son of Imam Ahmad), Hanbal ibn Ishaq (the cousin of Imam Ahmad), al-Khallal.

Some of the important manuals on doctrine accepted by the mainstream Hanbalis include: Lum’at al-I’tiqad by Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi, al-I’tiqad by al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la, al-Iqtisad fi al-I’tiqad by ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi, and various treatise written by Ibn Taymiyah, such as al-Wasitiyah and al-Tadmurriyah, as well as his close student Ibn al-Qayyim, such as his famous Nuniyah, an ode rhyming in the letter Nun.

It is worthy to note that many works on theology by some Hanbalis were reactionary to the Hanbali-Ash’ari feud, such as al-Radd ‘Ala al-Asha’irah (Rebuttal of the Ash’arites) by Ibn al-Hanbali, and by Abul-Wafa Ibn ‘Aqil with the same title. Another example of such work is Ibtal al-Ta’wilat li Akhbar al-Sifat (Negation of the Allegorical Interpretations of the Traditions Pertaining to Divine Attributes) by al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la, which came is a rebuttal of the book Mushkil al-Hadith wa Bayanuhu (The Problematic Traditions and their Interpretations) by Ibn Furak, the Ash’ari theologian and a traditionist, who compiled the aforementioned book, giving allegorical interpretations to divine texts that seemed problematic according to Ash’ari principles; and al-Munadhara fi al-Quran ma’a Ahl al-Bid’ah (The Debate Regarding the Quran with Some Heretics), by the great Hanbali jurist, Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi, where he relates his violent discourse with his contemporaries from the Ash’aris, whom he refers to as ‘Heretics’, about the nature of the Quran contained in a book-form (Mushaf), whether it is created or uncreated.

Other Hanbalis, although they did not author books dedicated to doctrine, they did, however, include sections of doctrine in books of Fiqh and Suluk (ethics). Al-Ghunya, by Abdul-Qadir al-Jilani – a famous Hanbali jurist and the founder of the Qadiri Sufi order – is for the most part, a manual in ethics and morality, yet it begins with a thorough presentation of the Hanbali doctrine, which paints al-Jilani as an ardent follower of the mainstream Hanbalism, and an avowed antagonist of the Ash’aris.

Hanbali Books on Fiqh

The first manual in Fiqh, as mentioned earlier was the famous al-Mukhtasar by al-Khiraqi, which has remained up until this day, from the most important introductory works on Hanbali Fiqh, with its commentary par excellence, al-Mughani by Ibn Qudama.

Al-Majd Ibn Taymiyah, who was the grandfather of the famous Hanbali theologian and jurist, Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyah, was considered to be one of the great authorities in the school, along with Ibn Qudama, such that if the two Sheikhs agreed upon an issue, it would be considered the reliable opinion (mu’tamad) in the school. Al-Majd Ibn Taymiyah authored his famous and reliable Fiqh manual called al-Muharrar fi al-Fiqh.

Ibn Qudama played a key role in developing a Hanbali curriculum of Fiqh for all levels of students. He wrote a preparatory manual for the beginners called al-‘Umdah, with the objective of developing an all-round surface understanding of jurisprudence, without confusing the student with difference of opinion within the school. For the students at an intermediate level, he authored al-Muqni’, aimed at training the students at exercising preference (tarjih) upon conflicting opinions (ta’arudh) within the school. For the next level, he authored al-Kafi, with the goal of acquainting the student with the sources of the Law, and the methodology for extrapolating rules from the revelation. Al-Mughni (lit. rich), which is a commentary on al-Mukhtasar by al-Khiraqi, was compiled for the advanced students, to familiarise them with the difference of opinion and the respective arguments, beyond the school, even surpassing the four traditional schools.

The aforementioned book, al-Muqni’ by Ibn Qudama had received two main important commentaries: al-Sharh al-Kabir (the Great Commentary) by al-Muwaffaq Ibn Qudama’s nephew, Shams al-Din Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi; and al-Insaf by the famous Hanbali jurist and judge, ‘Ala al-Din al-Mardawi. These two commentaries have remained popular amongst post-Ibn Qudama generations up until today.

Al-Muqni’ , also has a very popular abridgment by the famous Hanbali jurist Sharf al-Din Abu al-Naja al-Hajjawi called: Zad al-Mustaqni’ fi Ikhtisar al-Muqni’. This abridgement became particularly famous amongst the Hanbalis from Najd, where it is regarded as the primer to the Madhab. The most common and widely accepted commentary on Zad was written by the Egyptian Hanbali jurist, Mansur b. Yunus al-Buhuti called: al-Rawdh al-Murbi’, which was further commented on by the Najdi-Hanbali jurist, ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Qasim. The latter commentary, which is informally known as Hashiyat Ibn Qasim is regarded to be one of the greatest contributions to the school in the modern times. Another invaluable contribution to the school has been al-Sharh al-Mumti’ ‘Ala Zad al-Mustaqni’, by the famous and profound Hanbali jurist, theologian, traditionist, linguist and a grammarian, Muhammad b. Salih al-‘Uthaimin. Al-Sharh al-Mumti’, originally, was delivered as a series of lectures over the years, which was then written, compiled and then published by his loyal students into volumes.

The aforementioned author of Zad al-Mustaqni’ – al-Hajjawi, is also the author of al-Iqna’ which serves today as a major reference work for verdicts (Ifta) in Saudi Arabia, along with Muntaha al-Iradat by al-Futuhi. Both of these voluminous manuals have been commented on by several authors. The most famous of those commentaries are Kashaf al-Qina’ ‘An Matn al-Iqna’, which is a commentary on al-Iqna’, and Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, both by al-Buhuti.

Notable Hanbali Scholars

Many celebrated personalities in the Islamic history received their tutelage in the Hanbali school, in Baghdad, Greater Syria (Sham), Egypt and finally the Arabian Peninsula. The following is a very humble list comprising of some of the notable Hanbalis – bar the direct students of Imam Ahmad:

• Al-Khallal (d. 311) – A student of some of the closest companions and students of Imam Ahmad. He is remembered and honoured for collecting the responsa of Imam Ahmad from his students, who were scattered across the Muslim world.
• al-Khiraqi (d. 334) – (who summarised Jami’ al-Khallal into a Fiqh manual, the mother of all Fiqh manuals in the Madhab)
• Ghulam al-Khallal (d. 363) – A servant and a devout student of al-Khallal, and author of many works in various sciences. It is reported that, days before his death, in his illness, he said to his companions: I am with you until this Friday. Upon being asked why, he said: al-Khallal informed me from Abu Bakr al-Marrudhi that Ahmad lived until he was 78 and died on Friday. Abu Bakr al-Marrudhi lived until he was 78 and died on Friday. Al-Khallal lived until he was 78 and died on Friday. On Friday, Ghulam al-Khallal breathed his last when he was 78.
• Ibn Hamid (d. 403) – He was a leading authority on the Hanbali school in his time, and known for his frequent performance of Hajj, such that he died on his way back from Makkah. He is regarded to be the last of the early class (Tabaqa) of the Hanbalis.
• al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la (d. 458) – He was born to a Hanafi family, but became a Hanbali after studying under Ibn Hamid. He became the leading authority on the school after Ibn Hamid, who is remembered for spreading the Madhab far and wide. His Hadith assemblies were very popular and attended by thousands of Traditionists, where he would sit on the chair of ‘Abdullah b. Ahmad b. Hanbal and narrate Hadith.
• Abu al-Khattab (d. 510) – A devout student of al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la, and author of many works in the Madhab, the most important of them: al-Intisar authored as a defence to various Hanbali juristic opinions in comparison to other schools. His students included many prominent Hanbali figures, such as ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jailani.
• Abu Isma’il al-Harawi (d. 481) – A celebrated Hanbali jurist and a theologian, known for his awe-inspiring personality, and ardent enmity towards the Ash’arites. He was one of the great Sufi figures in the history, who authored Manazil al-Sa’irin – a manual in Tasawwuf – which was later expounded by Ibn al-Qayyim in Madarij al-Salikin. He was a fearless defender of the Hanbali faith such that he would often say:

Ana Hanbaliyun Mahayiytu fa in amut

Fa wasiyati li al-Nasi an yatahanbalu

I am a Hanbali as long as I live, and when I die

My legacy to the people is to become Hanbalis

• Abul-Wafa ‘Ali ibn ‘Aqil (d. 488) – One of the most intelligent jurists the Hanbalis ever had within their ranks. He was, in his youth, influenced by the Mu’tazlites and showed admiration for al-Hallaj (a pantheist who pretended to be a Muslim), but soon repented and wrote various rebuttals against the Mu’tazlites and the Ash’arites. Ibn al-Jawzi relates that Ibn ‘Aqil once said: I say with utmost certainty that the Companions died having no knowledge of the atoms (Jawhar) or accidents (‘Aradh). Hence, if you feel that you should be like them, then be! But, if you think that the way of the Doctors of Kalam is better than the way of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, then how evil is what you think! He left behind many works, amongst them voluminous al-Funun, of which only a small portion is found today.
• ‘Abdul-Qadir al-Jailani (d. 561) A Hanbali theologian, great preacher and, perhaps the most influential Sufi figure who founded the Qadiriyah way (Tariqa). Although, his life is regarded as a chain of miracles, so much has been claimed about his ‘sainthood’ by his passionate Sufi followers that very little of his biographical accounts can be verified. The only book one can attribute to al-Jailani with a level of surety is al-Ghunya, in which he spells out his strict adherence to the Hanbali dogma and Law.
• Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597) A famous jurist, exegete, critic, preacher and a prolific author, with works on all subjects. He began his preaching career at a very young age and gained popularity amongst the masses. Although, he never met Ibn ‘Aqil, he did receive a fair amount of tutelage from his books, which left him perplexed about the orthodox doctrine of the Hanbali school; as reflected in his theological opinions that are often contradictory, and at times leaning towards allegorical exegesis (ta’wil) conflicting with the mainstream Hanbali position. His works in theology, thereafter, were criticised by the mainstream theologians of the Madhab, such as Ibn Qudama.
• Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620) One of the major Hanbali authorities and the author of the profound and voluminous book on Law, al-Mughni, which became popular amongst researchers from all juristic backgrounds. He was also an authority on Hanbali doctrine and a passionate opponent of the Ash’arites, but that did not prevent him from joining the military campaign of Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi, who was an Ash’ari, against the Crusaders in Palestine.
• Majd al-Din Ibn Taymiyah (d. 653) A great jurist, traditionist, grammarian and exegete of Harran. He was the grandfather of the celebrated Sheikh al-Islam Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyah. The well-known grammarian and the author of Alfiya, Ibn Malik would hold al-Majd in high regard. He also enjoyed an esteemed position in the Hanbali school, as the term ‘The Two Sheikhs’ (Sheikhan) would only refer to him and Ibn Qudama.
• Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyah (d. 728) – A legendary figure in the Islamic history, known by his friends and foes for his expertise in all Islamic sciences. Aside from being a celebrated scholar, he also gained much prominence due to his fearlessness, zealous activism, political and military campaigns in Damascus against the invading Tatar. Ibn Nasir al-Din al-Dimashqi in his book al-Radd al-Wafir mentions 87 scholars from all schools who referred to Ibn Taymiya as ‘Sheikh al-Islam’, a prestigious title given only to jurists and traditionists whose verdicts reached a high level of fame and acceptance. His fame also earned him many envious enemies who continued to conspire against him, until he was imprisoned in the citadel of Damascus and died therein. His funeral was attended by a mammoth number of inhabitants of Damascus, while the funeral prayer in absentia was prayed over him throughout the Islamic world. He is remembered for his invaluable contributions, not only to the Hanbali school of jurisprudence and theology, but also to the rich Islamic heritage. He also produced many students of high calibre. Names such as Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Dhahabi and Ibn Kathir are but some of his virtues.
• Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziya (d. 751) – The closest companion and a student of Ibn Taymiyah who shared with him the moments of ease and hardship, until the latter’s death in the citadel. His works in various Islamic sciences earned him much acceptance and fame. Some of his important works include Zaad al-Ma’ad in Seerah and Fiqh, I’lam al-Muwaqqi’in in Usul al-Fiqh, and al-Kafiyah fil-Intisar lil-Firqat al-Najiyah, an ode rhyming in the letter Nun on Hanbali theology, which is taught and studied in Hanbali schools until today.
• Ahmad ibn ‘Abdil-Hadi (d. 744) – A devout and close student of Ibn Taymiyah and an expert traditionist. He wrote at length the legendary accounts of his beloved teacher Ibn Taymiyah. He is also the author of al-Sarim al-Munki fi al-Radd ‘Ala al-Subki, a violent rebuttal of al-Subki’s attempt to justify taking long journeys for the visitation of the Prophet’s grave. Unfortunately, he died before completing this book at the age of forty.
• Najm al-Din al-Tufi (d. 716) – The author of several important works, such as the summarisation of Rawdat al-Nadhir by Ibn Qudama, also known as al-Bulbul, widely taught until today. In spite of being a Hanbali in Fiqh, he would often refer to himself as an Ash’arite and extreme Shi’ite. He was chastised in public and imprisoned several times for his unorthodox views. Although, his repentance is reported; however, Ibn Rajab doubted the sincerity of his repentance.
• Shams al-Din b. Muflih (d. 763) – One of the leading authorities in Hanbali Law who received his tutelage amongst several prominent Hanbali figures, including Ibn Taymiyah. He gave particular attention to the juristic preferences of Ibn Taymiyah, and included them in his voluminous and renowned masterpiece on Hanbali jurisprudence known as al-Furu’.
• Ahmad b. Qadhi al-Jabal (d. 771) – A chief judge and a devout student of Ibn Taymiyah. He is regarded to be the leading Hanbali poet of his time. He would often recite the following:

Nabiyi Ahmad wa Kadha Imami

wa Sheikhi Ahmad Ka al-Bahri Tami

wa ismi Ahmad Li Dhaka Arju

Shafa’ata Ashrafi al-Rusul al-Kirami

My Prophet is Ahmad, and so is my Imam

My Sheikh, Ahmad (b. Taymiya), is like an ocean abundant with knowledge

My name is Ahmad and henceforth I wish for

The intercession of the most noble of the Messengers

• Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (d. 795) – A prominent jurist, traditionist, ascetic and preacher, who authored several important works, largely commenting upon famous collections of traditions, such as al-Tarmidhi, al-Bukhari and the forty Hadith of al-Nawawi. His teachers include Ibn al-Qayyim, under whom he learnt his famous Hanbali ode al-Kafiyah.
• ‘Ala al-Din Al-Mardawi (d. 885) – A chief judge and one of the foremost specialists in the Madhab amongst the latter Hanbali generations. He is the author of al-Insaf, a rich commentary on al-Muqni’ of Ibn Qudama, where he lists the variance of opinion, then declares the correct position in the school.
• Sharaf al-Din Al-Hajjawi (d. 968) A distinguished figure amongst the latter Damascan Hanbali scholars, and the author of two important manuals that were to remain the basis for verdicts amongst the Hanbalis until today: Zad al-Mustaqni’, a summarisation of al-Muqni’; and al-Iqna’.
• Ibn al-Najjar al-Futuhi (d. 980) – A notable Egyptian Hanbali authority and the author of Muntaha al-Iradat, which were to become another widely accepted manual amongst the latter Hanbalis, along with al-Iqna’.
• Mar’i b. Yusuf al-Karmi (d. 1033) – A Palestinian born scholar who resided in Egypt and wrote extensively on various sciences. He is particularly remembered for making two important contributions to Hanbali Fiqh: i) Ghayat al-Muntaha, which came as a merger between the two relied-upon manuals, al-Iqna’ and Muntaha al-Iradat; and ii) Dalil al-Talib, a summarisation of Muntaha al-Iradat. This manual received various commentaries, the most famous of which is Manar al-Sabil, by Ibn Dhuwayan.
• Mansur b. Yunus al-Buhuti (d. 1051) An Egyptian jurist of great stature, held in much respect for his invaluable contribution to the Hanbali school. His works mostly comprise of commentaries on various manuals, such as al-Rawdh al-Murbi’, a commentary on Zad; Kashaf al-Qina’, a commentary on al-Iqna’; and a commentary on Muntaha al-Iradat. He became the centre of learning for the Hanbalis from Jerusalem, the Greater Syria and Najd.
• ‘Abd al-Baqi al-Hanbali al-Ba’li (d.1071) – A jurist and a traditionist who received his tutelage from al-Azhar. He assumed the position of Ifta for the Hanbalis in Jerusalem, and dedicated his life to learning and teaching various sciences.
• Ibn al-‘Imad (d. 1089) – A Syrian-Hanbali scholar and the author of a large biographical history, known as Shadharat al-dhahab fi akhbar man dhahab, covering the Hijra years one to 1000.
• Abu al-Mawahib al-Hanbali (d. 1126) – A Damascan Hanbali traditionist and a leading reciter of the Quran, who wrote extensively on various topics. Due to his known piety, he would often be asked to lead the prayer for rain (Salat al-Istisqa’), as occurred in the year 1108 when Damascus was hit by a drought. Abu al-Mawahib then led the masses in prayer, beseeching Allah for rain, and his prayer was instantly answered.
• Muhammad Al-Saffarini (d. 1188) – A traditionist and jurist and a profound writer on various issues. He is most commonly famous for his poetic treatise on Hanbali theology called: al-Durrah al-Mudhiyah fi ‘Aqd al-Firqat al-Mardhiyah, which generally falls in line with the mainstream Hanbali dogma, bar few instances. However, in his commentary, known as Lawami’ al-Anwar al-Bahiyah, he often tends to contradict his poem, in agreement with the mainstream Hanbali doctrine. His poem, nevertheless, still remains popular amongst Hanbali students.
• Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206) A leading Hanbali jurist and a theologian of Najd; more notably remembered as the pioneer of the revivalist movement which began in the Arabian Peninsula, and continued to influence various Islamic movements until today. The focus of his call was to revive the true Islamic monotheism which – in Najd – had been tainted over the years with various pre-Islamic and pagan practises. After a period of persecution, he was finally triumphant, joining forces with the leader of al-Dar’iyah, Muhammad b. Su’ud (Saud).
• Sulaiman b. ‘Abd Allah b. Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1233) – Grandson of Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab, who excelled in traditions, Fiqh and theology. He was brutally executed on the orders of the viceroy of Egypt, Ibrahim Pasha, by a firing squad in a graveyard. His flesh was then collected and buried.
• Fatima bint Muhammad al-Hanbaliyah (d. 1247) – A famous female scholar of traditions, Fiqh, an ascetic and a popular preacher. She died in Makkah and was buried in al-Mu’lla graveyard.
• ‘Abdullah Aba Butain (d. 1282) – The grand Mufti of the 13^th Islamic century Najd, and an undisputable Hanbali authority on Fiqh, traditions and theology. He was also a great admirer and defender of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab.
• ‘Uthman b. Bishr al-Najdi (d. 1290) – A Najdi historian and a follower of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab, known for his work on history: Unwan al-Majd fi Tarikh Najd.
• Muhammad b. Humaid al-Najdi (d. 1295) – A Hanbali jurist, traditionist , historian, and an ardent enemy of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s followers, in spite of being a student of Aba Butain and a great admirer of Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn al-Qayyim. He is the author of al-Suhub al-Wabila ‘ala Dhara’ih al-Hanabilah, which is a continuation of Dhail Tabaqat al-Hanabila of Ibn Rajab.
• Hamad b. ‘Atiq (d. 1301) – A jurist and a judge in al-Kharaj, and then al-Aflaj, and an author of several works in theology and Fiqh.
• Ahmad b. ‘Isa al-Najdi (d. 1329) – A jurist, traditionist, theologian, a student of Aba Butain and a passionate follower and a propagandist of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s revivalist movement. He would travel to Makkah, the centre of the Islamic world, and would often discuss theology with various scholars of the Muslim world. He managed to earn great respect from the Sharif of Makkah, who, at his encouragement, demolished all the domed-tombs in al-Mu’alla graveyard. His invaluable contributions include his two volume commentary on al-Nuniyah of Ibn al-Qayyim in theology.
• ‘Abd al-Qadir b. Badran (d. 1346) – A Damascan scholar in Fiqh, Usul al-Fiqh, theology, grammar, and a great enthusiast for Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s movement. He was initially a Shafi’i, and later, after much research and investigation decided to be a Hanbali. His invaluable contributions to the Madhab include: al-Madkhal ila Madhab al-Imam Ahmad, an all-round introduction to the Madhab; a commentary on Ibn al-Qayyim’s al-Nuniyah; a commentary on a Hanbali manual on Usul, Rawdhat al-Nadhir by Ibn Qudama, and many other works.
• Abu Bakr Khuqir (d. 1349) – A prominent Hanbali scholar of Makkah, and a student of Ahmad b. ‘Isa. He was an outspoken propagandist of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s movement, due to which he was imprisoned along with his sons, while the eldest of them died in prison. He was eventually released upon ‘Abd al-‘Aziz b. Su’ud’s conquest of Makkah, where he was, thereafter, appointed as a Mufti for Hanbalis. His contributions mainly comprised of works and rebuttals on theological issues.
• Ibrahim al-Duwaiyan (d. 1353) – A jurist, traditionist, genealogist and a judge in Qasim, most notably known for his commentary on Dalil al-Talib, called Manar al-Sabil.
• ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Nasir al-Sa’di (d. 1376) – A prominent jurist, exegete, grammarian with a great interest in poetry. He contributed many works in different subjects, the most of celebrated of them: Taysir al-Karim al-Mannan in exegesis; Manhaj al-Salikin a primer in Fiqh. His students include Muhammad b. Salih al-‘Uthaimin and ‘Abdullah b. ‘Aqil.
• Muhammad b. Ibrahim (d. 1389) – The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, and a prominent Hanbali jurist. He played a leading role in the development of some important legal and educational institutes. His students include: Ibn Baz, Muhammad b. Abd al-Rahman al-Qasim and ‘Abd Allah b. Jibrin.
• ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Qasim (d. 1392) A prominent jurist, traditionist and a theologian, who is particularly esteemed for the most valued contribution to the Islamic heritage in this age, a 35-volume Majmu’ al-Fatawa of Ibn Taymiyah. His seven-volume commentary on al-Rawdh al-Murbi’ has also become considerably popular amongst the latter Hanbalis.
• ‘Abd al-’Aziz b. Baz (d. 1420) – The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia after his teacher, Muhammad b. Ibrahim, and a leading figure in the Islamic Da’wah. He was a Mujtahid in Hanbali Madhab, and was referred to by some as the leading authority on orthodox Islam (Imam Ahl al-Sunnah).
• Muhammad b. Salih al-Uthaimin (d. 1421) – A leading jurist, grammarian, linguist, and a popular preacher. A close and devout student of ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Sa’di, and a commentator on Zad al-Mustaqni’; his commentary is known as al-Sharh al-Mumti’. His students include Ahmad al-Qadhi, Khalid al-Muslih, Khalid al-Mushayqih, and many others.
• ‘Abdullah b. ‘Aqil – A jurist and formerly chief justice in Saudi Arabia. One of the closest students of ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Sa’di, who is known today as Sheikh al-Hanabilah. His close students include: Dr. al-Shibl, Haitham al-Haddad and Anas b. ‘Aqil, his grandson.
• Bakr b. ‘Abd Allah Abu Zaid – A jurist, traditionist, linguist and a profound author of many works. His important contributions to the Hanbali Madhab include al-Madkhal al-Mufassal ila Fiqh al-Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal, a two-volume in-depth introduction to the Madhab, which serves today as one of the main reference work on the school.

Increasing Number of Hanbalis

Historically, the Hanbali Madhab has always been known for having fewer followers comparatively to the remaining schools. Some even argued that the small number of followers was indicative of an inherent weakness of the Madhab and its lack of popularity. Hanbalis often responded with the following verse of poetry:

Yaquluna fi ashabi ahmada qillatun

Fa qultu lahum inn al-kirama qalilu

They say of Ahmad’s followers: How few they are!

Thus, I said to them: The dignified are always few

The secret behind the spread of any particular Madhab, or lack thereof, has mainly been the authorities, responsible for bestowing the Islamic courts to one faction, at the expense of the other. In a land where courts were dominated by a particular Madhab, a student qualifying in a different Madhab had no future, and consequently, was forced to migrate, or embrace the native Madhab, or conspire with fellow Madhabists to seize the courts for themselves, by any means necessary. This was one of the main reasons behind Hanafi-Shafi’i rivalry in the Islamic history, which at times led to violent clashes.

The Hanbalis, however, had an inherent tendency of declining lofty positions offered by the authorities. Hence, Abu al-Wafa Ibn ‘Aqil al-Hanbali remarks that the Hanbali Madhab has been ‘oppressed’ by none other than Hanbalis themselves. For whenever a Hanbali would excel in knowledge, he would submerge himself in worship and gratitude to Allah, embrace the ascetic life (Zuhd) and divorce himself from fame, status and worldly life. This was also confirmed by a prominent Shafi’i traditionist and a historian, al-Dhahabi, in his book Zaghl al-‘Ilm where he describes the Hanbalis with similar distinguishing qualities.

The Hanbalis had remained an insignificant minority, and perhaps, close to extinction, until Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab arose in Najd forming an influential revivalist movement, with the aim to purify the true understanding of Islamic monotheism, in a society stained with pre-Islamic pagan beliefs and practices. After a period of persecution and exile, he joined forces with Muhammad b. Su’ud and successfully revived the enforcement of the much-neglected Shariah laws.

It is solely to the credit of the Wahhabist revivalist movement, that until today, the courts in the Arabian Peninsula are predominantly Hanbali, bar some areas to the south near Yemen, which still remain Shafi’i. The significance of the Wahhabist call is demonstrated in an undeniable fact that nearly all Islamic reformist movements in the 20^th century, directly or indirectly, are influenced by the basic call of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab. Egypt, for example, apart from being the centre for Ash’ari learning, with its political life dominated by a brutal socialist-dictatorship, has been historically at odds with the followers of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab; yet, one cannot but notice that the majority of ‘The Youth of Awakening’ (Shabab al-Sahwah) are somewhat more inclined towards the Wahhabist thought than the dogma propagated by the local Azharites. Hence, it comes at no surprise that ‘Wahhabism’ has been singled out as an ideological target in the so-called ‘War on Terror’.

A scant reading of the Islamic history illustrates that the Hanbalis are known for having an outstanding character, fearlessness and eagerness for enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, with Imam Ahmad setting the precedence by remaining steadfast during the inquisition. After the demise of Imam Ahmad, the Hanbalis grew stronger in Baghdad, and as Ibn ‘Asakir notes, they would patrol the streets, during which, if they noticed a man with an unrelated woman, they would report him to the police; or if they noticed a musical instrument or a bottle of alcohol, they would smash it. Al-Khiraqi, who was the first Hanbali scholar to write a Fiqh manual, died after being severely beaten while attempting to combat evils in Damascus. Ibn Taymiyah would likewise patrol the streets with his students, during which, if they noticed anyone playing chess they disrupt the game; or if they saw utensils of alcohol or musical instruments, they would smash them. Ibn Taymiyah was also greatly admired for his fearless encounter with the ruthless Mongolian invader of Damascus, Qazan; as he is also remembered for his frequent imprisonment for in defence of the orthodox doctrine.

Conclusion

If a hundred-and-fifty pages by al-Dhahabi, or over seven-hundred pages by Ibn al-Jawzi could not encompass all the details in the life of such a magnificent figure in our history, as that of Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaibani, then how can one claim to do justice in this brief twenty page introduction. The unavoidable omission of detail in such a piece, should not be considered as a disservice to the Madhab.

The enthusiastic reader with a keen interest to inquire more about Imam Ahmad is recommended to read the most comprehensive biography of Imam Ahmad by Ibn al-Jawzi called Manaqib al-Imam Ahmad; followed by Imam Ahmad’s biography by al-Dhahabi in Siyar al-‘Alam al-Nubula’. Those seeking in-depth information about the Madhab are recommended to read the richest introduction to the Madhab by Dr. Bakr b. ‘Abd Allah Abu Zaid called al-Madkhal al-Mufassal Ila Fiqh al-Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (A detailed introduction to the jurisprudence of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal). Equally recommended is another primer, albeit not so detailed, but still unique, titled: al-Madkhal ila Madhab al-Imam Ahmad, by Ibn Badran al-Dimashqi. Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Sirah wal-Madhab (Ahmad ibn Hanbal – the life and the Madhab) by Sa’di Abu Jaib is similarly recommended for a devotee of the Madhab, dealing with various aspects of the life of Imam Ahmad and his Madhab not addressed in the two aforementioned introductory books.

We ask Allah to accept this effort and forgive our shortcomings, for to err is only human.

It is authentically reported that the Prophet SalAllahu ‘Alaihi wa-sallam, was asked: “Which of the places are the worst?” He replied: “I would not know until I ask Jibreel.” He then asked Jibreel and explained that the market places were the worst of places.[1]

If this is the case with the most knowledgeable amongst Allah’s creation of His religion, then what of the one who has no knowledge, yet he has the audacity to speak on Allah’s behalf?

Ibn al-Qayyim says:

“Whoever issues a verdict to the people, whilst he is not qualified to do so, then he is sinful and disobedient, and whoever establishes him as a Mufti from the leaders, then he is also sinful.

“Abul-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzi – may Allah be merciful to him – said: “The leaders are obliged to forbid them from issuing verdicts, as did the Umayyads; for they are like the one who guides a caravan whilst not knowing the way himself, or the blind who guides the people to the Qiblah, or one who knows no medicine yet he treats the people; in fact, he is worse than them. If a leader is obliged to forbid the one not versed in medicine from treating patients, then what of the one who knows no Book or Sunnah, nor has he learnt any Fiqh?”

“Our Sheikh[2] would severely rebuke such people. I once heard him say: “Some of them said to me: “You placed someone to supervise the issuing of Fatwas?” I said: “The bakers and cooks have someone overseeing them, yet there should not be anyone to oversee Fatwas?!”

“Imam Ahmad and Ibn Majah narrated from the Prophet SalAllahu ‘Alaihi wa-sallam, that he said: “Whoever issues a verdict without knowledge, then the sin will be on the one who issues the verdict.”[3]  In al-Bukhari and Muslim, it is narrated in the Hadeeth of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas, from the Prophet, SalAllahu ‘Alaihi wa-sallam,  “Verily, Allah does not take knowledge by removing it from the breasts of men, rather he takes knowledge by taking the scholars (in death); until when no scholar remains, people take the ignorant as their leaders, and ask them questions, while they pass verdicts without knowledge, and become astray and lead others astray.”[4] – End of Quote[5]

Hence, here is Ibn ‘Abbas – the graduate from the University of the Prophet SalAllahu ‘Alaihi wa-sallam, for whom the Prophet SalAllahu ‘Alaihi wa-sallam, asked Allah to grant him understanding in the religion – saying about those who dare to answer any question posed to them: “Surely, the one who gives verdicts to the people in all that they ask is definitely foolish.”[6]

Here is Ibn Sirin, the student of Ibn ‘Abbas, and the most knowledgeable scholar of Basrah. He reports that Hudhaifah said: “Only one of the three types of people issue verdicts: 1) The one who knows that which abrogates, and the abrogated verses of the Qur’an (al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh), 2) The leader, who finds no way to avoid it (Ifta), and 3) the stupid person who burdens himself (with Ifta)”. Ibn Sirin then said: “I am not of the first two, so I hope I am not the stupid person who burdens himself.”[7]

Al-Baraa’ said: “I met 300 from the warriors of Badr. There is not one of them, except that he wishes that his companion would suffice him with Fatwa.”[8]

When al-Qasim ibn Muhammad was asked about an issue, he said: “I am not competent enough (to respond)”. The questioner then said: “I was sent to you, for I do not know of anyone else!” He responded saying: “Do not look at the length of my beard, and the mass of people around me! By Allah! I am not competent enough!” Then an old man from Quraish said to him: “O nephew! Respond to it, for I have not seen in the gathering one nobler than you today!”, Hence al-Qasim said: “It is more beloved to me that my tongue is cut, than to speak of something of which I have knowledge!”[9]

Here is Imam Abu Hanifah, the greatest jurist of the Ummah, who was reportedly asked about nine issues, yet he replied to them all by saying: “I do not know”[10].

Imam Malik – about whom the Prophet SalAllahu ‘Alaihi wa-sallam, said: “Very soon people will beat the flanks of camels searching for knowledge. They will not find a scholar more knowledgeable than the scholar of Madina.”[11] – yet, when he is asked a question to which he does not know the answer, he humbly admits: “I do not know”. When it was then said to him that it is a light and simple issue, he became angry, remarking: “There is nothing in this knowledge that is light! Have you not heard the statement of Allah – the Mighty and Magnificent: “Indeed, We will cast upon you a heavy word”?! [12] So all of knowledge is heavy, especially that which one will be asked about.”[13]

In spite of the Prophet SalAllahu ‘Alaihi wa-sallam, foretelling Malik’s pre-eminence in knowledge, he used to say: “I did not issue a verdict, until seventy people bore witness for me that I am capable of doing such.”[14]

He also said: “A person must not view himself capable of anything, until he asks the one more knowledgeable than him; I did not issue verdicts, until I asked Rabi’ah and Yahya ibn Sa’id about it, then they ordered me to issue verdicts. For had they forbidden me, I would have refrained from giving verdicts.”[15]

One of the Salaf said about Malik: “By Allah! When Malik was asked about an issue, it would be as if he is standing between Paradise and Hell.” [16]

Al-Haitham ibn Jamil says that he witnessed Malik being asked forty-eight questions, yet he answered thirty-two of them with the reply, “I do not know”.[17]

Abu Nu’aim said: “I did not see a scholar who said the phrase ‘I don’t know’ more frequently than Malik.”[18]

Here is Imam al-Shafi’i, the reviver of Islam in his century[19], when asked about an issue, he remained silent. It was said to him: “Will you not respond?” He replied: “Not until I know whether my silence is better than my response.”[20]

Imam Ahmad, whom his own teacher – al-Shafi’i – lauded, saying that he is an Imam in Fiqh, would say: “Whoever presents himself for the position of Ifta, presents himself to a great matter, unless he is driven by necessity.”[21]

‘Abdullah, the son of Ahmad ibn Hanbal would say: “I would hear my father many times being asked about issues, and he would reply saying: ‘I do not know’. He would sometimes withhold from responding if there was difference of opinion in an issue. Very often he would say: ‘Ask someone else’. When it was said to him: ‘Who should we ask?’ he would reply: ‘Ask the scholars’”[22]

Al-Athram, from the foremost students of Ahmad ibn Hanbal said that he witnessed Ahmad being asked questions, and frequently he would reply: “I do not know,” in spite of him knowing the various opinions regarding such issues.[23]

It was said to Ahmad: “Which is better, to speak or to remain silent?” He replied: “To remain silent is more beloved to me, except in a case of necessity.”[24]

Ibn ‘Uyayna said: “The most knowledgeable with regards to Fatwa are the most silent of them; and the most ignorant with respect to Fatwa are the most outspoken of them.”[25]

He also said: “The most daring of the people to issue verdicts are the least of them in knowledge.”[26]

Bishr ibn al-Harith said: “Whoever loves to be asked questions, then he is not worthy of being asked.”[27]

In spite of such warnings and admonitions, even during the golden era of Islam there existed those who would feign knowledge and assume the position of Ifta, whilst not been qualified to do so.

Hence, Abul-Husain al-Asadi is reported to have said about the people of his time: “Some of them pass verdicts in an issue, the like of which, if it were to have been faced by ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, then he would have gathered the warriors of Badr (to pass a verdict)!”[28]

Ibn Muflih says, complaining about those who feign knowledge in his time: “From them is the one who is bold in issuing verdicts, while he has not fulfilled the conditions for Ifta; And from them is the one who enters upon the rulers, and injures himself by witnessing the oppression without being able to forbid the evil. The ruler is also wronged, because he subsequently thinks: ‘If I was at fault, such a scholar would not sit with me’. Equally, the public are harmed, because they then think: ‘Were the affair of the Sultan not close to being correct, this scholar would not have associated with him’.

He also says: “From them is the one who issues verdicts, while he has not reached the level to do so. He presents himself as if he is one advanced in knowledge, so that the people may approach him for Fatwas. But if he were to look at himself in all honesty, and fear Allah the Most High, he would know that it is not permissible for him to issue verdicts.”[29]

Ibn al-Salah quotes Malik saying that he was informed by a man who entered upon Rabi’ah ibn Abi ‘Abd al-Rahman, and found him weeping. He enquired: ‘What is it that is causing you to weep?’, for he was disturbed by his weeping. He asked: ‘Has some calamity befallen you?’ Rabi’ah replied: ‘No, but I asked someone who has no knowledge, hence, a great (distressing) affair has appeared in Islam.’ He also said: ‘Surely, some of those who give verdicts here, are more deserving to be imprisoned than thieves!’

Ibn al-Salah commented on this saying: ‘May Allah have mercy on Rabi’ah! What if he were to witness our time?!’

May Allah have mercy on Abi ‘Amr ibn al-Salah! What if he were to witness our time? What would he say, when he sees the one who passes a Fatwa saying that it is permissible to smoke; It is permissible to mix freely with the opposite sex; It is permissible to shake hands with the opposite sex; It is allowed for French Muslim women to discard their Hijab, because the French government has “every right… every right… every right”[30] to ban Hijab; And the rest of such baseless Fatwas issued by the Khunfusharis[31] who recklessly pass such verdicts either without possessing knowledge of Shari’ah, or whilst they are driven by their desires, and consequently destroy their lives as well as their Hereafter.

This is the situation of those who have, whether officially or unofficially, taken up the position of Ifta, and created fame for themselves, such that many of the masses are misled by them, thinking that they are the Imams of our time.

There is also a further category of spurious Muftis which is rarely noticed; they are not those who devised fame for themselves, nor have they assumed the position of Ifta, but are, nevertheless, daring enough to participate in discussions beyond their level, while at the same time they are ignorant of the basics of the five pillars. Amongst them are those laymen who visit discussion boards on the internet, declaring their verdicts of Halal and Haram, or those at university campuses that adhere to certain groups, or organisations, engaging in all kinds of debates, related to topics that are far exceeding their capabilities. From them are those:

Who have read a few books in Usul al-Fiqh (principles of jurisprudence) in the English language, and subsequently see themselves eligible to discus what is Amr and the proof of Ahad narrations and other issues.
Who are told by their mentors that they must, or must not follow a Madhab, so they begin to wage war against whoever opposes their opinion, quite often, without having read a single classical work on this issue.
Who consider themselves the Ahmad ibn Hanbal or Yahya ibn Ma’in of the West, and so they embark on criticism of respected people of knowledge, whilst they themselves are deficient in the knowledge of Arabic, and ignorant of the Islamic sciences.

In reality, however much they feign knowledge, they are simply blind-followers of their mentors, and therefore, the foundation of all their discussions is Taqleed, even if they seem to throw a barrage of evidences against their opponents[32].

So, let this be a reminder to every Muslim who seeks success in this world as well as the Hereafter, to abstain from delving into discussions that he possesses little or no knowledge of, and that he does not become a signatory on behalf of Allah, declaring Halal and Haram, while he has no authority from Allah to do so.

Similarly, he should also be careful with regards to his religion, and avoid referring to false Muftis for a Fatwa, or those hasty in issuing verdicts, or rarely heard using the phrase ‘Allahu A’lam’ – Allah knows best; for if a Mufti can be so careless about his own Hereafter by irresponsibly issuing Fatwas, how can any sane Muslim trust him with regards to his life and his Hereafter? Therefore, let us take admonishment from the words of Ibn Sirin, and many others from the Salaf who said: “This knowledge is religion, so be careful from whom you obtain it!”

Abuz-Zubair

11th of Safar 1425
Corresponding to 31st of March 2004

—————————————————————–

“So woe to those who pray. Those who are unmindful of their Salaah.”

The second way is to be unmindful in Salaah, and this is what concerns us here.

Before we deal with the topic of Sajdatay as-Sahw, it is necessary for us to understand the pillars and obligations upon which the Salaah is built, as it is only due to one’s forgetfulness of these essential aspects of the prayer that the two prostrations are legislated. Thus, the two prostrations are legislated to amend for our omissions of pillars and obligations of Salaah.

So what are the pillars and obligations of Salaah?

The pillars of Salaah are known as Arkaan, the singular for which is Rukn, where as the obligations of Salaah are known as Waajibaat, the singular for which is Waajib.

What is the difference between a Rukn and a Waajib?

Rukn: Whether a person misses a Rukn intentionally, or due to forgetfulness, the person’s Salaah is rendered invalid. A person’s Salaah is not accepted unless he performs all of the Arkaan required in Salaah, and then performs Sajdah as-Sahw. For example: If one misses a Rukn in the first Rak’ah, and he remembers in the second Rak’ah that he has missed a Rukn in the first Rak’ah, then his first Rak’ah is void, thus he considers his second Rak’ah as if it were his first, and then he performs Sajdah as-Sahw at the end of the Salaah.

Waajib: If one misses a Waajib intentionally then the person’s Salaah is invalid, but if one misses it unintentionally, out of forgetfulness, then the Salaah is still valid, moreover one is not required to return and perform the neglected waajib, rather he should compensate for the omitted Waajib by performing Sajdah as-Sahw. An example of that is: If a person forgets to say: “Subhaana Rabbiyal-’Adheem” during Rukoo’, then he remembers it after standing up from Rukoo’, then he should not go back to Rukoo’ to say the words he missed, nor is his Salaah, or that Rak’ah invalid due to his forgetting to say what is Waajib on him, thus he should continue his Salaah as normal and make Sajdah as-Sahw at the end.

So what are the Arkaan and Waajibaat of Salaah?

The Arkaan of Salaah are Twelve:

1) Qiyaam – Standing up for prayer. Thus, the one who does not stand up for Salaah, without excuse, for obligatory prayers, his Salaah is invalid.
2) Takbeeratul-Ihraam – Takbeer is to say: Allahu Akbar. Takbeeratul-Ihraam is the first Takbeer with which one enters the Salaah, and so it is a Rukn of Salaah, unlike the rest of the Takbeeraat of Salaah
3) To recite Soorah al-Faatihah
4) Rukoo’. That is to bow. The perfection of Rukoo’ is achieved by placing ones hands on the knees, grabbing them, while the back is straight and the head in level with the rest of the back, and the elbows away from the sides. To fulfil the obligation of Rukoo’ is for hands to touch the knees.
5) Standing up after Rukoo’. This is until one’s back is straight. If one stands up in hurry, and does not straighten his back, then he misses out on a Rukn, which makes that rak’ah invalid.
6) Sujood. That is, to Prostrate. The perfection of Sujood is achieved by placing the hands in level with the shoulders with fingers joined together, while spacing out between the elbow and the sides, as well as between the thighs and the stomach. The obligation in Sujood is to prostrate on seven limbs: 1) The forehead and the nose, 2 & 3) the two hands, 4 & 5) the two knees, 6 & 7) the toes placed on ground facing the Qiblah. Thus, if any of these limbs are not on the ground, it renders the Sajdah to be invalid.
7) To sit between two Sajdahs. While in the position of Iftiraash: Which is to sit on one’s left leg, while the right foot is perpendicular to the ground, and the toes are facing the Qiblah.
8 ) To be tranquil in all the Arkaan.
9) The last Tashahhud. Tashahhud is to say: at-Tahiyaatu liLlaahi was-Salaatu wat-Tayyibaat… to his words: wa Ash-hadu anna Muhammadan ‘Abduhu wa Rasooluh.
10) Sitting for the last Tashahhud. This is regarded to be a Rukn in itself, because it is possible that one may begin reciting Tashahhud, during the process of getting up from Sujood, but before sitting for it, in which case, his Salaah is invalid, because he missed out on the Rukn of ‘sitting for Tashahhud’. If the Salaah only has one Tashahhud, like Salaatul-Fajr, then one sits in the position of Iftiraash, which has been described above. If Salaah contains two Tashahhud, like Dhuhr, ‘Asr, Maghrib and ‘Ishaa’ then one sits in the Tawarruk position whilst in the final tashahhud, which is to sit on one’s left thigh, while exiting both feet from the right side, making the right foot perpendicular to the ground, and the toes facing the Qiblah.
11) To end the Salaah with Tasleem, which is to say as-Salaamu ‘Alaikum wa-raHmatullah, by turning ones head to the right first, and then to the left.
12) Performing these Arkaan, in the order mentioned above. Thus, one may not perform Rukoo’ before Sujood and so on. For example: If one forgets to make Rukoo’ after al-Faatihah, but goes straight into ‘standing up after Rukoo’, and then remembers in the second Sajdah of the same Rak’ah that he forgot to make Rukoo’, then he should get up from Sujood, immediately, and perform Rukoo’ which he missed, and then perform all the usual Arkaan and Waajibaat that come after Rukoo’.

These are the twelve Arkaan of Salaah. If one leaves them intentionally or unintentionally, the Salaah is rendered invalid. One is obliged to perform the missed Rukn, as the Sajdah as-Sahw is not enough to replace it.

But, how am I supposed to remember it all?!

One can commit these Arkaan to his memory by doing three things:

i) Remember, that most of the Arkaan are the most visibly apparent actions of Salaah, such that an onlooker can tell whether the one praying has missed out a Rukn or added to it. For example, standing up for Salaah, or performing Rukoo’, or standing up after it, or performing Sujood etc.
ii) Remember the number, that they are 12, no more and no less.
iii) Remind yourself of the Arkaan, with the help of the above two points. So you set yourself a target of remembering 12 most apparent actions of Salaah, then begin counting from the first Rukn, which is Qiyaam, till the last, which is the order of Arkaan.

So just think, what is the first thing you do in Salaah?
Answer: You stand up.
Therefore, Standing up for Salaah is the first Rukn.

Then what do you do?
Answer: You say: Allaahu Akbar, thus, the second Rukn.

This is how you keep reminding yourself of the rest of the Arkaan, until you are able to count all 12 of them.

Obviously, not all of the Arkaan are most visibly apparent, like Takbeeratul-Ihraam or al-Faatihah, the last Tashahhud, but the secret of ease in remembering all the Arkaan lies in the fact that the invisible Arkaan are only three. Likewise, not all of the most visibly apparent actions of Salaah are Arkaan, rather some of them are Waajibaat, while others are only Sunan acts, for example; reciting al-Faatihah aloud in aloud prayers, or reciting a Soorah after al-Faatihah in the first two Rak’ahs, placing the right hand over the left in Qiyaam, or raising the hands, etc are from the Sunan, recommended actions of Salaah, and not from the Arkaan nor the Waajibaat of Salaah.

Another thing to remember with regards to Tashahhud, whether it is the middle one (which is a Waajib), or the last one (which is a Rukn as we said), is that whenever Tashahhud is mentioned, whether in Arkaan or Waajibaat, it is instantly followed by ‘Sitting for Tashahhud’. Thus, only by remembering one Rukn/Waajib of Tashahhud, you should automatically remember the next Rukn/Waajib which goes with it, which is to sit for Tashahhud.

Now, what are the Waajibaat of Salaah?

The Waajibaat of Salaah are only 7:

1) Takbeeraat, apart from Takbeeratul-Ihraam. That is to say Allahu Akbar, in the other appointed places, apart from the first Takbeer, because, as was previously mentioned, this is from the Arkaan, and not the Waajibaat.
2) To make Tasbeeh in Rukoo’ and Sujood, once only. Tasbeeh is to say SubhaanAllah. In the context of the Salaah, it means to say Subhaana Rabbiyal-’Adheem in Rukoo’, and Subhaana Rabbiyal-A’laa in Sujood. From the perfection of tasbeeh is to repeat it three times, but it is sufficient to say it only once to fulfil the obligation..
3) To make Tasmee’ and Tahmeed during and after standing up from Rukoo’ respectively. Tasmee’ is to say Samee’Allahu liman Hamidah, and Tahmeed is to say Rabbanaa wa-lakal-Hamd. One should make the Tasmee’ while standing up from Rukoo’, and Tahmeed after standing up completely.
4) To say: Rabbighfirlee (O Allah forgive me) between the two Sajdahs. From its perfection is to repeat this three times, but it is sufficient to say it only one to fulfil the obligation.
5) The first Tashahhud, Tashahhud is to say: at-Tahiyaatu liLlaahi was-Salaatu wat-Tayyibaat… to his words: wa Ash-hadu anna Muhammadan ‘Abduhu wa Rasooluh.
6) To sit for the first Tashahhud. This is regarded to be a Waajib on its own, because it is possible that one may begin reciting Tashahhud, during the process of getting up from Sujood, but before sitting for it, in which case, his Salaah is invalid, if he does this intentionally, but valid if he does it out of forgetfulness, and he should atone for it by performing Sajdah as-Sahw. In the first Tashahhud, one should also sit in the position of Iftiraash, which is, to sit on ones left leg, while the right foot is perpendicular to the ground, and the toes are facing the Qiblah.
7) To send the peace and the blessings of Allah upon the Prophet – SalAllahu ‘Alaihi wa-sallam, after the last Tashahhud.

Now how can I remember the Waajibaat?

1) Remember that they are only seven.
2) Place them all in order, like above, and start imagining Salaah from the beginning, and in the process, keep eliminating that which you already know to be a Rukn.

For example:
You ask yourself: What is the first action in Salaah?
Answer: To stand up, but that is a Rukn, so skip that!
What’s next? To say Takbeeratul-Ihraam, but that is also a Rukn as we mentioned. BUT, the rest of the Takbeeraat in Salaah are Waajibaat!

So that’s how you remember the first Waajib, which is the Takbeeraat, apart from the first one.

Then you ask: What comes next? So you begin to eliminate all the actions you already mentioned above in Arkaan, until you end up with the Dhikr in Rukoo’, which is called Tasbeeh. So you know that is a Waajib. But Tasbeeh in Salaah is more than just in Rukoo’. Indeed it is also in Sujood! Therefore, you remember a second Waajib, which is to make Tasbeeh in Rukoo’ and Sujood.

This is just one of the practical ways of easing memorisation of the Arkaan and the Waajibaat, and obviously, a person can adhere to whichever method he finds most suitable.

The Two Prostrations for Forgetfulness

Once we have known the Arkaan and the Waajibaat of Salaah, we can now begin with the topic of the two prostrations.

It becomes obligatory upon the one praying to make Sajdah as-Sahw in the following cases:

1) By adding an action/statement to Salaah.
2) By subtracting an action/statement from Salaah
3) Having doubts about having performed an aspect of Salaah.

1) Adding to Salaah:
This is when a person adds an action or a statement to his Salaah, and this is further divided to two categories:

a) Adding to Salaah, an action from Salaah itself; such as a Rukn, or a Rak’ah. This further subdivides into two categories:

i) Making this addition deliberately: If one makes such addition deliberately, such that he makes three Sujood instead of two, or that he adds a Rak’ah to his Salaah, his Salaah is rendered void, and there is no Sajdah as-Sahw for him.
ii) Making this addition out of forgetfulness: If one makes an addition to Salaah out of forgetfulness, such that he adds a Sajdah, or Rukoo’, then he is required to immediately discontinue his addition, and it suffices for him to make Sajdah as-Sahw at the end of Salaah.

If one adds a Rak’ah to his Salaah, and remembers while he is in that Rak’ah, he should sit for his last Tashahhud immediately and make Sajdah as-Sahw at the end of Salaah.

Similarly, if one makes Tasleem without performing the required number of Raka’aat, then he should simply stand up, and without making Takbeertul-Ihraam, he should perform the remaining Raka’aat, and then perform Sajdah as-Sahw at the end of Salaah.

Another issue related to this section, is if a person adds a Rak’ah to his Salaah out of forgetfulness. Then he remembers while he is in his additional Rak’ah, but he decides to continue with his additional Rak’ah, then his Salaah is invalid, because by not sitting for Tashahhud immediately upon remembering, he engaged in adding to his Salaah deliberately, and adding something to Salaah deliberately invalidates ones Salaah.

b) Adding a Waajib to Salaah; such that a person says Allahu Akbar after saying Tasmee’ upon standing up from Rukoo’, or reciting something in Sujood after Tasbeeh etc. In this case, the Salaah remains valid, while as-Sujood as-Sahw in this case, is only recommended, but not Waajib.

c) Adding to Salaah, an action not from Salaah itself: Such as walking, talking, looking around, and scratching oneself etc, addition of such actions to Salaah deliberately, or out of forgetfulness has the same ruling. This is also further divided into two categories:

i) Too much addition, such as constant moving, walking, talking, and too much scratching invalidates ones prayer. Because too much addition/movement has not been defined by the Sharee’ah, its definition falls back on the custom. Meaning, whatever is regarded to be too much movement by custom, invalidates ones Salaah. Such that if the one praying moves so much that an onlooker thinks that this person is not praying, then this amount of movement invalidates ones Salaah.
ii) Minor addition, such as scratching oneself when needed, or lifting a toddler into ones arms during Salaah, and so on, such that an onlooker would not consider him to be out of Salaah, just because of a few movements.

2) Subtracting from Salaah:
This is when a person omits a Waajib or a Rukn from Salaah, such that he leaves a Rukoo’, or leaves out the first Tashahhud. This further has two categories:

a) Subtracting something deliberately: Such as omitting the first Tashahhud, or to omit Tasbeeh in Rukoo or Sujood deliberately, invalidates one’s Salaah, and Sajdah as-Sahw does not suffice for this omission.
b) Subtracting something out of forgetfulness: Such as forgetting to say the Tasbeeh in Rukoo’ or Sujood from the Waajibaat, or missing out a Rukn such as a Qiyaam after Rukoo’, or Sujood. This can be further divided into two sub-sections:

i) Subtracting a Rukn:
If a person forgets a Rukn, then he must perform that Rukn and also perform the rest of the actions that follow it in order. For this, at the end of the Salaah one should make Sajdah as-Sahw. A Rak’ah is not counted with a Rukn missing.

For example: If a person forgets to make Rukoo’ after reciting al-Faatihah, and goes straight into Sujood, as soon as he remembers, he should immediately get up and perform Rukoo’, followed by the rest of the actions of that Rak’ah, like Qiyaam from Rukoo’, and then the two Sajdahs.

Another example: If one forgets a Rukn in a Rak’ah and only remembers when he has completely stood up – with his back straight – for the next Rak’ah, he should consider his first Rak’ah to be invalid, thus, making his second Rak’ah his first. Based on this, hypothetically speaking, if one were to make only four Sujood in four Rak’aat, and remembers it whilst in the fourth raka’ah before he makes Tasleem, he should perform the second Sajdah for his current Rak’ah, thus making his fourth Rak’ah his first, as all the previous raka’ah have been rendered void by omitting a sajdah from each raka’ah. He should then get up to perform the remaining three Raka’aat to complete his four.

This is how all the Arkaan are to be treated, except Takbeeratul-Ihraam, since the one who forgets to make Takbeeratul-Ihraam has failed to initiate his Salaah in the first place! This renders his entire Salaah invalid, and he must initiate a new prayer altogether.

ii) Subtracting a Wajib:
If a person forgets to perform a Waajib, then proceeds to the next action of Salaah, he must not go back to perform that Waajib while he has already proceeded to the next action. In this case, the obligation of performing that Waajib falls from his shoulders, and he is only required to perform Sajdah as-Sahw at the end of his Salaah.

For example: If a person forgets to make the Tasbeeh in either Rukoo or Sujood, he should not return to Rukoo or Sujood, in order to make the Tasbeeh. In fact, if he does so, without ignorance or forgetfulness, then his Salaah is invalid, because by doing this he has added an extra Rukoo or Sujood to his Salaah intentionally.

In this case the person should continue with his prayer as normal, and perform Sajdah as-Sahw at the end of Salaah.

Another example: If a person forgets to sit for the first Tashahhud, after the Sujood of the second Rak’ah, and instead stands up for the third Rak’ah, while his back becomes straight, then he should not return to perform Tashahhud, rather he should continue with his prayer as normal, and perform Sajdah as-Sahw at the end of the Salaah.

If this person misses the first Tashahhud and remembers it while he is in the process of standing up for the third Rak’ah, and his back is not yet straight, then he should sit down for the first Tashahhud. This is because if his back is not straight for the third Rak’ah, he is not considered to have entered the next action of Salaah after the Tashahhud, and therefore, he still has the chance of performing the Tashahhud, and then standing up for the third Rak’ah.

iii) Subtracting a Sunnah:
Sunnahs are of two types;
a) Sunnahs comprising of actions, such as raising the hands, placing the right hand over the left etc, and,
b) Sunnahs comprising of statements, such as to make the Tasbeeh in Rukoo and Sujood three times (as opposed to once, which is Waajib), or to recite aloud in aloud prayers or to recite silently in silent prayers.

There is no Sajdah as-Sahw for the Sunnahs of actions, nor for the Sunnahs of words except when one recites out aloud when he should do so silently and vice versa. In this case, Sajdah as-Sahw is legislated for him, but it is only Mustahab (recommended) and not mandatory, thus if he wishes he may perform it, or else he may leave it.

For example: If one recites out aloud in Dhuhr or ‘Asr prayer, or recites silently in Fajr, Maghrib or ‘Ishaa’ prayers, it is recommended for him to make Sajdah as-Sahw, though if he does not do so, there is no sin on him.

3) Having doubts
If one has doubt about performing an action in Salaah, then people are usually divided into three categories in this case; i) Imaam (the one leading the prayer), ii) Ma’moom (one being lead in prayer), and iii) One praying alone.

i) If the Imaam has doubts concerning performing an action that he should base his judgement on the strongest speculation. For example, if the Imaam is unsure, whether he prayed three Raka’aat or four, but he thinks it is most likely he has prayed four Rak’aat, then he should base his judgement on this, and sit for the last Tashahhud. This is because, if he errs, he has others behind him to correct him. Thus if he is corrected by someone praying behind him, he should stand up for the forth Rak’ah, and perform Sajdah as-Sahw at the end of his prayer.

ii) The Ma’moom (one lead in prayer), if in doubt, should always follow the Imaam.

Here we must add a few more points with regards to the Ma’moom:

If the Imaam makes as-Sujood as-Sahw, the Ma’moom should follow him in that. But if the Imaam errs and he is reminded, but still does not perform the Sajdah, then the Ma’moom, in this case, should perform Sajdah as-Sahw.

If the Ma’moom (one being lead in prayer) misses out a Waajib due to following the Imaam, then there is no Sajdah for him, unless his Imaam performs Sajdah as-Sahw. For example: If one joins the Imaam late, while the Imaam is in the second Rak’ah, then the Imaam’s second Rak’ah is his first Rak’ah, and likewise, his second Rak’ah will be the Imaam’s third Rak’ah. As it is obvious that Imaam will not sit for Tashahhud after the third Rak’ah, the Ma’moom will also have no choice but to follow the Imaam and miss out on the first Tashahhud. So here, the Ma’moom is forced to miss a Waajib due to following the Imaam, in which case he does not have to perform Sajdah as-Sahw.

But if the Ma’moom misses out an action which necessitates Sajdah as-Sahw, and the performance of that Sajdah does not mean that he will have to leave following the Imaam, then one must perform Sajdah as-Sahw. For example: If one joins the Imaam in the second Rak’ah, but forgets to make Tasbeeh in the Rukoo’. Then after the Imaam ends the prayer, the Ma’moom stands up to perform his forth Rak’ah. In this case he should perform Sajdah as-Sahw for missing out a Waajib because by doing so, he would not be contradicted the Imaam.

iii) One praying alone, if in doubt, should base his judgement on what he is certain, and not on the strongest speculation, unlike the Imaam. This is because he has no one behind him to correct him, unlike the Imaam. For example; if one praying alone is in doubt, whether he just did the third Rak’ah or the fourth, he should place aside the doubt, and base his judgement on certainty, which is that he has certainly prayed three Raka’aat, thus he should stand up to perform the fourth one. He should do this even if his strongest speculation suggests that he is in his fourth Rak’ah.

When to Perform Sajdah as-Sahw?

Sajdah as-Sahw is sometimes performed before the Tasleem and sometimes after it, and altogether it has four cases:

1) If one adds to Salaah (and that includes making Tasleem without completing the number Raka’aat), then the Sajdah should be made after Tasleem. The logic behind this is to avoid adding to Salaah twice, once out of forgetfulness, and twice by performing the Sajdah before Tasleem.
2) If one subtracts something from the Salaah, then the Sajdah should be made before the Tasleem. The logic behind this is to compensate for the omission by performing Sajdah as-Sahw before Tasleem.
3) If one has doubts about an action, with the probability of both possibilities being equal, then the Sajdah should be performed before the Tasleem.
4) If one has doubts about an action, with the probability of one of the possibilities being stronger than the other, then the Sajdah should be performed after the Tasleem.

And Allah knows best.