Introduction to the Hanbali Madhab

[justabro]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

This is an introduction to the Hanbali madhhab. As a starting point, I am making use of the introduction to the madhhab by Sh. Muhammad al-Habdan in his introduction to his Tahqiq of Zad al-Mustaqni' (pp. 15-34, Dar al-Jawzi print). He has made an extremely brief presentation summarized from al-Madkhal al-Mufassal Ila Fiqh al-Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal Wa Takhrijat al-Ashab by Sh. Bakr Abu Zayd, may Allah have mercy on him. I am using his summary as the basic outline although having recourse back to the original work of Sh. Bakr.

In sha Allah, as the thread progresses, I may have recourse to other reference works as well such as the work of Sh. Bakr and also the Madkhal of ibn Badran (which Sh. Bakr himself referred to extensively), amongst other works.

(Perhaps Br. Harris Hammam could enlighten us by starting a similar thread on the Hanafi Madhhab)

History of the Beginning of Madhhabs

The beginning of madhhabs can be traced back to before the era of the famous Imams. For example, we find the people of Madina relying on the fatawa of ibn Umar, the people of Makkah on the fatawa of ibn Abbas, and the people of Kufa on the fatawa of ibn Mas'ud.

The Types of Fiqh Addressed in Every Madhhab

(1) The ahkam of Tawhid. It would be incorrect to say about such ahkam that it is according to such-and-such madhhab, because these are definitive rulings agreed upon by the Ummah.

(2) Definitive juristic rulings. Such rulings can also not be referrred to as the madhhab of a particular Imam. Therefore, one would not say, "The madhhab of so-and-so is that the five prayers are obligatory"!

(3) Rulings based on ijtihad, coming from the Imam himself by way of narrations or indications (tanbihat).

(4) Rulings based on ijtihad, derived by the scholars of the madhhab by extracting them based on the established rulings of the madhhab on other issues. This is known as takhrij. Such rulings fall under what can be known as the madhhab istilahi. These rulings were not made by the Imam but can appropriately be considered to be part of the official 'madhhab'.

(5) Rulings based on ijtihad dervied the scholars of the madhhab by practicing ijtihad in deriving the rulings without attempting to make takhrij on the madhhab.

*******

Al-Shatibi states, "The Shari'a has not specified rulings for every individual issue in particulars. It provides general rulings and broad expressions that address innumerable scenarios."


*******

Ikhtilaf

Ibn Taymiyya states in al-Fatawa 14/159, "Disputing ahkam could be a mercy if it does not lead to a tremendous evil such as the ruling being concealed. For his reason, when a man authored a book which he entitled, Kitab al-Ikhtilaf, Ahmad said, 'Call it Kitab al-Sa'ah (i.e. ease, accomodation)'. 'Umar b. 'Abd al-'Aziz used to say, 'It would not like for the Companions of Allah's Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) to have never disagreed, because if they agreed on something and someone differed with them, he would be astray. However, if they differed, and one person adopted the opinion of one, and another adopted the opinion of the other, there would be ease (sa'ah) in the matter."

*******

Causes of Error in Counting Opinions as the Imam's Madhhab

(1) Relying on an opinion he retracted
(2) Not paying attention to the manner in which he qualifies a statement or makes it absolute.
(3) Additions from some of the scholars of the madhhab
(4) Relying on books that have been criticized in the madhhab
(5) Misunderstanding. Ibn Rajab (al-Qawa'id, 169) states about Abu Bakr 'Abd al-'Aziz, known as Ghulam al-Khallal, "Abu Bakr frequently would narrate the words of Ahmad by the meaning he understood as a result of which great distortion would result. He fell into this sort of thing greatly in the book Zad al-Musafir."
(6) Combining two narrations when they should be distinguished as separate narrations, or the reverse.
(7) Distortion or misreading (Tashif) in the text of a narration.
(8) Using unreliable manuscripts
(9) The Imam might express an opinion, and then one of the scholars of the madhhab might further qualify it, and then the one transmitting this information might attribute all back to the Imam.

One example of an error is the issue of fasting the thirtieth of Sha'ban due to clouds. It is attributed to him that fasting this day is obligatory, but this has no basis in his words, nor in those of his companions. His expressed view was that it is reccommended as concluded by ibn Taymiyyah (al-Fatawa, 25/99).

In summary, it is important to know the methods by which the true position of the madhhab - and in particular, the Imam - can be known, and to exercise great care in applying them. Sh. Bakr has devoted a work to this topic which he later incorporated into his book, al-Madkhal Li Fiqh al-Nawazil: al-Qadaya al-Mu'asira because many contemporaries, when making ijtihad concerning nawazil, will make takhrij from an opinion that was attributed to an Imam erroneously.

*******
(Next installment, in sha Allah: the stages of the Madhhab's history)

[justabro]

Stages of the Madhhab’s Development

(1) Laying the foundations

It goes without saying, that Imam Ahmad was one of the greatest Imams of Hadith in the history of Islam, and his Musnad is the most comprehensive compendium of Hadith written by any major hadith scholar. As a result he was sought out by students far and wide. The students in his lessons with pen and ink writing down would be no less than five hundred, and the total number of attendees would be much more. His lessons would also be filled with people seeking fatwa and asking questions, as a result of which, his lessons were not merely lessons of Hadith but lessons of Fiqh as well.

It goes without saying that the Madhhab got its start with Imam Ahmad’s lessons and with his students writing down his answers to questions. The books gathering his answers to questions number about 200. This is on top of the 30 different books that the Imam himself wrote, some short and some long.

Many of his students would go on to teach Fiqh themselves, to become Qadis, and to be sought out by students from around the Muslim world, which lead to their writings spreading far and wide.

(2) The Stage of Transmission and Development

In this stage, the scholars of the Madhhab began compiling the masa’il of Ahmad, arranging them, and formulating the madhhab. One of the most notable works that paved the way for this process is al-Jami’ Li Ulum Ahmad by Abu Bakr al-Khallal (311 H). Unfortunately, this work has not survived down to our times, at least not in its entirety.

The scholars of the Hanbali madhhab are usually divided by the scholars into three eras: mutaqaddimin, mutawassitin, and muta’akhirin.

The scholars of these first two stages would encompass the era of the ’mutaqaddimin’, the last of whom is al-Hasan b. Hamid (403 H).

(3) The Stage of Formulation and Redaction

With the end of the last two stages, the books of riwayah were recorded and standardized in works such as al-Jami’ of al-Khallal and Jami’ al-Madhhab by al-Hasan b. Hamid. This was accompanied by the writing of manuals, the first of which being the Mukhtasar al-Khiraqi.

The work of redaction of the Madhhab was undertaken by the major scholars from the Mutawassitin, starting with Abu Ya’la, the student of al-Hasan b. Hamid, and ending with al-Burhan ibn Muflih (884 H). It also encompasses scholars from the Muta’akhirin, starting with the muhaqqiq of the madhhab, ‘Ala’ al-Din al-Mardawi (885 H).

(4) The Settling of the Madhhab

This stage starts from during the period of the muta’akhirin until the modern age. We could also look at this stage as the stage of relying on the books of the Madhhab. It is rare for the scholars of this stage to engage in takhrij or verification of the madhhab.

This stage eventually leads into the final stage:

(5) Revival of the Legacy

This stage begins in the modern age with the advent of modern mass printing, and continuous efforts – in formal academia and by independent researchers – to publish and edit the classical works. Over 250 classical works of the Hanbali Madhhab have been published in this period as detailed by Sh. Bakr in the final section of his Madkhal.

[justabro]

Distinctive Qualities of Hanbali Fiqh

(1) Emphasis on following Dalil

Anyone who observes the books of Ahmad’s Masa’il will notice that they are rich with evidences from the Qur’an, Sunnah, and fatawa of the Companions.

Thus you will find it very common for him to answer questions, stating, “There are two hadiths concerning it,” “There are four hadiths concerning it,” “Authentic, fair hadiths have been reported concerning it,” “This Sunnah has been reported from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) by x number of Companions” etc. And the same can be said of his reliance on the Athar of the Companions.

(2) The Great Number of Conceptual and Practical Issues

Because of his focus on the evidences of the Shari’ah, Ahmad has spoken a great deal on both issues of practice as well as concepts and beliefs. However, Ahmad’s statements concerning issues of creed are clearly more in abudance than those of the other Imams, as most of their known speech is related to issues of practice.

(3) Avoidance of Hypothetical Fiqh

Looking at the fatawa of Ahmad, one finds that he frequently would rebuke questioners for raising hypothetical issues that had not come to pass. Ibn Muflih has mentioned a number of exampled in his al-Adab al-Shar’iyyah, 2/76-80.

Some jurists would suppose hypothetical issues and devise rulings for them. For example, “If a hermaphrodite were to copulate with himself and give birth, would he inherit from his offspring as a father? Or as a mother? Or both?”

The Hanafi Madhhab has the greatest amount of hypothetical issue, and the Shafi’i and Maliki Madhhabs have their share as well. As for Hanbali Fiqh, although such issues are found in their works, they are noticeably less and do not reach the point of exaggeration. This is a consequence of Ahmad’s methodology in his Fiqh. In spite of the numerous books gathering his Masa’il, it is not known that he ever devised hypothetical issues to devise rulings for them.

Al-Hajawi has written about hypothetical Fiqh in his work, al-Fikr al-Sami, 1/349, 2/402, and Abu Zahrah in his book, Abu Hanifah, pp. 258-262.

Ibn Taymiyyah has also addressed the issue in al-Istiqamah, 1/8-19, and ibn al-Qayyim in I’lam al-Muwaqqi’in (4/221-222; 4:57-158; 2/168). Also see ibn Muflih, al-Adab al-Shar’iyyah, 2/76-79, and ibn Rajab, Jami’ al-‘Ulum wal-Hikam, the explanation of Hadith no. 9.

(4)Avoidance of Excessive Indulgence in Ra’i

Ibn al-Qayyim addresses this issue in considerable detail in the opening of I’lam al-Muwaqqi’in (1/44-84).

Umm al-Qura University has also published a treatise entitled Al-Ra’I ‘Ind al-Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal by Sh. Uthman al-Murshid.

(5) Ease and Facilitation in the Rulings of Worship, Transactions, Marriage, Etc.

• In the topic of Tahara, the Hanbali Madhhab has the distinction of regarding the urine and feces of animals whose meat is lawful to eat as being pure. This ruling facilitates matters considerably for those who have to deal with such animals on a regular basis.

• They are the most lenient in allowing wiping on footwear in ablution.

• The default rule in the Madhhab of Ahmad concerning contracts and conditions is that they are valid. This gives the two contradicting parties considerable freedom in concluding contracts and stipulating conditions so long as they do not conflict with a text.

This is based on the legislative principle of facilitation (taysir) and eliminating hardship (raf’ al-haraj). His madhhab also allows bay’ al-mu’atah, where the two parties simply exchange the merchandise for money without an explicit statement of offer and acceptance from both sides.

• As for legal separation in marriage, he regards khula’ as annulment, not divorce, as a result of which it is not counted as part of the maximum number of divorces. This facilitates keeping marriages together. On the other hand, his Madhhab will annul marriages if the husband is negligent in expenditure on his wife or in fulfilling her conjugal rights. This protects the rights of wives.

• In regards to endowments (awqaf), according to one narration, a person is allowed to utilize his waqf throughout the course of his life, and this opens wide the doors to charity.

[Harris Hammam]

1. Salam.

2. Good thread.

3. Please delete all unrelated posts, including this one - after a while that is.

4. As for the Hanafi Madhhab, then yes I shall start it, insha'allah, ولو بعد حين. I would also advise a strong Maliki brother and Shafi'i brother/sister to make a similar thread for their Madhhabs.

5. By strong, I mean born, raised and studied the Madhhab, then studied outside it to appreciate the Madhhab for what it is. The reason I say this is because the thread would most likely become a sticky, so one needs to be in the right frame of mind (which I currently am not in) to do justice to it.

6. The non-Hanbali Madhhabs require more attention in the sense that their threads are not influenced by the typical Madhhabistic Muqallid attitude that is prevalent in their ranks today. No doubt, Madhhabistic Muqallids - past and present - have contributed greatly to their Madhhabs. However, just like the Mutaqaddimeen movement in Hadith, we need a Mutaqaddimeen movement for each of the non-Hanbali Madhhabs as well. They have been compromised in many ways, unfortunately... This would make the Hanafi thread trickier than it would seem to many...

7. Read point no. 3 again.

[justabro]

One of the mods deleted all the posts, although I don't think that was necessarily necessary. For the time being, I resurrected Br. Harris' post because I wanted to comment on a few things:

4. As for the Hanafi Madhhab, then yes I shall start it, insha'allah, ولو بعد حين. I would also advise a strong Maliki brother and Shafi'i brother/sister to make a similar thread for their Madhhabs.

Excellent idea. I know we've had more than one Maliki brother come and go on the forum. Maybe one would be willing to take up the task. Same of course for Shafi'i madhhab.

5. By strong, I mean born, raised and studied the Madhhab, then studied outside it to appreciate the Madhhab for what it is. The reason I say this is because the thread would most likely become a sticky, so one needs to be in the right frame of mind (which I currently am not in) to do justice to it.

On a personal note, I was raised a Hanafi (in fact, I have distinct memories of praying 17 rak'ahs of Fard, Sunnah, Nafl, Witr at Isha time). I started my studies of Fiqh with a work by Shawkani and books on Fiqh al-Hadith, and then switched to studying Hanbali Fiqh (namely, al-Umdah)

6. The non-Hanbali Madhhabs require more attention in the sense that their threads are not influenced by the typical Madhhabistic Muqallid attitude that is prevalent in their ranks today. No doubt, Madhhabistic Muqallids - past and present - have contributed greatly to their Madhhabs. However, just like the Mutaqaddimeen movement in Hadith, we need a Mutaqaddimeen movement for each of the non-Hanbali Madhhabs as well. They have been compromised in many ways, unfortunately... This would make the Hanafi thread trickier than it would seem to many...

That would be very nice indeed. I have alot of ideas floating around in my head about interesting research areas that can be done in Hanbali Fiqh and also in Usul in general. There seem to be signs of a fledgling renaissance in the area of Usul research that could potentially fruition into something like the Mutaqaddimin movement.

With that said, in sha Allah, after a few more updates, I will go ahead and open a new section on Saheefah.org for Fiqh, starting with a sub-section devoted to the Hanbali Madhhab. In sha Allah, when Br. Harris starts his thread on the Hanafi Madhhab, it can go there as well. In sha Allah, this will give people a place to access the entries on this topic without stifling discussion here. At the same time, in sha Allah, it will make it available to different audiences.

[justabro]

Before posting the next topic - which is on the Usul of the Madhhab - I wanted to share the following, Abuz Zubair's article on Imam Ahmad and his madhhab:

IslamicAwakening.Com: Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal: Life & Madhab

I'd also like to draw attention to this section that briefly reviews the Usul of the Madhhab:

IslamicAwakening.Com: Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal: Life & Madhab

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.

These five points are taken from ibn al-Qayyim's I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in. In sha Allah, in my next post, I will in sha Allah give some further input concerning these Usul.

[justabro]

Ahmad’s Five Basic Juristic Principles

As Abuz-Zubair stated:

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 theologywas 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.

Ibn al-Qayyim has given an excellent and brief yet comprehensive explanation of the fundamental juristic principles (Usul) of Ahmad in I’lam al-Muwaqqi’in (1/28-33), so I will leave it to him to explain those principles:

And in the City of Peace (Baghdad)[1], there was a great number of muftis. When [the Khalifah] al-Mansūr built it, he had a great number of Imāms, jurists, and traditionists brought there. One of the most notable muftis was Abū ‘Ubayd al-Qasim b. Sallam; he was a mountain into which a soul had been blown in respect to knowledge, greatness, nobility, and character. Another of them was Abu Thawr Ibrahim b. Khalid al-Kalbi, the disciple of al-Shafi’i. He had sat with al-Shafi’I and taken from him. Ahmad used to revere him and he would say, “He is like al-Thawri.”

Also present there was the absolute Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah, Ahmad b. Hanbal, who filled the earth with knowledge, Hadith, and Sunnah, to the extent that the Imams of Hadith and Sunnah after him are his followers until the Day of Resurrection. Furthermore, he – may Allah be pleased with him - had an extreme dislike for the authorship of books, and he liked that Hadith should be written alone (without comments). He disliked that his words should be written down, and it would weigh heavily upon him. However, Allāh knew his noble intention and so it came to pass that more than thirty volumes of his statements and his fatawa were written down. Allah, subhanahu, has blessed us to have acquired most of them such that we missed only a little. Al-Khallal collected his statements in al-Jami al-Kabir and they reached about twenty volumes or more, and his verdicts (fatawa) and his legal answers (masa’il)were narrated and transmitted century after century. Thus, he became an Imam and a role model for Ahl al-Sunnah across their varying classes, to the extent that even those mujtahids who differ with his madhhab and the muqallids who follow someone else hold his statements and his fatawa in great esteem and acknowledge their status and their closeness to the Divine Texts and the fatawa of the Companions. Anyone who considers his fatawa and the fatawa of the Companions will realize how they accord with one another. He will see that all have issued from the same source, to the extent that if there were two opinions amongst the Companions on an issue, there will be two narrations from him concerning that issue. He would seek out the fatawa of the Companions in the same fashion that his followers seek out his fatawa and statements, or even more so. So much so that he even puts their fatawa before mursal hadiths. Ishaq b. Ibrahim b. Hani’ states in his Masa’il, “I asked Abū ‘Abd Allāh (Ahmad b. Hanbal), ‘Which do you prefer: a mursal tradition from Allah’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) with reliable narrators, or a muttasil tradition from the Companions and Tabi’in with reliable narrators?’ Abu ‘Abd Allah responded, ‘From the Companions is preferable to me.’”

His fatawa were based on five fundamentals:

Firstly, the Divine texts (nusus); if he found a text, he would give fatwa according to it, and he would pay no heed to anything that opposed it nor anyone, no matter who he may be. This is why he ignored the dissent of ‘Umar concerning

-the woman who has received the final divorce, because of the hadith of Fatimah b. Qays;

-and concerning tayammum due to sexual defilement, because of the hadith of ‘Ammar b. Yasir;

-and also his disagreement concerning the pilgrim keeping on the perfume he applied before entering ihram, because of the authenticity of ‘A’ishah’s hadith on that issue;

-his not allowing the mufrid and the qarin to void their rite and make it tamattu’, because the hadiths for that are authentic.

Likewise, he did not give any consideration to the opinion of ‘Ali, ‘Uthman, Talha, Abu Ayyub, and Ubayy b. Ka’b that there is no ghusl for intercourse without ejaculation, because of the authentic hadith of ‘A’ishah that she and Allah’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) would bathe due to that. He also did not give consideration to the opinion of ibn ‘Abbas – and it is a narration from ‘Ali – that the waiting period of the pregnant woman whose husband has died is the longer of the two periods because of the authentic hadith of Subay’ah al-Aslamiyyah. He did not give any consideration to the opinion of Mu’adh and Mu’awiyah that the Muslim may inherit from the disbeliever because of the authentic hadith disallowing inheritance between them. He also did not consider the opinion of ibn ‘Abbas about money changing, because the hadith against it is authentic, nor his opinion allowing donkey meat for the same reason. There are many such examples, for he would not place before the authentic hadith any practice, opinion, analogy, statement of a Companion, or not knowing of any difference of opinion which many people call Ijma’ and they put it ahead of authentic hadiths. In fact, Ahmad declared the one who claims this sort of Ijma’ to have lied, and he did not tolerate placing it before authentic hadiths. Likewise, al-Shafi’i states in his revised Risālah that the issue in which disagreement is unknown cannot be termed ijma’. His words are “Not knowing of differing does not constitute Ijma’.” ‘Abdullah b. Ahmad b. Hanbal relates: I heard my father say, “When a man claims ijma’ concerning something, it is a lie. Whoever claims ijma’ is a liar. The people might have disagreed. How does he know that it did not reach him? Therefore, let him say, ‘We do not know that the people have differed’ - this is the claim of Bishr al-Marisi and al-Asamm – rather, he should say, ‘we do not know that the people differed’ or ‘it has not reached me.’” These are his words.

The texts of Allah’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) are too venerable for the Imam and for the rest of the Imams of Hadith that they should prefer over them a supposition of ijma’ which in reality is nothing more than not knowing that someone differed. If this was acceptable, then the texts would be nullified, and it would be acceptable for anyone who does not know of a differing opinion concerning the ruling of an issue to put his ignorance concerning the differing opinion over the texts. This is the claim of ijma’ that Ahmad and al-Shafi’i rejected. It is not as some people think that they were doubting the existence of ijma’.

Section

The second of Ahmad’s principles for fatwa is the fatawa of the Companions. When he would find a verdict from one of them, and none of them was known to have opposed it, he would not take anything over it. He would not say that constitutes ijma’, but out of his caution in choosing his words, he would say, “I do not know of anything that goes against it” or something along those lines. For example, Abu Talib reports that he said, “I do not know of anything that goes against the opinion of ibn ‘Abbas, ibn ‘Umar, and eleven of the Tabi’in: ‘Ata’, Mujahid, and the scholars of Madinah concerning the slave taking a concubine.” Similarly, Anas b. Malik said, “I do not know of anyone who has rejected the testimony of the slave.” This was quoted from him by Imam Ahmad. Thus, when the Imam would find this sort of verdict from the Companions, he would not give preference to any practice, opinion, or analogy over it.”

Section.

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.

Section

The third of his principles is that if the Companions differed, he would choose from their opinions that which was nearest to the Book and Sunnah without departing from their opinions. However, if he did not find one of them to be more in agreement, he would cite the disagreement concerning the issue without giving a certain endorsement to any one view.

Ishaq b. Ibrahim b. Hani relates in his Masa’il, “Abu ‘Abd Allah was asked, ‘A man will be asked by his people about an issue in which there is disagreement, (what should he do)?’ He said, ‘He should decree according to the view that agrees with the Book and the Sunnah, and the one that does not agree with the Book and the Sunnah, he should refrain from it.’ He was asked, ‘Is this obligatory on him.’ He replied, ‘No.’”

Section

The fourth principle is acting on the mursal or weak (da’if) hadith when there is nothing on the topic contradicting it. He would give this preference over analogical reasoning (qiyas). By da’if, he does not mean that which is categorically false (batil), rejected (munkar), nor that which is reported by a narrator accused of lying. In that case, it would be unacceptable to adopt it and act on it. For Ahmad, da’if was the category besides sahih and a type of hasan. He did not categorize hadith as Sahih, Hasan, and Da’if. For him, there was only Sahih and Da’if. However, he regarded Da’if as being of levels. Therefore, if he did not find an athar or statement of a Companion on the topic, nor was there any consensus against it, acting on the weak hadith would be preferable to him over acting on analogical reasoning.

In fact, there is no Imam who does not agree with him on this principle in general, because every single one of them at some point has placed weak hadith before analogy at some point.

Abu Hanifah preferred the hadith about laughing out loud in prayer over strict analogical reasoning, although the scholars of hadith are agreed about its weakness. He also put the hadith of ablution with nabidh of dates over analogy, while most hadith scholars consider it weak. He put the hadith ‘the limit of menstruation is ten days’ which is weak by their agreement over analogy as well; the blood that a woman has on the thirteenth day will be the same as the blood she has on the tenth day in respect to definition, nature, and characteristics. He placed the hadith “there is no dowry of less than ten dirhams” before analogy even though they are in agreement that it is weak, in fact batil, for strict analogy dictates that as the dowry is a compensation in exchange for conjugal rights, whatever amount they agree to should be permissible, be it great or small.

Al-Shafi’i put the hadith about hunting in Wajj before analogy in spite of its weakness. He gave preference to the hadith permitting prayer in Makkah at the prohibited time even though it is weak and even though analogy dictates it be regarded like all other cities. Also, in one of his two opinions, he preferred the hadith “Whoever vomits or has nosebleed should perform ablution and continue his prayer from where he left it” over analogy even though the hadith is weak and mursal.

As for Malik, he prefers mursal, munqati’, balaghat, and the statement of the Companion over analogy

The fith principle: if Imam Ahmad was presented with an issue in which there is no text, nor a statement from the Companions or one of them, nor a mursal or weak report, he would resort to the fifth principle, analogical reasoning (qiyas), which he would use due to necessity. He states – as reported in al-Khallal’s book, “I asked al-Shafi’i about analogy, and he replied, ‘It is only to be resorted to due to necessity’ or something of that meaning.”

These five principles are the principles on which he based his verdicts and around which his verdicts revolve. Sometimes, he would refrain from issuing a verdict, because of the existence of conflicting evidences, or because the Companions differed on that issue, or because he was unaware of there being any report or any opinion from a Companion or a Tabi’i concerning the issue.

He very much disliked and discouraged issuing verdicts on matters in which there was no report from the Salaf, as he told one of his students, “Beware of speaking on an issue in which you have no precedent.”

He would allow seeking fatwa from the Fuqaha’ of Hadith and the followers of Malik, and he would direct people to them, but he would disallow seeking fatwa from anyone who ignores hadith and does not base his madhhab on it, and he would not allowing acting on such a person’s fatwa.

Ibn Hani’ said, “I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah about the meaning of the hadith ‘Those of you boldest in giving verdicts are the boldest in entering the Fire, Abu ‘Abd Allah, may Allah have mercy on him, said, ‘It is to give a verdict not based on (reports) he has heard.’” He also relates, “I asked him about the one who gives a verdict on an issue unclear to him. He said, ‘The sin is on the one who issues the verdict.’ I said, ‘Then in what manner can he give a verdict if he does not know about it?’ He said, ‘He should give verdict based on research, as he does not know what its evidence is.’”[2]

Abu Dawud states in his Masa’il, “I cannot count how many times I heard Ahmad being asked about issues of knowledge in which there was disagreement to which he replied, ‘I do not know.’ And I heard him say, ‘I have not seen anyone who excelled in giving verdicts like ibn ‘Uyaynah: it was the easiest thing for him to just say, ‘I do not know.’”

‘Abdullāh b. Ahmad relates in his Masa’il, “I heard my father say: ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Mahdi said: A man from the West asked Malik b. Anas about an issue, to which he replied, ‘I do not know.’ He said, ‘O Abu ‘Abd Allah (Malik), you are saying that you do not know?’ He said, ‘Yes, so inform those who sent you that I do not know.’”

‘Abdullah also states, “I would frequently hear my father asked about issues to which he would reply, ‘I do not know,’ and he would often hesitate concerning issues in which there was difference of opinion. He would often say, ‘Ask someone other than me.’ If asked, ‘Who then should we ask?’ he would reply, ‘Ask the scholars,’ and he would hardly ever name a particular person.” He also states, “I heard my father say, ‘Ibn ‘Uyaynah would not issue verdicts concerning divorce and he would say, ‘Who is proficient in this?!’”

End Quote from ibn al-Qayyim

Some reference works on the Usul of Ahmad:

• Sh. ‘Abdullah b. ‘Abd al-Muhsin al-Turki has written a work on the subject titled Usul Madhhab al-Imam Ahmad.

• Sh. ‘Uthman b. Ibrahim al-Murshid has written a Master’s thesis entitled al-Ra’i ‘Ind al-Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal. It was submitted at Umm al-Qura University in 1394 AH. According to Sh. Bakr, it is unpublished.

• Also, one may refer to Sh. Bakr’s al-Taqrib Li Ulum ibn al-Qayyim and the index on Usul for Majmu’ Fatawa ibn Taymiyyah to see some very important discussions on the Usul of Ahmad.

• Sh. Bakr states in al-Madkhal al-Mufassal (1/150), “Ibn Badran al-Dimashqi (1346 AH) has compiled the Usul of the madhhab in Sections 3,4, and 5 of al-Madkhal Ila Madhhab al-Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal (pp. 49-200), comprising two-thirds of the book, and it suffices from all other works because of the verification, precision, detail, and excellent arrangement it contains. It is, on the whole, an explanation and clarification of ibn al-Qayyim’s comprehensive word concerning the Usul of Ahmad’s madhhab."

---

[1] May Allāh facilitate its liberation.

[2] The meaning of this exchange is not very clear in Arabic, and hence, this translation is based on the understanding of the translator.

[Harris Hammam]

(Perhaps Br. Harris Hammam could enlighten us by starting a similar thread on the Hanafi Madhhab)

Maybe Harris Hammam should have already started that thread by now. By he was too lazy like he usually is, so instead, he decide to slap and paste the part of his coursework discussing the Hanbali Madhhab.

This is a bit nostalgic for me. Memories of this were triggered when I stumbled on this whilst I was researching the Shah Waliyullah and the al-Insaf issue over on the "Fraudulent Misrepresentations & Deceptions in Taqleed" thread lol.

And yes - I am wearing my 'orientalist cap' here... So feel free to criticise the piece as you wish...

I hindsight, I now feel weird. I don't even know why I'm posting this. Have a good laugh.


d. The Hanbali School

Ahmed bin Hanbal was arguably the most vigorous personality in Islamic theological history. His uncompromising stance on theology had an impact on not only his jurisprudence, but his disciples and followers, which remains the case to this day. Because he was so politically involved, it was natural that his school was centred in the political heart of the state - Baghdad. His journeys as a student took him to Iraq, Syria, Hejaz and Yemen. His activity in the narratives field made some scholars, like Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (923) and Averroes, refuse that he was not a jurisconsult but a mere transmitter of prophetic narratives. This, however, is not correct and is disproved by the works and jurists that followed his legal footsteps. The school gained fame for its theological figures and activity against non-Sunni groups, combined with the assistance of the caliphate.[1]


Law Transmission Chains

Because he was an orthodox traditionist, his legal chain of narration is not dissimilar from his prophetic transmission chains, which run into hundreds. However, he did have some specialist law teachers, most notably Abu Yusuf and al-Shafi’i. He was very close to the latter, although Ahmed bin Hanbal’s differences with al-Shafi’i in many vital jurisprudential issues disallows him to be a Shafi’i and his opinion to be classified as a ‘view’ in the Shafi’i legal school.[2]

1.

Abu Yusuf Yaqub al-Ansari (798)

↓

Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Hanbal (855)

2.

Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Nakhai (717)

↓

Hushaym bin Bashir (799)

↓

Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Hanbal (855)

3.

Sufyan bin Uyaynah al-Hilali (813)

↓

Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Hanbal (855)

4.

Waki bin al-Jarrah (813)[3]

↓

Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Hanbal (855)

5.

Muhammad bin Idrees al-Shafi’i (820)

↓

Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Hanbal (855)

Traditional Legal Authority

A close observer would realise the structure of the school surprisingly primitive in the sense that it resembles the manner in which narratives were transmitted from Muhammad; there are many narrators of Ahmed bin Hanbal’s verdicts, the narrations were transmitted orally and conflict between these are commonplace. The aspect of contradiction is most probably due to the Imam changing his opinion due to a narrative reaching him that was not available to him previously, or new knowledge that he received at a later stage. Ways to cancel these contradictions are present in the jurisprudence of the school, and these two bear a great resemblance with ways to dispel contradictions between conflictive narratives. Regarding this, Hanbalis distinguish between the ‘text’ of the founder, a ‘narration’ ascribed to him, an ‘indication’ suggested by him and what is simply a point of ‘view’ of any of his disciples.[4]

There are books for what each narrator transmitted from the Imam, known as ‘Masail al-Imam Ahmed’, or ‘The Responsa of Imam Ahmed’. These form the authoritative basis of the school and contain matters outside of law as well. His most famous students, the first generation of Hanabli jurists who narrated rulings from him, were:

1. Saleh bin Ahmed bin Hanbal (880)
2. Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Hanbal (903)
3. Ishaq bin Mansur al-Kawsaj (866)
4. Abu Bakr al-Athram (874)
5. Harb al-Kirmani (874)
6. Hanbal bin Ishaq (886)
7. Abd al-Malik al-Maymuni (888)
8. Abu Bakr al-Marwazi (888)
9. Abu Dawud al-Sijistani (889)
10. Ibrahim bin Ishaq al-Harbi (899)[5]

Distinctive Features

The followers of this school have been more famous for asceticism and primitive portrayal of traditionalist theology, rather than rating highly for extracting legal rulings or, for that matter, involved themselves in government. Nevertheless, the school gained favour amongst many notable traditionalists for its apparent consideration to orthopraxy.[6] Perhaps it was for this reason that many jurists of this school assumed Ijtihad for themselves, creating many minor schools within this key legal branch of Islam. Credit for its survival must be given to the Maqdisis and the Aal Taymiyyah (the Palestinian jurists and the family of Taymiyyah) who were in middle centuries of Islamic history - an intriguing episode in Sunni intellectual history at both jurisprudential and theological levels.

The school’s history has been one of internal and external turbulence. The fact that its followers are associated with literalism of varying degrees has been exposed to powerful opponents in other schools. Its doctrine firmly rests upon the fact that personal opinion is disregarded in front of apparent Quranic and prophetic legal texts.[7] The school extensively uses the ‘assumption of continuity’ tool in its rulings, especially in the commercial field.[8] Extensive party autonomy in commerce is an invention accredited to the Hanbali School.[9] The notion of ‘common interest’ is also recognised and was developed in the later centuries by the jurisprudential principle experts, unlike the Maliki School which had extensively used it from an early period. The school is famous for its strict adherence with the Sunnah, possibly due to its concurrence with compilation era of the Sunnah. Had it not been for its use of analogy, it would have been a near-doppelganger of the obsolete Zahiri (literalist) School.[10]

A classical example of a contract only allowed in this school under the permissibility rule as the basic precept of commerce and party autonomy in commerce as well as custom[11] is the Urbun contract:

Urbun refers to a sale in which the buyer deposits earnest money with the seller as part payment of the price in advance, but agrees that if he fails to ratify the contract, he will forfeit the deposit money which the seller can keep. The majority of scholars have held this to be invalid and considered it akin to misappropriating the property of others. Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal has, on the other hand, held it to be permissible, saying that Umar bin al-Khattab practised it…[12]

Famous Legal Personalities

Some notable Hanabli legalists are:

• Al-Khallal (923) - assembled Ahmed bin Hanbal’s responsa in one book; most active second generation Hanbali jurist
• Al-Khiraqi (946) - summarised al-Khallal’s work into a handbook, known as al-Mukhtasar
• Ibn al-Farra Abu Yala (1066) - convert from the Hanafi School, master in Hanbali law, public lawyer and known internally as ‘The Judge’
• Abu al-Khattab al-Kalwathani (1117) - expert in technical jurisprudence and formed a solid bedrock for the school via his works al-Tamhid and al-Hidayah
• Ibn Qudamah (1223) - active jurist who compiled a series of law texts for various academic purposes, including his reputable treatise al-Mughni
• Ibn Taymiyyah (1328) - celebrated all-round scholar, independent jurist and authored the famous Majmu al-Fatawa
• Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (1351) - independent jurist and codified comparative Sunni law with public and procedural perspectives
• Ibn Rajab (1392) - jurisconsult and expert in jurisprudence rules
• Ibn Muflih (1480) - prolific author and reviver of traditional comparative Hanbali jurisprudence through his work al-Furu
• Al-Bahuti (1480) - internal and external comparative legal expert, and lecturer at Azhar University in Cairo
• Al-Mardawi (1481) - author of al-Insaf, an internal comparative study
• Ibn al-Najjar al-Fatuhi (1572) - final authority in determining preferred Hanabli statute and author of Muntaha al-Iradat[13]

Internal Divisions & Representation

My research shows me that the Hanbali School does not have inner groupings; its jurists have been the most self-regulating in understanding the Shariah and legal doctrine in opposition with their counterparts from other schools, and have continually applied their intellect in deducing the favourable law or narration from the Imam within the school. It is because of this that even basic Hanbali handbooks differ from one another vis-a-vis preferences of narrations from the Imam.

Nevertheless, special textbooks in the schools have been identified that serve as the general final authority for the school, as has been mentioned previously from this.
The Hanbali School was centred in Baghdad, and spread through its powerful adherence to orthoprax Islam. In this regard, it influenced numerous scholars and spread to Palestine, Syria, Iran and Egypt. The Mongols and the Ottoman Empire, due to military and theological reasons respectively, hindered their progress. It only achieved governmental status in the current Saudi Arabian regime, which recently passed its centennial. It has since flourished in the Arab world and elsewhere, but its followers have always remained fewer in number compared to the other schools.[14]

---

[1] AHMAD B. HANBAL, Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law (in Encyclopaedia of Islam).

[2]Ibid.

[3]His school was also mostly based on narrations that reached him and was not affiliated with a particular law teacher. See pg. 277, Al-Tariqi, The History of Shariah Law & Its Jurisprudential Stages (Arabic).

[4]AHMAD B. HANBAL, Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law (in Encyclopaedia of Islam).

[5]Ibid.

[6]Pg. 44, Al-Saleh, The History of Shariah Law (Arabic).

[7]AHMAD B. HANBAL, Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law (in Encyclopaedia of Islam).

[8]Pg. 67, Kamali, Islamic Commercial Law.

[9]Ibid., pg. 75.

[10]The Zahiri School was founded by Dawud (d. 883). It is extinct, although Islamic scholars to this day still adopt some of their solitary opinions in some legal issues. See ZAHIRIYYA, Encyclopaedia of Islam.

[11]Pg. 65, Kamali, Islamic Commercial Law.

[12]Ibid., pg. 201.

[13]HANABILA, Encyclopaedia of Islam.

[14]Pg. 47, Al-Saleh, The History of Shariah Law (Arabic).

[justabro]

A few notes: Imam Ahmad is considered one of the transmitters of al-Shafi'i's al-madhhab al-qadim.

The Zahiri madhhab is not extinct. It may not have a following as such amongst laymen, but it has been revived and is still around (to be honest, I think it has always been around). This is a picture of al-Allama Abu Abd al-Rahman b. Aqil al-Zahiri:

????? ???? - ??? ????????? ???????: ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ??????

This is al-Allama Abu Turab al-Zahiri:

منتديات روض الرياحين / توسل واستغاثة الشيخ أبي تراب الظاهري بالنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم - قصيدة رائعة-

This is a Zahiri professor of Tafsir and Qiraa'aat at Umm al-Quraa:

????? ???? - ???????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??????

I believe ibn Aqil was based out of Riyadh while the latter two are Makkans. This is a Zahiri forum. A brother from Multaqa Ahl al-Hadith went and debated them once about Qiyas, but the thread was closed. He saved his posts and posted them on Multaqa. There are some Zahiri members who post on Multaqa Ahl al-Hadith as well.

[justabro]

Some Notes Concerning Terminology Used in the Hanbali Madhhab

Whenever one reads any book, it is important to understand the terminology used in it in order to understand the work properly. This is also true for the books of Fiqh. Each madhhab, and in some cases, each author has certain terminology that the reader must be familiar with. These terminologies are often times explained in the introductions or conclusions of the books. There are also certain books devoted to explaining these terminologies. Two published works dealing with defining the terminology used in Hanbali books are al-Mutli' and al-Durr al-Naqi. If Allah wills, these will be mentioned again when surveying the Hanbali literature.

The Conventions of the Imam in His Answers

(1) Answers explicitly stating one of the five ahkam taklifiyya: tahrim, karaha, wujub, nadb, and ibaha. This is considered a nass in the madhhab without any disagreement.

(2) When he responds and emphasizes his response with an action or by swearing an oath. This is considered a nass in the madhhab without any disagreement.

(3) It was the habit of Imam Ahmad, out of his great caution, to avoid frequent use of explicit expressions like halal and haram. Therefore, Imam Ahmad would typically resort to use of certain expressions which indicate the view that he inclines to. Sometimes, there is disagreement as to what his intent is behind these expressions. Some such expressions are the following:

* I like it (yu'jibuni)
* Good (hasan)
* It is befitting (yanbaghi)
* It is not befitting (la yanbaghi)
* I dislike it (akrahu)
* I fear (akhaafu, akhshaa)
* I hope (arju)
* There is no harm in it (la ba'sa bihi)
* I hope there is no harm in it (arju an la ba'sa bihi)
* I am not so brave (ajbanu 'anhu)
* I am not so bold as to speak about that (la ajtari'u 'alayh)
* Leave it (da'hu)
* Leave this issue (da' hadhihi 'l-mas'ala)

Sh. Bakr Abu Zayd has listed seventy such expressions, cf. al-Madkhal al-Mufassal, vol. 1 pp. 167-170. He goes on to explain them in vol. 1, pp. 243-264.

Imam al-Hasan ibn Hamid (403 H), the teacher of al-Qadi Abu Ya'la, has written a work devoted to the explanation of such expressions used by Ahmad in his answers to question. It is entitled Tahdhib al-Ajwiba. It was studied and edited by Dr. 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Qayidi as his doctoral thesis, and published by Maktaba al-'Ulum wal-Hikam.

Examples of Some Terms Used in Hanbali Fiqh Books

As knowledge of these terms is only needed by those who can read these works in Arabic, a few examples will serve our purposes here:

(1) "The madhhab is such and such" - this applies both to positions stated explicitly by the Imam as well as those deduced by the scholars of the Hanbali School. Ibn Hamdan has written a lengthy criticism in Sifat al-Fatwa of the practice of claiming a certain position to be the madhhab without knowledge or sound basis. Al-Mardawi has quoted his words in full in the epilogue of al-Insaf (12/267-276).

(2) Zahir al-Madhhab - This is the well known (mashhur) opinion in the madhhab.

Al-Mardawi states in the introduction of Tashih al-Furoo' (1/52), "Shaykh al-Islam ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him, said, 'It has been reported from Abul-Barakat (Majd al-Din), our grandfather, that if someone asked him about zahir al-madhhab, he would say it is whatever Abul-Khattab gave preference to in his Ru'us al-Masa'il.' He also said, 'It can also be known from al-Mughni and Sharh al-Hidaya by our grandfather. And whoever is familiar with the usul of Ahmad and his statements will recognize the correct opinion in his madhhab in most issues.'"

(3) Qawl, this term applies to any opinion in the madhhab, be it from the Imam himself or scholars of the madhhab, be it a wajh, ihtimal, or takhrij.

(4)al-Asahh, al-mashhur, al-ashhar, etc. - all of these expressions indicate tarjih of a certain opinion in the madhhab.

(5) Al-Shaykh - some scholars use this title to refer to al-Muwaffaq ibn Qudama, while others, particularly later scholars, use it meaning Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya.

(6) Al-Shaykhan, the Two Shaykhs - this refers to Muwaffaq ibn Qudama and Majd al-Din Abul-Barakat 'Abd al-Salam ibn Taymiyya, the grandfather of Sh. al-Islam Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya.

(7) Shaykhuna - Abul-Wafa' ibn 'Aqil and Abul-Khattab al-Kalwadhani use this expression referring to al-Qadi Abu Ya'la. When it is used by ibn al-Qayyim or by ibn Muflih in al-Furoo', it refers to Sh. al-Islam ibn Taymiyya. In his Mukhtasar, ibn Razin uses it for al-Muwaffaq ibn Qudama.

(8) Shaykh al-Islam - two scholars in the madhhab are famous with this title: al-Muwaffaq ibn Qudama and Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya.

Ibn Badran has discussed its usage at length in his Madkhal (p. 407) and Sh. Bakr Abu Zayd in Mu'jam al-Manahi al-Lafziyya.

(9) Al-Qadi - for the mutawassitin, this refers to Abu Ya'la (459 H); for the muta'akhirin, it refers to al-Mardawi (885 H), as can be seen in al-Muntaha and al-Iqna'. Al-Mardawi himself uses it to refer to Abu Ya'la.

(10) "Al-Munaqqih", "al-Mujtahid", "al-Mujtahid fi Tashih al-Madhhab" - these are all titles for 'Ala' al-Din al-Mardawi (885 H), signifying the great role he played in redacting the madhhab in his works such as al-Insaf, Tashih al-Furoo', and al-Tanqih al-Mushbi'.

For more on the terminologies of the Hanbali Madhhab, refer to Madkhal no. 4 of Sh. Bakr's al-Madkhal al-Mufassal, Ch. 6 of ibn Badran's Madkhal, pp. 405-422, and ibn Duhaysh's al-Manhaj al-Fiqhi al-'Aam li 'Ulama' al-Hanabila, pp. 97-168.