Abstract
There is still a great deal of uncertainty why in fact
Ma’mun implemented an inquisition (mihna),
from 833 to 845 CE, amongst the very Islamic community (umma) he was leading. Many
historians have argued that the mihna was actually instigated to
recentralize the political authority of the caliphate to counteract a
burgeoning movement of religious leadership within the umma; others have
disputed that the mihna was enacted to discourage religious
interpretation on a local, unofficial level by those same leaders. These two hypotheses have both dominated mihna
research throughout modern scholarship, yet they have both been isolated as
separate reasons for the implementation of the mihna. However, Ma’mun strategically initiated the mihna
as a means to ascertain central leadership as well as nullify any outside
claims to authority in both political and religious spheres. Consequently by design, the umma would strictly depend on Ma’mun’s
absolute authority like the prophet, Muhammad.
Keywords: The Mihna, Ma’mun, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Ulama, Islamic Law, Islamic Theology.
Introduction: Polemics
in Succession and Theology
During the
‘Abbasid dynastic rule over the umma
or Islamic religious community, during the eighth and ninth centuries CE, an
inquisition known as the mihna solidified dissent between the local and
central authorities. The mihna attempted to initiate a
reconciliation and centralization of religious authority within the caliphate
concerning their religious and legal authority over the umma. This inquisition or mihna, in actuality, further
dichotomized the rift between the caliph and the ulama. The outcome greatly favored the
authority of the local ulama in regards to the interpretation of Islamic
law (Shari’a) and religious doctrine, in addition to how these
interpretations applied to the umma.
Today, the study
of the mihna warrants a vast proposed
attempt to understand the fundamental purposes of why it was initiated. However, a common historical conclusion
seems rather elusive as well as inconclusive in regards to historians’
viewpoints concerning the influencing factors and reasons behind the validation
of the mihna by Ma’mun, the ‘Abbasid
caliph, within the first few scores of the ninth century. Thus it is essential to look rationally from
the perspective of Ma’mun to determine the particular reasoning for the
inquisition. The two main conclusive
hypotheses relating to the commencement of the mihna agree that either, the mihna
was to once again centralize religious arbitration within the caliphate while
legitimizing Ma’mun’s rule as caliph; or it was to oppose the local distilling
effort of the traditional ulama
vis-à-vis their developments in their religious interpretations of the hadith and establishment of the external
schools of theology [kalam] and law [fiqh]
(Zaman, 1997, p. 2). Yet, perhaps both
hypotheses congruently support each other.
For the initiation of the mihna
in the perspective of the caliph Ma’mun endowed the potential ability to oppose
the authority of the ulama that did
not support his doctrine and leadership by nullifying any legitimacy in their
leadership roles within their schools of kalam. It also negated the ulama’s
opportunity to interpret and decree on religious law or fiqh, which would indeed once again strengthen the centralized
authority of the institution of the caliphate and legitimize Ma’mun’s rule as
both the religious and political leader, like unto Muhammad.
After the death of
the Prophet, not only did the question of succession create a slight separation
and dissension within the community, another significant question arose within
the nascent religion. Who are the true
believers and members of the umma? This
question was a natural communalistic way of thinking for Arabs (Watt, 1985, p.
11). Thus, this particular question
encouraged interpretation and the implementation of ‘aqidahs which led to the creation and separation of theological
schools of kalam and its theologians or
mutakallimun. Not only did these schools of kalam implement interpretations of Shari’a, the Qur’an, and hadith as well as the importance and
relevance of each, they also cemented differentiations regarding theological
dogma within the umma. Even though the Qur’an and the hadith manifested the fundamental
structure of both religious beliefs and law,
the different schools of kalam
demonstrated variations in both religious opinion and interpretations in each
particular school. The first two groups
that established a juxtaposed spectrum of religious doctrine were the
Kharijites and the Murjites (Waines, 1995, p. 104-106).
Kharijites and Murjites
The Kharijites
decided initially to depose ‘Ali and the Umayyad dynasty (661-750), due to the
Kharijite belief that ‘Ali and the Umayyad dynasty controlled no particular
right to lead due to their veering practices and corruption (Nagel, 2000, p.
41-48). The Kharijites principled
themselves on the redeeming quality of righteousness based directly upon
fundamental doctrines instituted by the Prophet Muhammad and the Qur’an, those
which they believed the Umayyad dynasty did not prescribe to (Watt, 1985, p.
11). Thus for the Kharijites, the authority
to choose the caliph pertained directly to the true believers or those free
from sin (Lapidus, 1975, p. 366). Also,
since the Kharijites believed that all sinners inherently were unbelievers, the
Kharijites preserved the right to purify the nonbelievers from the flock and
purge it of sin (Watt, 1985, p. 8). Their
slogan was “No obedience to the creature in disobedience of the Creator”
(Nagel, 2000, p. 42). This not only
conceded a new dreadful element of moral obligation with the consequence of
death attached to agency, but the Kharijites initiated the ability to schism
and form a difference of opinion relating to Islamic dogma (Lapidus, 1975, p.
376).
On the other end
of the spectrum, the Murjites established a different suggestion pertaining to
the envelopment of sin in regards to who were actual believers (Waines, 1995,
p. 106). The Murjites ascertained the
simple fact that mankind will sin because mankind is not perfect, thus the irja or postponement (suspension) of
judgment will be left for God alone (Watt, 1985, p. 12). Accordingly, a believer was one who had
secured iman (belief or faith)
through their knowledge of God in their mind and then essentially merited from
confirmations and confessions of the heart and of the tongue (Waines, 1995, p.
106). Ultimately, for the Murjites, God
judged the true intentions of the hearts of men. However, the problematic element within
Murjite belief pertained directly to the status of works. Murjites maintained that faith was only
determined according to belief and not the acts of one’s hands (Waines, 1995,
p. 106). Therefore, if mankind testified
with their tongues and hearts without manifesting assiduous works that corroborated
mankind’s belief, for the Murjites, this was sufficient enough to be classified
as a believer. Consequently, a Murjite
believer’s faith could potentially be as or succeed that of the Prophet as well
as the righteous caliphs (Patton, 1897, p. 39).
Murjite ideals resonated deeply within Ma’mun’s concept of leadership;
and perhaps, these ideals could possibly stand as a sign of legitimacy for
Ma’mun’s succession if he could garner control of both religious and political
spheres (Ibn Tayfur, 1987, p. 82-86).
The Emergence of Theological Schools and
Leaders
As the pervasive
propagation of the religious schools of kalam
manifested a more prevalent and ubiquitous nature, the phenomena endorsed an
affinity of depending on these schools of kalam
more substantially than the caliphate; the result being an affluence of several
different schools of kalam, along
with several differentiations in religious dogma. These fundamental differentiations in
religious dogma, which derived from the same sources, introduced many different
interpretations for the umma to
follow, thus each individual within the umma
chose to prescribe to a particular or specific group of Islamic kalam and fiqh. Hence with the
establishment of different schools of kalam,
kalam introduced the novel
institution of ulama or local religious
leaders, which were able to create and gain a sense of local autonomy regarding
religious interpretation. Islamic historian
Muhammad Qasim Zaman (1997) has written concerning the ulama:
The early ‘Abbasid period saw the
emergence of the religious scholars, the ulama,
as a visible and increasingly influential religious elite, the beginnings of
schools of law, major developments in the study of hadith and towards the formalization of the concept of the
Prophet’s sunna, and other
developments which eventually led to the crystallization of Sunni and Shiite
Islam. (p. 1-2)
Therefore, the religious
implications established regarding the nascent institution of the ulama and the establishment of schools
of kalam and fiqh, which were able to interpret dogma on the local level, relinquished
the centralized power and authority of the caliphate to maintain religious
authority over the umma. This separation warranted a fundamental
fissure between the ideal of unity between religion and state. Again Zaman (1997) stated:
This model, which postulates a
comprehensive separation between religion and the state, may be paraphrased
thus: the caliphs and the ulama were
in sharp conflict over matters of religious authority; the caliphs lost the
contest and came effectively to be excluded from all say in matters of the law
and in whatever else the ulama
defined as their exclusive preserve; and, once in place, this model of
separation essentially persisted for much of the medieval Islamic history. (p.
2)
Initially the
prophet Muhammad, as well as the four righteous caliphs, commenced the idea of
one centralized leader manifesting both political and religious arbitration
over the umma. This idea of a
philosopher or prophet king distinguished the paradigm of a noble revelatory
leader with whom the religious community could rely and manifest both their
religious and political confidence (Lapidus, 1975, p. 364). This unity demonstrated sagacity as long as
the leader of the umma exhibited
admirable attributes behind which the community could rally. Notwithstanding, if the leader did not
manifest a sense of righteousness and charismatic prudence, a reaction of
dissonance was inevitable. This was
exactly what happened within the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid dynasties (Lapidus, 1975,
p. 369). Thus in order to legitimize his
rule, redefine the role of the caliph, and reestablish the authority and power
within the centralized leadership, Ma’mun used the incumbent attraction of
theology for political advantages and initiated the mihna to discredit the ulama, especially within the traditional schools
of kalam and fiqh, those who
discriminated against his logic and idea of doctrine inherent to the
rationalization of the creation of the Qur’an.
First, Ma’mun
desperately needed to legitimize his rule within the umma as caliph in being both lawful and as the will of God (Tabari,
1996, p. 5755). The proceeding caliph
and father of Ma’mun, Harun Rashid, bestowed the mantle of the caliphate upon
his younger son, Ma’mun’s younger brother, al-Amin (Glasse, 2002, p. 284). Hence, in order to retain the mantle of the
caliphate for himself after the death of Harun Rashid, Ma’mun instigated a
militant power struggle against al-Amin, which eventually enabled Ma’mun to
succeed in taking the throne as caliph (Figueroa, 2007, p. 648). Notwithstanding, since al-Amin originally
received the right to rule as caliph, many traditionalists opposed the rule of
Ma’mun (Glasse, 2002, p. 284).
Consequently, it became essential for Ma’mun to legitimize his rule as caliph
and undermine the influence of the traditionalist in regards to the umma; so with the implementation of the mihna, which highlighted a more
rationalist perspective of theological doctrine, Ma’mun outweighed
traditionalist dissonance with rationalist support to manipulate the consensus
and legitimize his rule as caliph over the umma.
Ma’mun and Ideologies
The persecution
that was the mihna, inaugurated by
al-Ma’mun on 27 January in 833, originally manifested strict disdain for
schools of kalam who supported
traditional orthodoxy in favor of the school within whom condoned a more
rational element (Nagel, 2000, p. 109).
Ira Lapidus (1975), an expert on the mihna,
has established, “In 833 al-Ma’mun inaugurated a mihna or inquisition to
force government officials and religious leaders to accept his religious views
and his authority in matters of religious ritual and doctrine” (p. 379). Now instead of the polar opposition similar
to that of the Kharijites and Murjites of the ninth century, Ma’mun rallied
behind a more rational interpretation regarding the perspective in which the
Qur’an is a temporal, created thing in contrast to the traditionalist doctrine
of an uncreated, eternal Qur’an. This
belief played the most essential role within the mihna, for it was the fundamental question during the
inquisition.
Originally,
historiographers exonerated this rational element of dogma by linking this
belief directly to the idea that Ma’mun, to centralize his religious authority,
needed to establish and solidify a set standard for religious doctrine and
discredit all opposition, which of course, was traditional orthodoxy. Furthermore, Ma’mun chose to support rational
groups that collaborated with the idea of the created Qur’an. However, historians failed to agree on which
rational group truly influenced the incorporation of the created Qur’an.
Mu’tazilite Ideologies
After looking at
the historiography relevant to the mihna,
historian Walter M. Patton initially became the expert within the field with
his dissertation piece in 1897 on Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and the mihna. Patton (1897) ascribed the fundamental idea
of the created Qur’an to the Mu’tazilite influence on Ma’mun (p. 47). The Mu’tazilite school definitely fit the
parameters of rationalists believing in the created Qur’an, as well as opposing
traditionalists (Nagel, 2000, p. 102 and 109).
Moreover, Ma’mun could also be directly linked to the Mu’tazilite
influence, since they found favor in the ‘Abbasid court and legitimized their
interpretation of the Qur’an as being created in 827.
Since Patton was
one of the first major scholars on the mihna
and believed that Mu’tazilites deeply influenced Ma’mun’s credence for the
incorporation of the created Qur’an, many historians since have agreed with
this analysis. Islamists like Amin,
Hitti, Kennedy, and Watt also agreed with the analysis of Patton as well as the
idea for the attempt at discrediting the opposition (Nawas, 1994, p. 616) The direct link from Ma’mun’s mihna to the Mu’tazilites, for these
historians, highlighted a direct causation for the inquisition; for the
influence manifested a lucid link.
Primarily, the
theological link of the created Qur’an pertained directly to school of Mu’tazilites
due to the fact that it was one of the most central themes of Mu’tazilite
doctrine (Patton, 1897, p. 47). The
establishment of the created Qur’an doctrine developed directly from the
Mu’tazilite definition of the fundamental and most crucial principle of tawhid which is absolutely inherent
within their “five principles or fundamentals” (al-Jabbar, 1997, p. 91 and 96). The Mu’tazilites developed these principles
by the implementation of their “rational” kalam, based on the dialectic process or
science, which anchored arguments on demonstrative proofs and rendered their so-called
axiomatic syllogisms sound and beyond dispute since the proofs were based upon
reason and the senses. Basically, for
the Mu’tazilites, it is essential to understand that God is the only existent
that exists, as a necessary being, eternally within His absolute oneness. Nothing can exist eternally outside of God
and His unique essence; thus if the Qur’an was uncreated and eternal it would
exist outside of God’s oneness, eternality, uniqueness, and omnipotence
(Nasution, 1997, p. 190). Therefore it
is impossible for anything, including the Qur’an, to exist eternally outside of
God, so the Qur’an must be created and contingent on God’s existence
(al-Jabbar, 1997, p. 96-97).
In addition to a
theological link, Ma’mun could have also benefited from Mu’tazilite dogma
regarding the speech of God as a political tool. According to the Mu’tazilites, God does not
speak nor will He ever (Madelung, 1985, p. 506). God is completely transcendent and does not
maintain any anthropomorphic characteristics (Nasution, 1997, p. 190). That is to say that He is a necessary
existence, independent and beyond human comprehension or quality. Thus, because of His transcendence and man’s
ultimate submission to Him, there will be no likeness between the creator and
the created. In other words, for the
Mu’tazilites, man and the absolute Real, in their juxtaposition, cannot
maintain a similitude of qualities or attributes. Through ta’wil
or interpretation, based on reason and philology, the Mu’tazilites believed
what mankind figuratively called speech was actually a particular sound created
and made heard by God, so that mankind may hear and transmit that which God
desired for them to hear. Yet, since it
was created by God and not the actual speech of God, the Qur’an again sustained
characteristics of being created and temporal (Madelung, 1985, p. 506). Furthermore, the words or speech of God was
not immutable, thus Ma’mun could manipulate or interpret religious rulings to
placate and support any law or doctrine he created.
Finally, Ma’mun
maintained particularly close ties with Mu’tazilites, for even his most
prominent teachers, Abu al-Hudhayl al-‘Allaf, Nazzam, Futti, Samama ibn Ashras,
were Mu’tazilites (Nawas, 1994, p. 616; Ibn al-Morteza, 1988, p. 49; Mas’udi,
1970, p. 227; Ibn Khalakan, p. 177; Shahrestani, 1979, p. 71). Moreover, the Mu’tazilites benefited from the
favor of the regime within the ‘Abbasid court as the legitimate school of kalam. Thus, it seemed that the Mu’tazilite school
of kalam had solidified an essential
role within the incorporation of the mihna.
However, many
historians concluded that even though the Mu’tazilites might have had some
influential aspects regarding Ma’mun and the incorporation of the created
Qur’an during the mihna, in all honesty, it was more of a coincidence
rather than a conclusive determination.
In fact, Ma’mun appeared to be supporting multifarious sources of
inspiration in regards to his personal theological creeds. For instance, it is true that Ma’mun was in
contact with many Mu’tazilites, but he was also influenced by many
non-Mu’tazilites. John Nawas (1994), in
his article “A Reexamination of Three Current Explanations for al-Mamun’s
Introduction of the Mihna,” proposed that,
“The sources also tell us that al-Ma’mun had equally strong and intimate bonds
with others outside Mu’tazilite circles, however, of whom some were in fact
anti-Mu’tazilites” (p. 616). Thus, Ma’mun maintained the company of
anti-Mu’tazilites such as Bishr al-Marisi, Dirar Ibn ‘Amr, and Yahya Ibn Aktham,
who were open foes of the Mu’tazilites, rationalism, and even the science of kalam.
In addition, by
examining the attention given to the Mu’tazilites by traditional orthodox
groups to the like of Ibn Hanbal, some historians again concluded that the
Mu’tazilites did not play a significant role of involvement with Ma’mun’s mihna due to the lack of attention
written in traditionalists’ sources (Peters, 1976, p. 11). Historian Christopher Melchert (1997)
precluded Mu’tazilite involvement when he wrote in his article “The Adversaries
of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal:”
First the traditionalists’ main
struggle was not against the Mu’tazila.
Had they been the main adversaries, we should have many more statements
against them from Ahmad, his contemporaries and his followers. Doubtless Ahmad and other traditionalists
disagreed with the Mu’tazila and would use strong language about them; however,
they saw their main adversaries elsewhere. (p. 252)
So for Melchert (1997), not only
did the Mu’tazilites not contribute a significant influence to Ma’mun, but the
Mu’tazilites only emerged as a dominant group among rationalists at the end of
the ninth century (p. 252).
This conflicting
evidence certainly needs to be taken into account, for Melchert and Nawas are
very bold in denying the avid Mu’tazilite role within the mihna, since, as previously mentioned, Mu’tazilite scholars mentored
Ma’mun in theological studies and Ma’mun elected a central theme within
Mu’tazilite doctrine. It is safe to say
that, even though the Mu’tazilites might not have directly facilitated the
installation of the mihna within the
ninth century, they were at the very least an indirect influence on Ma’mun and
his creeds as a foundation for opposing the traditional element within the mihna.
Both Nawas (1994)
and Melchert (1997) disagreed with to the idea of direct Mu’tazilite involvement. Instead, both historians mentioned the Hanafi
school as a conspiratorial participant within the mihna. Both historians
added, since the Hanifis also believed in the created Qur’an, the probability
of their role within the mihna is
high (Nawas, 1994, p. 617). Albeit
within the Fiqh al-Akbar of Imam
al-A’zam Abu Hanifah, he wrote the contrary:
The Qur’an is the Word of God Almighty,
written on collections of leaves (masahif),
preserved in men’s hearts, recited on men’s tongues, and sent down to the
Prophet, upon whom be God’s peace and blessing.
Our uttering of the Qur’an is created, and our recitation of the Qur’an
is created, but the Qur’an itself is uncreated. (Lumbard, personal
communication, Fall, 2007)
Thus, Nawas and Melchert may have misinterpreted
both the involvement of the Hanafi school within the mihna as well as their fiqh regarding the Qur’an. For in the Hanafi school of fiqh the Qur’an is uncreated, or is it? Even though Hanifah wrote that the Qur’an is
uncreated, historians have disputed the actual doctrines of the Hanafi school
during the time of the mihna. Melchert
(1997) mentioned this idea in his article when he stated, “The situation was
complicated by their having developed a more traditionalist party among the
Hanafiya, who did not, for example, affirm a create[d] Qur’an. Until late in the ninth century, however, the
Hanafiya are mainly to be placed on the rationalist side of the great struggle”
(p. 252). Accordingly, for Melchert,
the Hanafi School rebutted their own doctrine within themselves and established
a complete metamorphosis of thought by adopting contrary ideas and changing
from a completely disputed and rational based theology to a more traditional
stance within less than a century. To
say the least, it is self-evident that the Hanafi school was becoming more
dissonant within their own theology during the ninth century. Therefore, their school of kalam could not
have been a direct catalyst for the mihna because of their own inner
struggle and metamorphosis that emerged during that same time period.
Shiite Ideologies
Another group said
to influence Ma’mun concerning the mihna was
the Shiite element. Historians like
Sourdel, Watt, and Nagel believed the intrinsic value of Shiite doctrine was
appreciated by Ma’mun pertaining directly to the institution of the imam
(Nawas, 1994, p, 619; Sourdel, 1962).
Ma’mun specifically integrated the idea of imam directly into his
role as caliph (Safva, 1937, p. 377).
The role of imam greatly influenced Ma’mun for it was the exact
status of Ma’mun’s ambitions (Nagel, 2000, p. 100). In Shi’ism, the imam portrayed an
essential role of veneration as both the political and religious leader of
Shiites. Also, the imam descended
first from ‘Ali and then the Prophet Muhammad himself. This amalgamation of imam and caliph,
as Ma’mun believed, essentially gave him supreme autonomy over the umma as well as blood ties to ‘Ali and Muhammad. Even though Shiites believe the Qur’an to be
uncreated, the idea of the imam significantly influenced Ma’mun with
regards to the potential control the mihna
could provide (ibn Babevayh, p. 226-227).
Yet
even though the importance of these historical investigations helped illuminate
certain aspects of the mihna, a
determination could not be made regarding which rational element directly
influenced Ma’mun in regards to the adaptation of the dogma in reference to the
created Qur’an. In fact, Ma’mun actually
manifested an eclectic idea by incorporating different elements of rational kalam and integrating them to create a
galvanized, hybrid theology which would directly cause controversy within the
opposing traditional element, thus giving Ma’mun an instrument to discredit the
traditional creeds (Nawas, 1994, p. 619).
Since Ma’mun demonstrated an eclectic idea of incorporating a mixture of
rational and Shiite creeds to create his own proposed doctrine, modern
historians realized that Patton’s original thesis regarding strictly Mu’tazilite
involvement and influence in the creation of the inquisition and directly
influencing Ma’mun’s created Qur’an theology was rendered insubstantial. Therefore in retrospect of Patton’s thesis,
the collaboration of the two hypotheses created a more efficient explanation
for the commencement of the mihna.
Therefore,
why did Ma’mun adopt the idea of the created Qur’an? The exact specific reason for the created
Qur’an doctrine, the adopted credo, escaped explicit explanation within primary
sources contemporary to the mihna. However, by supporting one particular vantage
point as well as drawing the support of that particular vantage point, Ma’mun
consolidated his authority established a commonality within the status quo in
regards to his definition of the ijma
or consensus and by deposing and discrediting the adversity. Ma’mun displayed a great formidability as
ruler and was seriously determined to preserve the importance of the caliphate
and reconfirm its absolute mantle of authority. John Nawas (1996) explained in his
subsequent article, “The Mihna of 218 A.H. /833 A.D. Revisited: An Empirical
Study,” “Ma’mun was basically setting his sights on the future, aiming to
secure for the caliphal institution a universal and unquestioned authority on
all matters, secure and sacred, a status that was in force during the Umayyad
period and was especially characteristic of the founders of Islam but had since
vanished” (p. 699). Therefore the mihna manifested the perfect opportunity
for Ma’mun to consolidate his power by discrediting the local traditional ulama, so the umma would
again look to a centralized figure to not only lead, but interpret the Qur’an
and hadith as well.
Ideologies of the Mihna
With the
establishment of the mihna, four
months before the death of Ma’mun, he instituted an inquisition in which they questioned
many ulama to determine their
theological understanding and discredit any altercations. This phenomenon provided Ira Lapidus and
Wilfred Madelung the support for their thesis that the institution of the mihna combated the “festering
resentments” for the opposing traditional ulama
including those who maintained a Khurasanian background (Nawas, 1996, p. 699). Thus within the initial mihna letter to governor Ishaq b. Ibrahim of Baghdad, Ma’mun first solicited
the apprehension of the high officials of Baghdad, and then in later letters
surmised the interrogation of the lower hierarchies of ulama. Ma’mun specified the
groups of ulama to be questioned
including the “qudat (plural of qadi) and shuhud (court
officials), witnesses, muhaddithun
including the forty-four traditional ulama,
and the fuqaha (plural of faqih) who were experts in law and
theology” (Nawas, 1996, p. 707-708).
Ma’mun targeted these intellectual elite because of their exceptional
character and abilities. For these men
participated within the umma as the
most influencing and intellectually qualified proponents of society; therefore
these men caused the diluting of the caliphate authority in relation to the
interpretation of theology and law. The
most famous interrogates were those of the Shafi’i school of law in addition to
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.
During
the interrogation sessions of the mihna,
the persecuted were given one simple question concerning the doctrine of the
creation of the Qur’an. Is the Qur’an
created? This question provided an
advantage to the persecutors since it nullified all equivocation or ambivalent
dialectic debate in syllogistic form.
Either the accused agreed or disagreed (Nawas, 1994, p. 623).
Another great
advantage of this interrogation method and especially the specific question
relating to the creation of the Qur’an existed within the Qur’an itself. Consequently within the Qur’an itself, no logical
or authoritative passage specifically disputes either opinion regarding the
creation of the Qur’an, thus the reigning doctrine based its authenticity
intrinsically upon the established structure imposed (Nawas, 1994, p. 623). The verse in question uses the Arabic verb, Ja’ala, which has been translated as,
made. Al-Qur’an (2006) states, “We have made it an Arabic Qur’an so that
you may apply reason” (43:3).
Within the
examination of the mihna and the
opinion of the created Qur’an, Ma’mun divulged a common understanding regarding
Qur’anic interpretation that created a sense of debate within the umma.
This opinion was not unique for Ma’mun, the Mu’tazilites, or any other extreme
rationalists, nor was the uncreated Qur’an a unique ideology of the Shafi’i
rationalists or Hanbali traditionalists; it was an evolving debate, where both
sides projected a functioning argument based on reason or tradition. Still, Ma’mun solidified the consequences on
supporting the latter ideal. As stated
before, for Ma’mun and his ideological supporters, the creation of the created
Qur’an unswervingly reflected the Islamic principle of tawhid or absolute unity of God.
Nawas (1994) explained:
The Mu’tazilite argument, which
al-Ma’mun also used, is anchored in the assertation about the absolute unity of
god: the Qur’an could not be eternal because, if that were the case, and object
(the Qur’an) would then share an attribute of God (eternality). This in turn would violate God’s absolute
unity. The Mu’tazilites therefore
concluded that the Qur’an must be created. (p. 625)
For, if the Qur’an was uncreated it
would be eternal; and if it was eternal it would be outside of God’s
eternality. Thus, since the Qur’an is a
thing and God is the creator of all things, the Qur’an must be therefore a
created thing. This concept of tawhid formatted Ma’mun with a rational
argument that supported his interpretation and gave it a sense of logic and
authority. Perhaps the true reason
Ma’mun integrated the created Qur’an doctrine within his hierarchy of theology
was because a created Qur’an suggests the idea that the Qur’an is not the
absolute, solidified word of God and can thus be interpreted to fit a specific
people or situation.
A created Qur’an
imposed the concept that since the Qur’an is not the immutable word of God;
subsequently, the created Qur’an was left as a supplemental guideline to
something that supersedes it (Watt, 1985, p. 35). Initially, this was the erudition of the
Prophet Muhammad based on his revelations from God. The umma
depended directly on the Prophet as a leader and guide. This doctrine sufficiently sustained a
dependency on a central religious and political leader which coincided, with an
ingenious congruency, with Ma’mun’s desire to reestablish his regime and the
mantle of caliphate as supreme. Again as
Nawas (1994) has stated, “His was fundamentally a Mu’tazilite platform guided
by an abiding conviction that the caliphal institution must survive and that
its survival could be assured only by a supreme head with authority that was
unquestioned, unlimited, and shared with no one else” (p. 624).
In contrast, an
uncreated Qur’an signified the eternality of its origin and significance. If the Qur’an truly merited itself as eternal,
it demonstrated a strict importance in reference to the umma’s heed to the principles it established. This concept pertained directly to
traditional doctrine. The
traditionalists believed the Qur’an to be the literal word of God, yet their
interpretation of God’s unity or tawid,
in a sense, manifested a different quality because it was eternally part of
God’s knowledge or omnipotence. As
Seyyed Hossein Nasr (1994) has so eloquently written:
The Qur’an is the tissue out of which
the life of a Muslim is woven; its sentences are like threads from which the
substance of his soul is knit. The
Prophet was therefore the instrument chosen by God for the revelation of His
Word, of His Book of which both the spirit and the letter, the content and the
form, are Divine. (p. 30)
Since God is eternal and everything
within God’s unity is also eternal, and because the Qur’an is the word of God
and is part of His divine speech and knowledge, the Qur’an is thus
eternal. Accordingly, nothing pertaining
to or incorporated in God’s tawhid is
temporal or created because of His eternality.
Furthermore, if the Qur’an is of God and part of his tawhid, it is uncreated.
Traditional groups
and individuals like the Shafi’i school of law, Ahmad Ibn Nasr Ibn Malik, who
died a condemned martyr, and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal defied the rationalist doctrine
of Ma’mun (Lapidus, 1975, p. 380). Most
of those who defied the rationalist doctrine were either executed or imprisoned
as heretics. Ma’mun attempted to warn
further traditionalist schools of kalam
that he would not only humiliate the opposition, but also censor their interpretations. Nawas (1996) again wrote,
Unambiguously, then, the findings tell
us that the interrogees were muhaddithun
of distinction, men highly esteemed for their intellect, as well as their
social status and influence—indeed, the [crème de la crème] of Baghdadi hadith-scholarship. The caliph’s inquisition aimed at more than
simply humiliating and muzzling the traditionalists. This group of luminaries was itself a target,
to be sure, but it was also the proxy through which al-Ma’mun sent a loud and
clear message that henceforward the business of hadith was under his censorship, and those who transmit or teach it
accountable to him. (p. 705)
Thus, through the mihna, Ma’mun attempted to control this
opposition and solidify his role within the umma
and once again fuse the religious and political elements together.
In theory, by
consolidating an eclectic version of incorporated theological principles of extreme
rationalist kalam and opposing all
contradicting doctrine, Ma’mun enabled the ability to redeem his caliphate’s
control over the interpretation of hadith. For Ma’mun, the idea of traditional schools
of kalam, who were not commissioned
or controlled, secured nothing but the establishment of a destructive element
within the umma that would only cause
disorder. This traditional element was
definitely a force to be identified and not ignored, for it possessed the
ability to nullify his power as caliph.
As established earlier, Ma’mun considered his leadership role to be the
inheritor of the prophethood of Muhammad, or at least the religious authority
of the Muslim community along with the official responsible for their
salvation. Therefore, since changes in
the umma adapted the need for
supplementing the Shari’a from the
Qur’an with laws constituted from the hadith,
Ma’mun desired to have the absolute authority over the interpretation of the hadith.
Yet, even though
the plan seemed flawless in theory, in reality, the results manifested a
different outcome. Ma’mun underestimated
the influence of those who would oppose his doctrine. In particular, the inquisition of Ahmad Ibn
Hanbal exhibited a rather phenomenal turn of momentum vis-à-vis the reputation
of the mihna from the perspective of
the umma (Waines, 1995, p. 70). Amongst the orthodoxy of the traditional
schools of kalam, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal
was the champion. Patton (1897)
illustrated:
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal during his whole
career subsequent to the death of the Imam al-Shafi’i (204 A.H.) was the most
remarkable figure in the camp of Mohammedan orthodoxy, and during the course of
the mihna did more than any other
individual to strengthen the resistance of his party to the repressive efforts
of the [caliphs] and their officers. (p. 2)
During his interrogation, Ahmad Ibn
Hanbal refused to condone Ma’mun’s doctrine vindicating the created Qur’an,
even under the ominous threat of the sword and incarceration (Nagel, 2000, p.
23). Ahmad Ibn Hanbal believed adamantly
that the Qur’an was uncreated even though the human acts of writing, reading,
reciting, and all other acts concerning the preservation of the Qur’an were
created (Patton, 1897, p. 35).
Even
though Ma’mun did not attend the coercion of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, due to either a
sense of admiration or malcontent, he anxiously awaited the outcome of the
inquisition (Patton, 1897, p. 4). Thus,
when Ahmad Ibn Hanbal ultimately refused to acknowledge the created Qur’an as
the only plausible theological concept, Ma’mun demonstrated an intensified
intolerance for the traditional schools of kalam. But it was essential, since Ahmad Ibn Hanbal
maintained a prestigious reputation and led an exceptionally large following,
to devise a punishment that would not arouse too mush dissension. Ma’mun decided on imprisonment.
After
a brief prison sentence, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal left prison only to continue his
study and interpretation of the Qur’an.
However, the damage was done; Hanbal emerged from the mihna as a venerated religious scholar, saint,
and defender of tradition. Accordingly,
after Ahmad Ibn Hanbal died, his students created a school that further
circulated his ideology and interpretation (Patton, 1897, p. 4-5). Nawas (1994) clarified the following
concerning the Hanbali school of law, “In the following century the new
movement took the form of the form of the Hanbali school of law. The teachings of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal were
codified to become the basis of a new corpus of law and traditions, a new
school in which religious thinkers adhered to the principles of the master and
expounded them” (p. 622).
Conclusion
The mihna demonstrated a tremendous
development regarding the communal and sectarian elements within the umma during the ninth century. After the mihna
concluded, fifteen years later in 848, the popular local religious movement
continued to amplify results with the scholarly and religious traditions of
study and interpretation. The populace
concerned more about the local religious interpretations of kalam and the schools of law rather than
any ruling instituted by the caliph.
With the establishment of the Hanbali school of theology and law,
the evolution of authoritative power changed hands completely in favor of the
local element of scholars or ulama; therefore divisions amongst the umma manifested a more prevalent nature
with the opportunity to elect which schools of kalam and fiqh to
follow. Within the Hanbalis in
particular, the belief of militant uprisings against any unrighteous leader,
including the caliph, deemed a major absolution to the caliph’s central
authority in secular government. As
Lapidus (1975) articulated, “Henceforth, the caliphate was no longer the sole
identifying symbol or the sole organizing institution, even for those Muslims
who had been most closely identified with it” (p. 383).
Thus in a
paradoxical result, since Ma’mun initiated the mihna not only to oppose heterogeneous groups of ulama in interpreting hadith and establishing there schools of
kalam and fiqh, but to also attempt the reconfiguration of the caliphate and
once again reestablish a centralized authority within the government, in
actuality, the mihna, even though it
lasted beyond the inquisition of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, created a more dependant reliability based on the merit
of the separate schools of kalam and fiqh, both in rational and traditional
aspects. In other words, the mihna further enabled the separation of
religious authority outside of the realm of the caliphate and towards the local
religious authority of the ulama.
In hindsight, the
initial implications of the institution of the mihna, as influenced specifically by rational groups of kalam concerning the standard theological
question of the created Qur’an, directly involved the implicit assumptions that
Ma’mun desired to promote a specific group above the others, namely the
Mu’tazilites. However, this initial
paradigm evolved during the course of analysis by additional scholars for the
reason that new evidence confirmed that
Ma’mun was rather eclectic in regards to his own theological doctrine; for he
selected principles from both the Mu’tazilites, who greatly influenced and
supported Ma’mun, and the Shiite idea of imam.
Thus the
development of two newly formulated hypotheses suggested the mihna, first, demonstrated the attempt
to recentralize the religious authority within the caliphate by controlling all
interpretation of the Qur’an, hadith,
and conception of any new laws pertaining to the umma. This was designed to negate the ulama’s
ability to establish diversified rulings and interpretations of religious
doctrine on a local level. Ma’mun
vehemently believed that as caliph, he inherited the role of being a deputy to
God on the earth, as his messenger, like unto the Prophet.
The second
hypothesis consisted that the establishment of the mihna was presented to the umma
to oppose the traditional element of ulama
that, of course, refused to advocate the Qur’an as being created. The mihna
was thus designed to discourage and discredit further desire to propagate the
traditional schools of ulama and impede
their local authority and influence over the umma. Ma’mun would then have the ability to spread his
authority and centralized political power as caliph, which would legitimize his
rule.
However, in
actuality, the two hypotheses mesh more as an interlocking plot to reconfirm
and strengthen the absolute, centralized authority of the caliph by
sufficiently discrediting the opposition to the point of disbandment, to insure
the holding of all religious and political power, and dissolve any element that
may cause future uprisings or dilution of the central caliph. Thus rather than a fissure of two separate
hypotheses, the mihna was a
hierarchal scheme which incorporated both hypotheses to ensure success. Unfortunately for Ma’mun, his plot
failed. The mihna strengthened
the local authority of ulama within kalam, as well as with the creation of schools of theology and law,
which would become the ultimate authority on religious interpretations of the
Qur’an and the hadith, in addition to being the architectural
element of the Shari’a. In
contrast, not all scholars have agreed upon the merits of the mihna,
since the mihna caused immense tribulations and trouble against
Muslims and Islam (Jad’aan, 2000, p. 286).
References
‘Abd al-Jabbar. (1997).
Kitab al-usul al-khamsa. Defenders of Reason in Islam: Mu’tazilism
from Medieval School to Modern Symbol. Oxford: One World.
Ibn
Babevayh, Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Ali.
In Hashem Husaini Tehrani (Ed.). Al-Tawhid. Qom: Mo’asesa al-Nashr al-Islami.
Figueroa,
Manuel Ruiz. (2007). Califato y religion: Las sorprendentes
iniciativas del califa al-Ma’mun (813-833).
Estudios de Asia y Africa, 42
(3), [134], 647-673.
Glasse,
Cyril. (2002). The New
Encyclopedia of Islam. New York:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Jad’aan,
Fahmi. (2000). Al-Mihna. Beyrut: Mo’ssasa al-Arabi al-Dorasat val
Nashr.
Lapidus,
Ira M. (1975). The separation of state and religion in the development
of early Islamic society. International Journal of Middle East Studies,
6 (4), 363-385.
Madelung, Wilfred. (1985).
The origins of the controversy concerning the creation of the Koran. Religious
Schools and Sects in Medieval Islam.
London: Variorum Reprints.
Mas’udi,
Ali ibn Husain. (1970). In Abolghasem Payandeh (Ed.). Al-Tanbih
val Ashraf. Tehran.
Melchert,
Christopher. (1997). The adversaries of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. Arabica,
44 (2), 234-253.
Nagel, Tilman. (2000). The History of Islamic Theology: From
Muhammad to the Present. (Thomas
Thornton, Trans.). Princeton: Markus
Wiener Publishers.
Nasr,
Seyyed Hossein. (1994). Ideals
and Realities of Islam. Chicago: ABC
International Group, Inc.
Nasution,
Harun. (1997). Kaum Mu’tazilah dan pandangan rasionalanya
(The Mu’tazila and rational philosophy).
Defenders of Reason in Islam: Mu’tazilism from Medieval School to Modern Symbol. Oxford: Oneworld.
Nawas,
John A. (1996). The mihna of 218 A.H. /833 A.D. revisited: an
empirical study. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 116 (4), 698-708.
Nawas,
John A. (1994). A reexamination of three current explanations
for al-Mamun’s introduction of the mihna.
International Journal of Middle
East Studies, 26 (4), 615-629.
Patton,
Walter Melville. (1897). Ahmed
Ibn Hanbal and the Mihna. Ruprecht
Karls Universitat of Heidelberg: Librairie et Imprimerie.
Peters,
J.R.T.M. (1976). God’s Created Speech: A Study in the
Speculative Theology of the Mu’tazili Qadi l-Qudat Abu al-Hasan ‘Abd Al-Jabbar
bin Ahmad Al-Hamadani. Leiden: E.J.
Brill.
Qara’i,
‘Ali Quli (Trans.). (2006). Al-Qur’an. Clarksville: Khatoons Inc.
Safva,
Ahmad Zaki. (1937). In Mostafa Halabi (Ed.). Jamhara
Rasa’el al-Arab (Vol. 3). Cairo:
N.P.
Shahrestani,
Abd al-Karim. (1979). In Mostafa Halabi (Ed.). Al
Melal val Nehal (Vol.1). Cairo: N.P.
Sourdel,
Dominique. (1962). La politique du calife Abbasid
al-Ma’mun. Revue des Estudes Islamiques, 30, 27-48.
Tabari,
Muhammad ibn Jarir. (1996). In Abolghasem Payandeh (Ed.). Tarikh
al-Rosol va al-Moluk (Vol. 13).
Tehran: Asator.
Ibn
Tayfur, Ahmad ibn Tahir. (1987). Ketab
Baghdad. Cairo: Dar al-Nehzat
al-Arabiah.
Waines,
David. (1995).
An Introduction to Islam. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Watt,
W. Montgomery. (1985). Islamic
Philosophy and Theology: An Extended Survey. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Zaman,
Muhammad Qasim. (1997). The caliphs, the ulama, and the law: defining
the role and function of the caliph in the early ‘Abbasid period. Islamic
Law and Society, 4 (1), 1-36.
