Was Ahmad ibn Hanbal the First to Recognize Ali’s Caliphate

He is called the Commander of the Faithful, and no one objects.

Abu Abdullah Ahmad ibn Hanbal told me, "Write this down, for it strengthens the case of those who hold that Ali ibn Abi Talib was a caliph."

And he dictated it to us from his book. Here you have Ahmad ibn Hanbal telling his student, "Write this down," because it was clear that they were a marginal group, or scholars of the second or third rank, I mean, and they were saying that Ali was a caliph.

But the senior scholars and the scholarly establishment did not recognize Ali's caliphate.

So Ahmad ibn Hanbal was the first imam, the first sheikh, the first scholar to say that Ali was the fourth caliph. No one had said so before him.

So he says, "This strengthens the case of those who hold that Ali was a caliph."

Meaning, at that time, they didn't even recognize Ali as a caliph.

So all the claims attributed to Abu Hanifa, al- Shafi'i, and Malik that they included Ali as the fourth caliph are blatant lies.

I previously posted a video about Imam al-Shafi'i and Imam Malik, and, God willing, I'll make a video about Imam Abu Hanifa.

All right, here you have Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

When he began including Ali among the caliphs, it caused a shock.

His students were astonished and shaken, and even his son disapproved of him for it.

Come along, everyone. Let’s read from al-Khallal’s Book of the Sunnah.

Here is Imam al-Maymuni, whose name is Abd al-Malik ibn Abd al-Hamid al-Maymuni, He was the leading imam of the Jazira region, which is now northern Syria and southern Turkey.

He says, “I said to Abu Abdullah: Pay attention to al-Maymuni.”

Al-Khallal met al-Maymuni and quotes from his book.

I said to Abu Abdullah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, “Some fellow scholars and I are astonished by your including Ali ibn Abi Talib among the caliphs.

Meaning, we disapprove. We’re astonished. How can you include Ali among the caliphs?

Meaning, Ali had never been included among the caliphs before Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

This is the first time, right here. And the report is authentic.

Because al- Khallal quotes from Abd al- Malik al- Maymuni.

They were all leading imams. He said to me, “And we have other witnesses against Ahmad ibn Hanbal, among his students.”

Even his son disapproved of him and said, “How can you say Ali is a caliph?

No one before you ever said that, Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

Two hundred years later, you come along and interfere with Muslims’ beliefs?

Something that didn’t exist before. So Ahmad ibn Hanbal said to me, “What should I do? What should I say?”

“I say that Ali is the Commander of the Faithful, and he leads the people in the Hajj.”

But Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan said during Ali’s lifetime— in the year 38 AH, in al-Mawtur in Jerusalem, “I am the caliph of the Muslims,” and he issued rulings, led the people in prayer, and did not stop or abandon anything.

Meaning, he’s saying here that Ali was caliph in practice.

Muawiya also led the people in the Hajj during Ali’s reign, and sent officials to lead the Hajj in Mecca during Ali’s own lifetime.

Disputes arose between them, and this isn’t the time for a show.

He carried out punishments, enforced legal penalties, and everything else.

Muawiya did the same in his territories.

I said, “This is Abd al-Malik al-Maymuni. So what do you do? What do you say about fighting Talha and al-Zubayr, and those bloodshed events?

Then you’re permitting the killing of Talha and al-Zubayr.

That’s an absolutely horrendous thing, to permit the killing of great Companions.

Ahmad ibn Hanbal replied, “What have we to do with Talha and al-Zubayr?” He mentioned Zah.

Then he repeated time and again, “What have we to do with the fighting against these men, and all that bloodshed?”

Meaning, don’t talk about it. We have nothing to do with it.

No, you said Ali was the caliph. Go on. That means, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, you have to permit the killing of Talha and al-Zubayr because Ali was the caliph, and these men were rebels, aggressors, and criminals.

Talha and al-Zubayr formed militias and attacked Ali, the legitimate caliph.

Then Abd al-Malik al-Maimuni says, “This was the last thing he differed with me over Ahmad ibn Hanbal, in the year 227, while we were sitting together.”

Of course, here, ladies and gentlemen, what did Ahmad ibn Hanbal do?

He permitted the killing of Talha and al-Zubayr.

But they said to him, “So you’re permitting it? Ali is the caliph.”

In other words, these were just a bunch of criminals, a gang, and highway robbers.

Talha, al- Zubayr, and Lady Aisha took an army and seized the governorship of Basra from Ali.

They expelled Ali’s governor, Uthman ibn Hunayf.

They arrested him and told him, “Get out.”

They also had the legitimate governor, Uthman’s governor, Abdullah ibn Umar ibn Kurayz.

And they killed six of Uthman’s killers.

They seized the treasury and said to him, “How can the treasury be transferred to Ali?

After all, the treasury was under the government of Uthman ibn Affan.

But Ahmad ibn Hanbal said, “That’s it.” We’re just burying our heads in the sand, like ostriches, and saying, “Respect isn’t there.”

So, of course, Ahmad ibn Hanbal started getting strict about what?

“Cursed is anyone who insults the Companions.”

“Cursed is anyone who attacks the Companions.”

Because after that, Ahmad ibn Hanbal opened the door to insulting and cursing the Companions openly.

So the Hanbalis began to get strict. “Don’t insult them. Don’t insult them. Don’t insult them.”

You allowed them to be killed, man. Here, in the book Siyar A‘lam al- Nubala’ by the Shiite historian Shams al- Din al- Dhahabi, al-Maymuni says, as he relates: He was amazed by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the eminent imam, hadith master, and jurist,

‘Abd al-Malik al-Maymuni, the shaykh of the island, Maymun ibn Mihran, a student of Imam Ahmad and one of the great imams.

The scholar and mufti of al-Raqqa in his time.

He died in the year 274. So al-Khallal met him before the year 274.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, here we’ll find the Shiites.

What was their موقف? The Shiites were very pleased and happy.

In Ibn al-Jawzi’s book Manaqib Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

Abdullah narrates from Abu Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who says: One day, as I sat before my father, a group of Karkhis from Baghdad came, and discussed the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman at great length.

And they spoke. They discussed Uthman’s caliphate at great length, meaning: Uthman was righteous. Uthman was corrupt.

It was along those lines. They discussed the caliphate of Ali ibn Abi Talib, going further and on and on.

Meaning, Ali was a caliph—and was not a caliph.

Then my father, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, raised his head toward them and said: “You people have said far too much about Ali and the caliphate.

The caliphate did not make Ali ibn Abi Talib glorious.

Rather, Ali made it glorious.” Pay attention. Who is narrating the incident?

The one narrating the incident is Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

All right. Pay attention. This is a very important point.

And who is narrating from Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal?

Al-Sayyari, from Ibn Masruq, from Abdullah.

That is, Al-Sayyari is speaking after his death.

Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, for example, you say— That is, Al-Sayyari is speaking about the year 300 AH, for example, 310 or 320 AH.

That is, during the Buyid dynasty. Al-Sayyari said, “I told some Shiites this,” and one of them said to me, “You’ve taken away half the hatred I felt toward Ahmad ibn Hanbal.”

That is, Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s fatwa remained in a narrow circle.

It took about fifty or sixty years to reach the wider circle, the Shiites.

And we’ll find that the Muslim scholarly establishment didn’t accept Muhammad ibn Hanbal’s opening, nor did even his Hanbali followers accept it.

This debate and argument with the Hanbalis continued among themselves, within the Hanbali community, for seventy years or more.

Of course, there was no radio or internet or social media and other means to spread information quickly.

Besides, people in that period understood that if you said Ali was the caliph, you were endorsing the killing of Talha and al-Zubayr, and you would face God with their blood on your hands.

Of course, the Shiites here said Ahmad ibn Hanbal had a wall protecting Islam, named Muawiya, the fourth caliph.

Ahmad ibn Hanbal tore down the wall. Here, you have an Iranian message called Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah.

Ahmad ibn Hanbal's role in reform. That is, how Ahmad ibn Hanbal corrected the Muslims' beliefs, which, in the view of Iranian researcher Rasul Jafari, were corrupt.

He says, “The Ottoman school of thought.”

The Ottoman school of thought is the old name for Sunni Muslims, who do not recognize Ali's caliphate, which is the Umayyad state, and Lady Aisha, Talha, and al-Zubayr.

He says it was the prevailing school in the Islamic world, and this school gave Imam Ali no status whatsoever.

The Ottoman view was its foundation, and it was a firmly held belief, to the extent that the Abbasids could not change it significantly.

So the Abbasid caliph al-Ma'mun resorted to force and coercion, and sought to impose his beliefs on scholars and hadith scholars.

Part of this sectarian religious trend was reformed, the Ottoman one, that is, which did not allow or permit the Commander of the Faithful, Ali ibn Abi Talib, to be granted the title of caliph.

But thanks to the efforts Ahmad ibn Hanbal made Ali’s succession was acknowledged.

In the mid-fourth century, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari introduced many changes to this doctrine in matters of creed, and, as a result, Sufism emerged and a new version of the doctrine appeared.

He adds: Ahmad ibn Hanbal broke this stranglehold, which was the Muslims’ creed, like an Ottoman one, I mean.

We find that in his Musnad and other works, he transmitted many accounts praising Imam Ali.

Because before Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Muslims used to say Ali was wrong.

Ali fought the Muslims and the Companions, and Talha, al-Zubayr, and the others.

He said, “We couldn’t expand across the Islamic world.

But thanks to Ahmad ibn Hanbal, he broke that stranglehold for us, and we were able to move beyond the Muslim world and begin infiltrating Muslim society.

And indeed, they brought it down, I mean, they brought Muslim society down.

Of course, unfortunately, as we’ll see, Ahmad ibn Hanbal we’ll discover that he didn’t understand the political implications.

The caliph’s man told him, “Issue a fatwa, a fatwa, a fatwa.”

And the hadith is authentic? A fabricated saying attributed to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him.

And Hanati and Ahmad ibn Hanbal admit that this hadith is fabricated in the first place.

What a scandal, I swear to God. Come on, everyone.

Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s students, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s son, objected to him and said, “What are you doing?”

Here, in the book Explanation of the Principles of the Belief of the Sunnah and the Community, by al- Lalika'i.

He died in 418 AH. He quotes, saying about Wariza al-Himsi. Wariza was a student of Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

And for anyone who wants to know, everyone, the page number in the book, all these books are available online.

Just search using a keyword, like Wariza.

Wariza went to Ahmad ibn Hanbal when he openly displayed the fourfold virtues of Ali.

Look, he openly displayed them, which means they weren’t apparent before.

So I said this phrase entails attacking Talha and al-Zubayr.

You’re insulting Talha and al-Zubayr and advocating their killing.

And that’s outright rejectionism.