Gabatarwa - Rayuwar Ibn Hanbal | Quran Course

Gabatarwa - Rayuwar Ibn Hanbal | Quran Course

Me zai yi idan mai neman ilimi ba zai iya samun wani Hadisi game da wata tambaya ta musamman ba? A wannan hali, zai iya amfani da hankalinsa wajen warware matsalar. Duk da haka, sararin yin ijtihadi ba tare da ladabi ba ya kasance karami kuma yana kara raguwa. A zamanin Ibn Ḥanbal, yawancin Musulmi ba su ƙara yarda cewa za su iya yanke hukunci yadda suka ga dama ba. Ga mutane da yawa, wajibi ne a yi la'akari da dukkan ayoyin Alqur'ani da Hadisai masu alaka, sannan – ta amfani da tsarin tunanin shari'a da ke kara sarkakiya – a kai ga hukunci da ya fi kusantar nufin Allah. Duk da haka, Ibn Ḥanbal da kansa ba zai iya karɓar wannan hanya ba. A ra'ayinsa, mafita ita ce a koyi karin Hadisai, da fatan cewa wani Hadisi zai samar da bayanin da ake bukata. A aikace, duk da haka, wannan mafita tana sanya babban nauyi ga mai koyo. Da farko, mutanen da suka san wani Hadisi na musamman na iya kasancewa a ko'ina cikin kasashen da Musulmi suka zauna, kuma wajibi ne a nemo su. Lokacin da Ibn Ḥanbal ya dawo daga tafiyar tattara Hadisai zuwa garin Kufa, wani aboki ya tare shi ya tsawata masa saboda yawan wahalar da ya sha:

What if a seeker could find no Hadith report about a particular question? In that case he might apply his own reasoning to the problem. Yet the scope for undisciplined individual effort was small and growing smaller. In Ibn Ḥanbal’s time, most Muslims no longer believed that they could simply judge as they thought best. For many, it was necessary to take into consideration all related Qurʾanic verses and Hadith reports, and then—using an increasingly complex system of legal reasoning—come up with a rule that seemed best to approximate God’s will. Yet Ibn Ḥanbal himself could not accept this approach. The solution, in his view, was to learn more Hadith reports, in the hope that one or another report would supply the information needed. In practice, however, this solution placed great demands on the learner. For one thing, the people who happened to know a particular report might be living anywhere in the lands settled by Muslims, and it was necessary to seek them out. On his return from a Hadith-gathering mission to the town of Kufa, Ibn Ḥanbal was accosted by a friend who reproached him for overdoing it:

Ko da mutum ya koyi hadisai masu yawa, aikinsa ya fara ne kawai. Sanin hadisai masu yawa ba ya isa ba: ya zama wajibi kuma a rayu daidai da koyarwar da suka ƙunsa. Ga Ibn Ḥanbal, wannan yana nufin ƙin kansa jin daɗin da Annabi ﷺ ya ƙi, ko wanda bai taɓa gani ba, kamar kujeru masu ado da azurfa (53.3). Haka kuma, ya zama wajibi a guji abubuwa da ayyuka waɗanda a kansu za su iya zama halal, amma aka gurɓata su saboda alaƙa da wani abu haramtacce ko abin shakka kawai. Misali, Ibn Ḥanbal ba shi da hanyar sanin ko haraji da gwamnati take karɓa an karɓe shi bisa adalci, kuma an kashe shi yadda ya kamata. Saboda haka ya ƙi cin duk abin da aka ba shi a lokacin ziyararsa zuwa fada, ko a matsayin fursuna ko baƙo (69.13, 69.25, 73.19–21). Haka kuma ya ƙi cin burodi ko kabewa da aka gasa a murhun ɗansa Ṣāliḥ, wanda ya karɓi kyauta daga halifa (49.13, 49.20). Wannan tsoron gurɓacewar al'ada ana kiransa waraʿ, wanda ga alama babu wata kalmar Turanci da ta dace da shi sosai; sau da yawa ana kiransa "scrupulousness" ko "scrupulosity." A aikace, waraʿ yana nufin barin alatu, kuma Baghdad, wurin da aka sani da arziki da son jin daɗi a lokacin, tana da alatu masu yawa da za ta bayar. Ba kamar wasu daga cikin abokansa ba, Ibn Ḥanbal bai yarda da tsoma baki cikin jin daɗin wasu ba.

Even if one learned many Hadith reports, one’s task had only begun. Simply knowing many reports was not enough: it was also necessary to live in accordance with the teachings they contained. For Ibn Ḥanbal, this meant denying oneself the luxuries the Prophet scorned, or had never seen, like chairs decorated with silver (53.3). It was, furthermore, necessary to avoid objects and activities that might have been acceptable in themselves but which were tainted by association with something forbidden or merely suspicious. For example, Ibn Ḥanbal had no way of knowing whether the taxes collected by the government were fairly levied and properly spent. He therefore refused to eat anything offered to him during his visits to the palace, whether as a prisoner or a guest (69.13, 69.25, 73.19–21). He also refused to eat bread or gourds baked in an oven that belonged to his son Ṣāliḥ, who had accepted a gift from the caliph (49.13, 49.20). This horror of ritual pollution was called waraʿ, which seems to have no precise English translation; it is often called “scrupulousness” or “scrupulosity.” In practice, waraʿ meant renouncing luxury, and Baghdad—a famously wealthy and self-indulgent place at the time—had many luxuries to offer. Unlike some of his associates, Ibn Ḥanbal did not believe in interfering with the pleasures of others.

Ga abokan zamansa, mahaddatan Hadisi, wannan abin kallo ya kasance abin tausayawa sosai, domin zuhudunsa yana da nasaba da zaɓinsa. Idan aka duba sunayensu, mafi yawan malaman Hadisi a zamaninsa jikokin mawālī ne, wato baƙin da suka karɓi Musulunci. Ubanninsu 'yan kasuwa ne da sana'a, kuma sunayensu irin su "mai aikin fata," "mai sayar da zane," "mai yin vinegar," da sauransu. Ibn Ḥanbal kuwa Balarabe ne: yana cikin mutanen da suka ba duniya Annabi Muḥammadu ﷺ da harshen Wahayi. Haka kuma, iyalinsa sanannu ne, waɗanda suka taimaka wajen kafa gwamnatin Abbasiyawa. Kakansa ya taɓa zama gwamnan Sarakhs, garin da yanzu yake kan iyakar Turkmenistan da Iran (1.7). Ana iya cewa Ibn Ḥanbal zai iya amfani da dangantakar iyalinsa wajen samun aikin gwamnati (3.5–7). Amma ya zaɓi neman Hadisi. Gaskiya ne cewa ya karɓi wani amfani na dukiyar gado: wasu gidaje na haya waɗanda suka samar masa da isasshen kuɗin shiga da zai ciyar da kansa da iyalinsa (40.1). Amma kuma an bayyana cewa yana rage wa masu hayarsa kuɗin haya a kan ko da ɗan dalili kaɗan (42.1). A lokacin da farashi ya tashi, da alama bai karɓi haya ba kwata-kwata, sai ya rayu daga sayar da zanen da matarsa Umm Ṣāliḥ take saƙawa (44.6).

For Ibn Ḥanbal’s contemporaries, this spectacle was an especially moving one because his austerity was a matter of choice. To judge by their names, many of his fellow Hadith scholars were descendants of mawālī, that is, of non-Arabs who had adopted Islam. Their fathers were traders and craftsmen, with names such as “the leather-worker,” “the draper,” “the maker of vinegar,” and so on. Ibn Ḥanbal, by contrast, was an Arab: he belonged to the people who had given the world the Prophet Muḥammad and the language of the Revelation. Moreover, his family was a prominent one that had helped to bring the Abbasid regime to power. His grandfather had served as governor of Sarakhs, a town that now lies on the border between Turkmenistan and Iran (1.7). Presumably, Ibn Ḥanbal could have used his family connections to obtain a government job (3.5–7). Instead, he chose to seek Hadith. Admittedly, he did accept one of the benefits of inherited wealth: a number of rental properties that supplied enough income to support him and his family (40.1). But he is also described as giving his tenants breaks on their rent on the slightest pretext (42.1). When prices were high, he seems not to have collected rent at all, living instead from the sale of cloth woven by his wife Umm Ṣāliḥ (44.6).

Ga masu karatu na zamani, wannan ɓangare ne ke tabbatar da Ibn Ḥanbal, aƙalla a matsayin batun tarihin rayuwa. Idan shi waliyyi ne (ana amfani da kalmar Kiristanci, wacce a zahiri ba ta dace ba), to waliyyin da ba ya jin daɗin waliyyancinsa ne. Ba kamar halittu masu tsarki na labaran karamomi ba, Ibn Ḥanbal ba wai kawai mutumin Allah ba ne, har ma miji ne, uba, kuma mai gida — watakila shi ne kaɗai waliyyin mai gida a cikin adabin duniya. Maimakon ya yi gwagwarmaya da aljanu, yana fama da matsalolin rayuwar yau da kullum: ina zai samo kuɗin yin cupping (49.18), ko ya kamata a bar ’yarsa ta sa kayan ado a gashinta (65.9), ko doka ta yarda ya ajiye man shanu idan mai kayan miya ya aiko shi nannaɗe cikin ganyen chard (49.24). Kuma, ko da wane irin zaɓi mai tsauri ya yanke a ƙarshe, yana ci gaba da yarda cewa ƙoƙarinsa bai taɓa isa ba. Wata rana, da aka tambaye shi yaya yake, sai ya fara wata doguwar magana: “Yaya mutum zai kasance,” ya amsa, “alhali Ubangijinsa yana ɗora masa wajibai, Annabinsa yana buƙatar ya bi sunna, mala’iku biyu suna jiran ayyukan alheri, ransa yana kukan neman abin da yake so, Shaiɗan yana tura shi ga sha’awa, Mala’ikan Mutuwa yana neman ransa, iyalinsa kuma suna neman kuɗi?” (56.6). A ƙarshe, wannan raunin ɗan adam ne ke ƙara ƙarfin mafi kyawun lokutan wannan tarihin rayuwa — ɗaurinsa, shari’arsa, da bugun da ya sha a hannun Inquisition na Abbasiyawa.

For many modern readers, it is this element that vindicates Ibn Ḥanbal, at least as a subject of biography. If he is a saint (to use what is, strictly speaking, an inapposite Christian term), he is one who finds his own sainthood exasperating. Unlike the ethereal creatures of hagiography, Ibn Ḥanbal is not only a man of God but also a husband, a father, and a landlord—possibly the only saintly landlord in world literature. Instead of wrestling with demons, he struggles with the problems of daily life: where to find the money for a cupping (49.18), whether his daughter should be allowed to put clips in her hair (65.9), whether the law permits him to keep butter when the grocer sends it wrapped in leaves of chard (49.24). And, no matter how harsh the choices he eventually makes, he remains convinced that his efforts are never good enough. On one occasion, asked how he was, he launched into a tirade: “How can a man be,” he answered, “with his Lord imposing obligations, his Prophet demanding that he follow the sunnah, his two angels waiting for good deeds, his soul clamoring for what it wants, the Devil goading him to lust, the Angel of Death seeking his life, and his family asking for money?” (56.6). It is this human frailty, finally, that heightens the effect of the most dramatic episodes in this biography—his imprisonment, trial, and flogging at the hands of the Abbasid Inquisition.

Ibn Ḥanbal ba ya yarda da yin hasashe a al'amuran addini. A gare shi, idan larabawan farko ba su yi magana a kan wata tambaya ta imani ko aiki ba, to ba daidai ba ne a tattauna ta. Khalifan Abbasiyya al-Ma'mūn (d. 218/833) kuwa, ba wai kawai ya karɓi hasashe ba, har ma ya yi imanin cewa shi ne mafi cancanta da zai yi shi, kuma cewa talakawansa suna da wajibi su karɓi duk abin da ya yanke. Don gwada wannan ra'ayi, khalifan ya yanke shawarar ɗaukar matsaya a kan wata matsala da za a iya yankewa ta hanyar amfani da hankali kawai. Matsalar ita ce ko Alƙur'ani halitta ne. Matsayin al-Ma'mūn shi ne cewa Allah ya halicci komai, har da Alƙur'ani. Don iƙirarin, a maimakon haka, kamar yadda masu ruwaito hadisai da yawa suke yi, cewa Maganar Allah wani ɓangare ne na Shi kuma saboda haka ma madawwama ce, a zahiri hakan yana nufin zama Kirista, kamar yadda khalifan ya nace. Amma Ibn Ḥanbal ba mutum ne da za a iya shawo kansa da hujja kawai ba. Lokacin da aka nemi ya tabbatar da cewa Alƙur'ani halitta ne, ya ƙi yin hakan sai dai idan masu tambayarsa za su iya ba shi wata aya daga Littafin kanta ko maganar Annabi ﷺ da ke nuna cewa haka yake (69.7ff.).

Ibn Ḥanbal did not believe in speculating about matters of religion. For him, if the first Muslims had not addressed a particular question of faith or practice, it was wrong to discuss it. The Abbasid caliph al-Maʾmūn (d. 218/833), on the other hand, not only embraced speculation, he believed himself the best-qualified person to engage in it, and furthermore that his subjects were obliged to accept whatever he might decide. To test the point, the caliph decided to take a position on a problem that could only be decided by the use of reason. That problem was the createdness of the Qurʾan. Al-Maʾmūn’s position was that God had created everything, including the Qurʾan. To claim instead, as many Hadith-men did, that the Word of God was part of Him and therefore eternal too was in effect to be a Christian, or so the caliph insisted. But Ibn Ḥanbal was not one to be persuaded by mere argument. Asked to affirm that the Qurʾan is created, he refused to do so unless his interrogators could give him a verse from the Book itself or a statement by the Prophet saying this was so (69.7ff.).

A cikin bugu na harsuna biyu na wannan littafi, an riƙe dukkan abubuwan asali, ciki har da isnādai. Wannan bugun takarda kuwa, sabanin haka, yana cire kusan dukkan Babi na 2, 11–14, 20, 90, da 100, yana riƙe sashe guda kawai wakilci, yawanci na farko, da nufin ba mai karatu damar fahimtar abin da aka bari. Domin a kiyaye daidaito da bugun manyan littattafai, duk da haka, an bar lambobin sassan da ke gefe ba tare da canji ba a cikin wannan bugun takarda, koda yake hakan ya haifar da lambobi marasa jere a wasu wurare. Wannan sabon bugu kuma ya cire dukkan isnādai sai na farko kawai (1.1). Kamar a cikin bugun harsuna biyu, sunan da ke cikin baka a farkon kowane rahoto shi ne sunan mai ruwaito. Idan ya bayyana a cikin baka, "Aḥmad" yana nufin "Ibn Ḥanbal" kuma rahoton da ke biye yana zama tarihin rayuwarsa ne. Sauran masu ruwaitowa da aka saba ambata sune 'ya'yan Ibn Ḥanbal, Ṣāliḥ da ʿAbd Allāh, da almajirinsa al-Marrūdhī. Ana iya samun ƙarin bayani game da waɗannan mutane a cikin Ƙamus.

In the bilingual edition of this book, all of the original material, including the isnāds, was retained. This paperback edition, by contrast, drops almost all of Chapters 2, 11–14, 20, 90, and 100, keeping only a representative section, usually the first, intended to give the reader an idea of what has been left out. To maintain consistency with the hardcovers, however, the section numbers in the margins have been left unchanged in this paperback edition, even though that has led to some non-consecutive numbering in some places. This new edition also omits all the isnāds except for the first (1.1). As in the bilingual edition, the name given in brackets at the beginning of each report is the name of the narrator. When it appears in brackets, “Aḥmad” means “Ibn Ḥanbal” and the following report is in effect autobiographical. Other commonly cited narrators are Ibn Ḥanbal’s sons Ṣāliḥ and ʿAbd Allāh, and his disciple al- Marrūdhī. More information on these figures may be found in the Glossary.

A cikin nazarinsa mai zurfi na bugun harshe biyu, Tasi Perkins ya tambaya dalilin da ya sa ban faɗi abubuwa da yawa game da marubucin wannan littafi ba.4 Akwai dalilai da yawa. Na farko, bayanan waje na rayuwar Ibn al-Jawzī suna nan a cikin majiyoyi da dama, a bugu da kuma a intanet. Mafi muhimmanci kuma, Ibn al-Jawzī ya fi zama mai tattarawa fiye da marubuci a ma'anar zamani. Kamar yadda malamin adabi Abdelfattah Kilito ya bayar da hujja, adabin Larabci na da can ya na da nau'o'i daban-daban (waƙoƙin yabo, waƙoƙin soyayya, tarihin rayuwa, da sauransu), amma kaɗan ne daga cikinsu ke da marubuta daban-daban.5 Kamar yadda Ibn al-Jawzī da kansa ya faɗa mana, wannan littafi yana magana ne a madadin dukkan al'adar Ḥanbalī, ba a madadin shi a matsayin mutum ɗaya ba (duba, misali, 100.1). Tabbas, littafin kamar yadda muke da shi yana nuna damuwar zamaninsa da wurinsa. Kamar yadda ya faru, wani babi a littafina na 2001 mai suna Classical Arabic Biography ya yi magana kan wannan batu, kuma galibi na fi so kada in maimaita kaina a nan. Duk da haka, abubuwan da ke taimaka wajen fahimtar rubutun an haɗa su a cikin bayanan ƙarshen wannan bugu (duba, misali, bayanai 335, 337, 342, 371, 379, 385, 386, da 422).

In his insightful review of the bilingual edition, Tasi Perkins asked why I did not have more to say about the author of this book.4 There are several reasons why. First, the external facts of Ibn al-Jawzī’s life are readily found in several sources both in print and on line. More importantly, Ibn al-Jawzī was less an author in the modern sense than a compiler. As the literary critic Abdelfattah Kilito has argued, pre-modern Arabic literature has distinct genres (praise poetry, love poetry, biography, etc.) but few distinct authors.5 As Ibn al-Jawzī himself tells us, this book speaks for the whole Ḥanbalī tradition, not for him as an individual (see, e.g., 100.1). Of course, the book as we have it reflects the preoccupations of his time and place. As it happens, one chapter of my 2001 book Classical Arabic Biography deals with this topic, and for the most part I have preferred not to repeat myself here. Even so, points that help make sense of the text are included in the notes to this edition (see, for example, notes 335, 337, 342, 371, 379, 385, 386, and 422).