[Abu l-Qosim al-Jabbuliy:] Ko'pchilik Ahmad ibn Hanbal mashhur bo'lgan asosan Mihna davridagi qilgan ishlari tufayli deb o'ylaydi, lekin bu unday emas. Uning mashhurligi shundan iboratki, unga istalgan masala haqida savol berish mumkin edi va u go'yo barcha ilm uning oldida yoyilgandek javob berardi. 9.1

[Abū l-Qāsim al-Jabbulī:] Most people think that Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal became famous largely because of what he did during the Inquisition, but that’s not so. It was because you could ask him about any issue and he would answer as if he had all the learning in the world laid out before him. 9.1

[Al-Ḥarbī]: Men umrimda uch kishini ko'rdim, ular boshqalarga o'xshamas edi: ular hech bir ayoldan tug'ilgan odamlarga o'xshamas edi.

[Al-Ḥarbī]: I lived to see three men like no other: men unlike any of woman born.

Birinchisi Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām edi. Uni faqat hayot nafasiga to‘la tog‘ga qiyoslash mumkin. Ikkinchisi Bishr ibn al-Ḥārith edi. Uni tasvirlashning yagona yo‘li shuki, uning butun vujudi, boshining tepasidan oyoq tagigacha, o‘zini tutish loyidan qorilgandek tuyulardi. Uchinchisi Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal edi. Menga u, qadimgi zamonlar va so‘nggi davrlarning, qanday turdagi bo‘lishidan qat’i nazar, ilmini o‘zida jamlagandek tuyulardi, shuning uchun u xohlagancha gapirishi yoki xohlagan narsasini tutib qolishi mumkin edi. 9.2

The first was Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām. The only thing I can compare him to is a mountain filled with the breath of life. The second was Bishr ibn al-Ḥārith. The only way to describe him is to say that all of him, from the crown of his head down to the soles of his feet, seemed to have been kneaded from the clay of self-restraint. The third was Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal. To me he seemed to have gathered the learning of ancient times and latter days alike, of whatever kind, so that he could say as much as he wanted or keep back whatever he wished. 9.2

[Ad-Dorimiy:] Men hech qachon qora sochli odamni Hadislarni, Allohning Elchisi (Alloh uni duo qilsin va salomat qilsin) rivoyatlarini Ahmaddan ko‘ra ko‘proq yod olgan va ularning barcha ma’nolarini undan yaxshiroq tushungan holda ko‘rmaganman. 9.3

[Al-Dārimī:] I never saw a dark-headed man55 learn more Hadith reports of God’s Emissary (God bless and keep him) by heart, nor reach a better understanding of everything they meant, than Aḥmad did. 9.3

[Ibn Rāhawayh:] Iroqda men Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yahyo ibn Ma'in va o'z tengdoshlarim bilan birga ta'lim olardim. Biz bir-birimizni hadis bo'yicha sinab ko'rardik: bitta rivoyat uchun mavjud bo'lishi mumkin bo'lgan isnod — yoki ikki-uchta turli isnod haqida savol berardik.

[Ibn Rāhawayh:] In Iraq I used to study with Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn, and my own cohort. We used to test each other on Hadith by asking about the chain of transmitters—or the two or three different chains—that might exist for a single report.

Shunda Yahyo ibn Ma'in gapirib, yana bir isnod keltirardi. "Buni hammamiz tan olamizmi?" deb so'rardim, ular hammasi tan olganini aytishardi. Keyin men so'rardim: "Bu rivoyatning ma'nosi nima? Uni qanday izohlaysiz? Undan qanday xulosalar chiqarish mumkin?" 9.4

Then Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn would speak up and offer yet another chain. “We all agree on that one, don’t we?” I would ask, and they would all say they did. Then I would ask, “What does the report mean? How would you explain it? And what implications can we draw from it?” 9.4

Shunda hamma jim bo‘lib qolardi, faqat Ahmad ibn Hanbal bundan mustasno edi.

At that, everyone would fall silent except for Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal.

Ibn Yūnus: Men Abū ʿĀsimning, diniy tushuncha mavzusi ko‘tarilganda, “Bag‘dodda ulardan boshqa hech kim yo‘q”, deganini eshitdim — ya’ni Ahmaddan boshqa.

[Ibn Yūnus:] I heard Abū ʿĀṣim say, when the topic of religious understanding was raised, “There’s no one there”—in Baghdad—“except that man,” meaning Aḥmad.

“Oʻsha yerdan bizga uning kabi tushunadigan hech kim kelmagan.” 9.5

“No one’s ever come to us from there who understands as well as he does.” 9.5

U bir kishi Aliy ibn al-Madiniy ni eslatdi, lekin Abu Osim qo'lini e'tiborsizlik bilan silkitib qo'ydi.

Someone then mentioned ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī, but Abū ʿĀṣim waved his hand dismissively.

[Al-Kūfī:] Yahyo ibn Ma'in bir safar do'konda yashash haqida savol so'raldi. U: "Men bunga aralashmayman", dedi. "Ahmad ibn Hanbaldan so'rang." 9.6

[Al-Kūfī:] Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn was once asked a question about living in a shop. “I don’t deal with that,” he replied. “Ask Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal.” 9.6

Al-Xallol aytishicha, Ahmad ra'y ahlining kitoblarini ko'chirib olgan va yod olgan, lekin keyinchalik ularga murojaat qilishni to'xtatgan. U diniy tushuncha haqida gapirganda, barcha bilim turlarini sinab ko'rgan va tajribasidan kelib chiqib gapira oladigan odamning ohangida so'zlardi. 9.7

Al-Khallāl said that Aḥmad copied down the books of rationalist jurisprudence and memorized them, but then stopped consulting them. Whenever he spoke about religious understanding, he did so with the air of a man who had tested all the forms of knowledge and could speak from experience. 9.7

Ḥubaysh ibn Mubashshir va boshqa bir qancha faqihlar shunday deganlar: "Biz munozara qilganimizda, Ibn Hanbaldan tashqari hammani e'tiroz bilan chaqirishga tayyormiz. U bilan esa biz faqat jim turishimiz mumkin." 9.8

Ḥubaysh ibn Mubashshir and a number of other jurists said, “When we debate, we’re willing to challenge anyone except Ibn Ḥanbal. With him, all we can do is keep quiet.” 9.8

[Al-Ḥarbī:] Ahmad [ibn Hanbal]dan nasroniyga "Alloh sizni rahmatiga olsin!" deb aytish mumkinmi, deb so'ralgan. 9.9

[Al-Ḥarbī:] Aḥmad [ibn Ḥanbal] was asked whether a Muslim should say “May God grace you!” to a Christian. 9.9

"Ha," dedi u. "U shuni aytishi kerak va bu bilan «Alloh seni musulmon qilib, sendan rozi bo‘lsin!» demoqchi bo‘lsin!" Note: the rule says to write "God" rather than "Allah," so the Uzbek for God should be used. Here is the corrected version: "Ha," dedi u. "U shuni aytishi kerak va bu bilan «Xudo seni musulmon qilib, sendan rozi bo‘lsin!» demoqchi bo‘lsin!"56

“Yes,” he said. “He should say it, and mean by it ‘May God grace you by making you Muslim!’”56

U'ga u so'ralgan, agar bir kishi xotini bilan o'sha kechasi jinsiy aloqa qilishga yoki uni talоq qilishga uchta majburiy qasam ichgan bo'lsa va keyin uning hayz ko'rayotganini bilib qolsa, bu haqda ham so'ralgan.

He was also asked whether a man who has sworn three binding oaths to have intercourse with his wife that night, or divorce her, discovers that she is menstruating.

"U unga talaq berishi va u bilan jinsiy aloqa qilmasligi kerak", — deb javob berdi u. — "Alloh taolo talaqqa ruxsat bergan, ammo hayz ko'rayotgan ayol bilan jinsiy aloqa qilishni man etgan."57

“He must divorce her and not have intercourse,” he replied. “God has permitted divorce but forbidden intercourse with a menstruating woman.”57

Abu l-Vafo Ali ibn Aqil (Alloh undan rozi bo‘lsin) dedi: 9.10

Abū l-Wafāʾ ʿAlī ibn ʿAqīl (may God be pleased with him) said:58 9.10

Ajablanarli tomoni shundaki, johil yosh yigitlardan biror marta eshitasiz: Ahmad faqat hadis rivoyat qilishda yaxshi bo‘lgan, dinni tushunishda esa unchalik kuchli emas edi, deb. Bu da’vo ularning qila oladigan eng johilona gaplaridan biridir va ular bunday deydilar, chunki Ahmadning hadisdan foydalanib, qaysi yo‘l afzalroq ekani haqida hukm chiqarish usulini tushunmaydilar. Uning hukmlari esa ular ishlab chiqara oladigan hukmlardan ancha nozik va chuqurdir. Bundan tashqari, ularning o‘zlari tan oladigan hadis ilmidagi uning yuksak mahoratini ham aytmasa bo‘ladi. Bir necha bor u hadis majlislariga qo‘shilgan va eng yaxshilarini ham ortda qoldirgan.

One of the surprising things you hear ignorant young men say is that Aḥmad was no good at religious understanding, only Hadith transmission. That claim is as ignorant as any they could make, and they make it because they don’t understand his method of using Hadith to reach decisions about the preferable course of action. Certainly, his rulings are more nuanced than any we have seen them produce. This is not even to mention his superior mastery of Hadith itself, which they themselves concede. More than once he joined them for Hadith sessions and outdid the best of them.

Uning qarzlarni bo‘lish masalasiga oid o‘ta murakkab hukmlaridan biri shundaki, ikki kishi zimmasidagi qarzni bo‘lish borasida uning qarashlari farq qilgan. Bir kishi zimmasidagi qarzni bo‘lishning haqiqiyligini rad etish borasida esa ular ixtilof qilmagan.

A particularly intricate ruling of his concerns the fact that his views differed about the division of a debt that is the liability of two persons. They did not differ in regard to the rejection of the validity of the division of a debt that is the liability of one person.

Maqsad shundaki, agar bu yagona majburiyat bo'lsa, u taqsimlanmaydi. Chunki qarzni olgan kishi bitta shaxs bo'lib, qarz beruvchi ikki sherikdan biri esa shirkat huquqiga ko'ra faqat o'z huquqi doirasida to'lovni talab qilishi mumkin — boshqa hech narsa qila olmaydi, shuning uchun majburiyatni qanday qilib taqsimlash mumkin? Lekin qarz ikki kishining majburiyati bo'lganda vaziyat boshqacha. Chunki qarz beruvchi ikki sherikdan biri qarzdor ikki kishidan birining majburiyati hisobiga o'z xohishicha da'vo qila oladi. Bunday holatda taqsimlash to'g'ri bo'ladi, chunki to'lov manbalaridan biri ikkinchisidan ajratib ko'rsatilishi mumkin. Uning bunday taqsimlashni man etuvchi qarashiga kelsak, bu, ikki kishi zimmasidagi qarzni taqsimlash mumkin emasligi sababli bo'lsa kerak, chunki majburiyatlar odatda turlicha bo'lib, teng emas.59 9.11

The point seems to be that, if it is a single liability, it is not subject to division. This is because the one who incurred the indebtedness is one person, and one of the two partners who are owed the debt has only the right to demand payment according to his rights under the partnership—he may do nothing else, so how could the liability be subject to division? But that is not the case when the debt is the obligation of two persons. That is because one of the two partners who are owed the debt may, on his own, seek recourse against the liability of one of the two who owe the debt. In such a case the division is valid, because one of the two sources of payment is distinguishable from the other. As for his view according to which such a division is precluded, that would be because division of a debt owed by two persons is precluded due to the fact that the liabilities usually differ, and are not equivalent.59 9.11

Yana bir misol, Ahmadning diniy tushunchasi va fikrlashining nozikligini ko‘rsatadi: unga bir kishi haqida savol berilgan, u to‘rt oyoqlab Ka‘baning atrofini aylanishni nazr qilgan edi. U bunday javob bergan: odam ikki tavof qilsin, lekin emaklamasin. Diniy tushunchaga e’tibor bering: Ahmad yuz bilan yerga yiqilish harakatini o‘ylab ko‘rgan va bu masxaraga sabab bo‘ladi hamda aqlli jonzotni hayvon darajasiga tushirib qo‘yadi, degan xulosaga kelgan. Shu sababli u odamni tomoshaga aylanib qolishdan va Allohning uyi hamda masjidga sharmandalik keltirishdan saqlashga harakat qilgan. Lekin nazrning so‘zini bekor qilish o‘rniga, u qo‘llar o‘rniga harakatning to‘g‘ri vositasi bo‘lgan oyoqlarni almashtirgan.60 9.12

Another example of Aḥmad’s religious understanding and the subtlety of his reasoning is the time when he was asked about a man who had vowed to circle the Kaʿbah on all fours. He answered that the man should perform two circumambulations but not crawl. Note the religious understanding: Aḥmad seems to have contemplated the act of falling on one’s face and concluded that it provokes ridicule and reduces a sentient creature to the level of a beast. Accordingly, he moved to protect the man from becoming a spectacle and bringing dishonor to God’s House and the Mosque. But instead of invalidating the wording of the man’s vow to crawl, he substituted the feet— the proper instrument of motion—for the hands.60 9.12

Boshqa bir holatda Ahmad bir kishi haqida so'raldi, u vafot etib, o'g'liga qo'shiq kuylaydigan cho'rini qoldirgan edi, o'g'lining esa uni sotishga ehtiyoji bor edi. Ahmad uni faqat o'rgatilmagan cho'ri sifatida sotish mumkin, dedi. 9.13

On another occasion Aḥmad was asked about a man who had died and left a singing slave to his son, who needed to sell her. Aḥmad said that she could only be sold as if untrained. 9.13

«Bir xonanda 30 000 dinor turadi», deb aytishdi unga, «ammo o‘rgatilmagan cho‘ri atigi yigirma dinor turadi!» «U faqat o‘rgatilmagan holda sotilishi mumkin», deb takrorladi u.

“A singer is worth 30,000 dinars,” he was told, “but an untrained slave is worth only twenty!” “She can only be sold as if untrained,” he repeated.

Bu uning tomonidan diniy tushunchaning ajoyib namunasidir, chunki cho'rining qo'shiq aytish qobiliyati bekor o'yin-kulgi uchun asbob yasashga o'xshaydi va bosib olish holatlarida unga qiymat belgilanmaydi. Agar kishi qo'shiq aytadigan cho'rini bosib olsa va u keyin qo'shiq aytishni unutib qo'ysa, u javobgar bo'lmaydi.61

This is an admirable bit of religious understanding on his part, because the ability to sing in a slave is like the construction of an instrument of idle diversion and it is not to be assigned a value in cases of usurpation. If a man usurps a singing female slave who then forgets how to sing, he is not liable.61

Boshqa bir holatda Ahmad oldiga, namlanishi uchun qoldirilgan kunjut urug'i orasidan o'lik sichqon topilganida nima qilish kerakligi haqida so'rashdi. U urug'lardan chorva mollariga yem sifatida foydalanish kerakligi haqida hukm chiqardi. 9.14

On another occasion, Aḥmad was asked what to do when a dead mouse was found in a quantity of sesame seeds that had been left to soak. He ruled that the seeds should be used as fodder for livestock. 9.14

“Bularni takror-takror yuvib, keyin suvini to‘kib tashlasa-chi?” deb so‘ralgan u.

“What about rinsing them repeatedly and then draining them?” he was asked.

«Ular namlangandan keyin emas», dedi u.

“Not after they’ve been soaked,” he said.

Bu yerda uning ehtiyotkor fikrlashining yana bir misoli ko‘rinadi. Urug‘lar allaqachon shimib olgan suv ustiga qo‘shimcha suyuqlik quyish bilan olib tashlanmaydi, chunki suv suvni siqib chiqara olmaydi. Bu odamning aqlliligiga va tafsilotlarni chuqur bilishiga e’tibor bering.

This is another example of careful reasoning on his part. The water that had already been absorbed by the seeds would not be removed by pouring additional liquid over them, since water cannot displace water. Note the man’s acumen and his mastery of detail.

Boshqa bir holatda u ipak qurtlarini pillalari ichida o‘ldirish va ular o‘zlari ishlab chiqargan ipni yeb qo‘ymasligi uchun quyoshga qo‘yish haqida so‘ralgan. U shunday dedi: “Agar boshqa yo‘l bo‘lmasa va maqsad ularni azoblash bo‘lmay, boshqa narsa bo‘lsa, unda bu ruxsat etiladi.” 9.15

On another occasion he was asked about exposing silkworms to the sun to kill them in their cocoons and prevent them from consuming the filaments they had produced. “If there is no other way,” he said, “and if the purpose is something other than making them suffer, then it’s allowed.” 9.15

Bu hukm uning katta farosatining dalilidir. U azob beruvchi amalni faqat o'sha azobdan boshqa maqsadga ega bo'lgani uchun ruxsat qildi.

This verdict is evidence of his great discernment. He permitted an act that causes suffering only because the act had a purpose other than causing that suffering.

Ibn ʿAqīl qo‘shimcha qildi: Ahmadning ajoyib aql-zakovatga oid holatlari uning idrokning eng yuqori darajasiga yetgan aqlga ega ekanidan dalolat beradi. Masalan, bir safar unga Abū ʿUbayda tashrif buyurdi va u o‘rnidan turdi. 9.16

Ibn ʿAqīl added: Aḥmad’s striking feats of reasoning attest to the presence of a mind that had reached the highest level of understanding. On one occasion, for example, he received a visit from Abū ʿUbaydah and rose from his seat. 9.16

“Hasn’t it been reported,” asked Abū ʿUbaydah, “that ‘a man’s place is his own’?” “That’s right,” said Aḥmad. “It means he can take the place if he wants, or offer it to someone else.” This degree of understanding, here joined with quick thinking, is unsurpassable.

“Hasn’t it been reported,” asked Abū ʿUbaydah, “that ‘a man’s place is his own’?” “That’s right,” said Aḥmad. “It means he can take the place if he wants, or offer it to someone else.” This degree of understanding, here joined with quick thinking, is un surpassable.

Ushbu darajadagi chuqur tushuncha va sog'lom fikrga duch kelgan har qanday holisona kuzatuvchi faqat kamtarlik bilan ko'zini olib qochishi mumkin.62 Ahmad ibn Hanbalda ayb topadigan kishilar faqat bid'atchilardir, ular uning hukmlari keng qabul qilinib, o'zlarining hukmlari unutilayotganini ko'rib, hasaddan yonadilar. Uning hukmlari shunchalik mashhurki, ko'plab olimlar shunday deydilar: "Muayyan masalalardagi hukmim falon kishining hukmiga muvofiq keladi, ammo mening dalilim Ahmadnikidir." Birovning hukmlari asos sifatida qabul qilinganini ko'rish, har kimni uning fazilatlariga ishontirishga yetarli bo'lishi kerak. 9.17

Faced with this degree of insight and sound judgment, any fair observer can only avert his eyes in modesty.62 The only people who do find fault with Aḥmad are purveyors of reprehensible innovations who burn with resentment when they see how often his judgments are adopted and theirs forgotten. So well known are his verdicts that most scholars say, “My ruling in particular cases follows that of So-and-So, but the basis for my reasoning is Aḥmad’s.” To see a man’s judgments adopted as foundational should be enough to convince anyone of his merits. 9.17