Methodological Mix-up from the Hanbalites and their Heirs, the Salafists, and one of the Worst

Instances of Hostility Against the Real Textualist School1

By Abu Muhammad al-Misri
An error constantly seen from those who ascribe to the Hanbali school, as well as the Salafi movement,
is the rejection of practical, functional reality in favor of recorded statements something found with
the majority of them.
A prime example is that of Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim as well as the entirety of the
later Hanbalites and, oddly enough, Sheikh Albani. Ibn Ata-ullah al-Iskandari accused Ibn Taymiyyah of
always following the opinions of Ibn Hazm in jurisprudence, thus compelling Ibn Taymiyyah to accuse
Ibn Hazm of having been a Jahmite. This was the result of pressure upon Ibn Taymiyyah by his
intellectual opponents from the followers of the four mainstream schools of jurisprudence. The
common accusation from all of them was that Ibn Taymiyyah would consistently follow the opinions of
Ibn Hazm which fell outside of the four established schools, thus falling into opinions considered odd
and reprehensible by the majority. As a reaction, both Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim would often
exaggerate any disagreement with the Zahirite school in order to distinguish themselves from it;2 this is
obviously an irresponsible and reactionary manner to deal with disagreement, may God shower his
mercy on both of them and pardon them for any faults.
Albani followed suit in this, as he was also frequently accused of either being a Zahirite or a follower of
Ibn Hazm. This isnt a bad thing in truth, but the ultimate result was that Albani, God bless him and may
he rest in peace, also accused Ibn Hazm of having been a Jahmite and having been weak in the science
of prophetic tradition.
The reality of the Hanbalite and Salafist apprehension about Zahirism is, at the root of things, fear of the
majority.3
So what is the cause of this strange, mixed up apprehension?
The attribution of an actual school of jurisprudence to Ahmad ibn Hanbal and its codification was due in
large part to the efforts of Abu Yala al-Farra` in the fourth century of the Hijiri calendar. Later, the
school would spread in the eastern part of the Muslim world and its followers went from being a tiny
fraction of the Muslim world to a movement rivaling the Shafiites and Hanafites in terms of sheer
numbers. This was achieved by paralleling the principles of the other schools via wholesale acceptance
of pure and analogical reason in religious rulings as well blind following of Ibn Hanbals statements and

Translation by Abu Nadm al-Zahiri. Permission was sought from Abu Muhammad after the translation was
completed.
2
Zahirism, of which Ibn Hazm is the most prominent representative, had been virtually outlawed by the Mamluk
dynasties some time before Ibn Taymiyyah was born.
3
The author means here the Hanafite, Malikite and Shafiite schools; the Hanbalites, forming roughly only 5% of
Sunni Muslims worldwide as of the 2010s, is once again a small minority.

actions as though they constituted revealed, scriptural texts from God;4 all in order to keep up with the
prevailing opinion among the mainstream and avoid disagreement with the majority and to avoid
returning to a minority status. It was as though the truth is always with the highest numbers and thats
that!
Its as though they didnt read the verse of the Qur`an: And if you obey the majority of people on Earth,
they will misguide you and lead you away from the path of God
The Salafist movement in the modern era has followed the same plan as the later Hanbalites mentioned
above, with the Saudi Arabian branch of the movement, for example, being even fiercer in their
absolute blind following of the statements and actions of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, even if such statements
clearly appear to be incorrect in terms of Islamic law. Their behavior with the views of the schools
founder has become, once again, like their behavior with the actual revealed scriptural texts.
The sorry condition of the Salafist movement has become so bad that after the establishment of the
religious universities by the movement, they began to study the principles of jurisprudence from the
books of Juwaini, the Ashari!5
When the Salafist movement finally undertook the publishing and distribution of the book Sunnah by
Abdullah, the son of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, they altered the text and deleted an entire chapter in
condemnation of ra`y6 and those scholars who based jurisprudence on it, as well as in condemnation
of Abu Hanifa. This was done due to political correctness and fear of offending the Hanafites.7 The
reality of the situation is that the followers of these concepts known collectively as ra`y have merely
exploited the Salafist movement and enlisted their help in declaring war on free inquiry, independent
thought and strict following of the scriptural texts of IslamGod help us.
So dont be surprised when you see that the Hanbalites and Salafists are the most absolutely
antagonistic and severe of all people in their hostility toward the Zahirites and others who reject
analogical reasoning as a basic for Islamic jurisprudence; its all a result of this apprehension and fear
which the mainstream has used to exploit these two related groups (Salafists and later Hanbalites) and
turn them into tools in an ideological war against adherence and adherents to the source texts of Islam.

This refers to the Qur`an and the hadith, or recorded statements and actions of the prophet Muhammad (peace
be upon him).
5
This is a reference to Abu al-Maali al-Juwaini, sometimes called Imam of the Two Sacred Mosques by followers
of the Asharite sect the sworn enemies of the Salafists! He was a Shafiite and the best representative of the
majority/mainstream mentioned by the author here.
6
This term includes both pure and analogical reason, considered permissible in secular sciences by all and
prohibited as a method in the religious sciences by Zahirites, early Hanbalites as well as the overwhelming majority
of the early generations of Muslims.
7
I (the translator) can attest to this. All modern editions of the book I have seen which are only printed by
Salafist publishers, as Asharites and Sufis reject the entirety of the book anyway either skip over the chapters in
question and exclude them entirely, or contain blank pages where those chapters should be.