Ibn Hanbal's Refutation of the Jahmiyya: A Textual History.

• Author: McLaren, Andrew G.
• Position: Ahmad Ibn Hanbal - Critical essay

INTRODUCTION

This article is a history of a short polemical treatise ascribed to the prolific Baghdadi muhaddith, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855). The treatise, usually entitled al-Radd 'ala al-zanadiqa wa-l-jahmiyya (Refutation of the heretics and the Jahmiyya; henceforth alRadd), contains a variety of arguments about the proper interpretation of the Quran with regard to several classical theological questions about the nature of Muhammad's message: Was the Quran created (and when)? What does it mean for the Quran to be the speech of God? Did God really speak to Moses? Al-Radd provides answers to these questions by adducing and interpreting groups of verses from the Quran. Although there is often an imagined "opponent" making problematic claims, as in other theological texts of the time the debate is driven by the priorities of the author.

Some scholars, beginning with the Damascene al-Dhahabi (d. 748/1348?), have doubted the work's authenticity, seeing its style of argumentation as too close to a sort of theological reasoning rejected by Ibn Hanbal himself. ' It must have been, these skeptics argue, a retrospective attempt by later Hanbalis to outfit their master with a more developed take on the theological conflict over the nature of the Quran in which he had been embroiled during the Abbasid inquisition (mihna, ca. 218-237/833-85 If.). (2) Of course, not all scholars agree. Most editors of the text have defended its authenticity, citing arguments made in its favor by later Hanbali luminaries such as Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) or pointing to mentions in biobibliographical texts of a work ascribed to Ibn Hanbal under the same title or a related one. (3)

A closer look at the manuscripts of the text, however, reveals significant complications. Modern arguments about al-Radd's authenticity have been based on print editions of the text, which has been published several times since the thirteenth/nineteenth century. As a result, the conclusions present a binary--either the entire text was authored by Ibn Hanbal or it was not. (4) As I document here, however, the matter is significantly more complicated. The text underwent several developments after the death of Ibn Hanbal but it seems to find its roots in the earliest attempts to work out a Hanbali theology. In any given form, the text may postdate the life of Ibn Hanbal, but its growth is part and parcel of the attempt by Ibn Hanbal's followers to work out the meaning of the master's doctrine.

In what follows I make three main arguments. First, an examination of the manuscript tradition reveals three different recensions of al-Radd traveling under the sign of Ibn Hanbal's authorship. The print editions, with one exception, are based on a recension of the text not attested by any manuscript witnesses predating the thirteenth/nineteenth century. Second, the three recensions are not entirely separate: I argue that the earliest recension (which I call "Recension 1") was edited to produce the second recension ("Recension 2"); the third recension ("Recension 3") was the product of combining the earlier two recensions. Third, the manuscript data alone are insufficient to determine the historical origins of the various recensions. Therefore, drawing on biobibliographical literature (Hanbali and otherwise), a critical examination of the text's contents, and a comparison with other Hanbali theological works, I argue that Recension 1 must have originated ca. 350-390/? (960-1000) in Baghdad. Recension 2 seems to have originated in the first half of the sixth/twelfth century, also in Baghdad. Recension 3 emerges in the Hanbali oeuvre in the eighth/fourteenth century in Damascus, but its origins remain obscure.

(1.) MANUSCRIPTS AND RECENSIONS

Most print editions of Ibn Hanbal's al-Radd contain three parts: a very short introduction attributed to Ibn Hanbal detailing the importance of learned people ('ulama') for guiding the community in periods lacking a prophet ("introduction"); a brief refutation of the Zanadiqa's claims that the Quran contradicts itself ("RefZan"); and a somewhat longer refutation of claims attributed to followers of the heresiarch Jahm b. Safwan (d. 128/746) regarding the nature of God, the nature of the Quran, and so on ("RefJahm").

Some editions are lacking one of these elements. In 1961 Morris Seale published a translation of the text based on a single manuscript in the British Library that excludes the Ref-Zan, and three years later Muhammad Shaqfa produced an edition of the text based on a single manuscript in the Zahiriyya library in Damascus that also excluded the RefZan. (5) This discrepancy points already to what is revealed fully in the manuscript tradition, namely, that there are different versions of al-Radd.

I was able to identify thirteen extant manuscript witnesses in total and consulted eight of the nine earliest witnesses. (6) Examination of this manuscript tradition reveals that there were three separate but related recensions of the text (see appendix one for a full listing.) Recension 1 appears in the earliest surviving manuscripts and is the same version published by Seale and Shaqfa--as said, it includes only the introduction and the RefJahm. (7) Recension 2, of which there are two witnesses, omits the introduction, including only the RefZan and the RefJahm. (8) Recension 3, finally, joins all three elements together. (9)

Additionally, some of the manuscripts include one of two statements about the transmission of the text (riwaya). The four earliest links in each transmission agree, but they then split off after the mid-fourth/tenth century. I shall refer to them as "Riwaya X" and "Riwaya Y." (10) (See appendix two for a table listing the constituents of each.) All manuscripts of Recension 1 include Riwaya X. (11) Recension 2 manuscripts have no riwaya. (12) The Recension 3 manuscripts are mixed: Leiden MS Or. 6275 has Riwaya X; the two late Kuwaiti manuscripts of Recension 3 include Riwaya Y; and the rest have no riwaya. (13) These combinations are summarized in Table 1.

What is the relationship among the three recensions? First, it is possible that Recension 3 is indeed the original form and that only late copies have survived. In this case, Recensions 1 and 2 would be abridgments of Recension 3, with each eliminating one of three elements. Second, it is possible that Recension 2 is the first recension. In this case, Recension 1 would have dropped the RefZan and added the introduction, and Recension 3 would be the result of simply adding the introduction to the existing recension. Third, it is possible that Recension 1 is the original. In this case, Recension 2 would abridge Recension 1, and Recension 3 would again be the product of combining Recensions 1 and 2. (14) These possibilities are summarized in Table 2.

The third option--that Recension 1 is the original and that the other two are later modifications--seems most probable for several reasons. First, there is a clear pattern in terms of the manuscripts' copy dates: the earliest three manuscripts are all of Recension 1, and a fourth witness to Recension 1 is roughly contemporary to the earliest securely dated copy of Recension 2, which is dated 906/1500f. (15) (The other witness to Recension 2 is of unclear dating. (16)) The latest origin for any text is Recension 3: the first dated witness was copied in 1227/1812. (17) Most telling is that all copies of Recension 1 predate all copies of Recension 3. Because the manuscripts all postdate the life of the purported author, the general pattern suggested by the manuscripts' relative dating is far from secure. Similarly, because manuscripts may be lost, it is possible that the pattern suggested by the known manuscripts does not represent fully the history of the text. Still, the pattern initially seems clear.

A second reason to think that Recension 1 is earlier than the others has to do with the texts' order: the way the RefZan fits into Recension 3 makes it appear to be an interpolation. There, the RefZan comes after the short, general introduction and before the body of the RefJahm. In Recension 1, however, the introduction is organically linked with the Reflahm. This organic link depends on a logic of specification, which is preserved only in Recension 1. The introduction reads:

Praise be to God who, in every era lacking prophets, causes the excellent among the people of knowledge to summon from error to proper conduct, to withstand tribulation, to restore life by the Book of God to the dead, and to restore sight by the Light of God to the blind. How many felled by Iblis have they revived, and how many lost and straying have they guided! How wonderful their effect on the people, and how repugnant the effect of the people on them! They preserve the Book of God from the distortions of the excessive, the false ascriptions of the erroneous, and the over-interpretations of the ignorant, those who hoist the banners of innovation and let loose the reigns of strife. They disagree regarding the Book, they oppose the Book, and they seek consensus on that which contradicts the Book. They pronounce about God and the Book of God without knowledge. They discuss the ambiguities of the word, and they deceive the ignorant of the people by that which is ambiguous to them. We take refuge with God from the discords of the fallacious. Thus (ka-dhalika) are al-Jahm and his party, who draw people to the ambiguous in the Quran and the hadith, thereby erring and causing many people to err by their discoursing. (18) This introduction articulates the general idea that the ulema fill in for the prophets in times when the community is left without guidance. (19) It is in these times, Ibn Hanbal adds, that fallacious thinkers distort the meaning of the Quran and use its ambiguous verses to deceive the ignorant. In the context of the entire passage, the "thus" (ka-dhalika) marks a specification: the general error Ibn Hanbal has addressed in...