He wrote an encyclopedia of 800 volumes, supported al-Hallaj, and was influenced by the Mu'tazilah, so he paved the way for the emergence of "Hanbali Ash'arism".. Ibn Aqil al-Hanbali, a rebel or a reformer?

“And I suffered from poverty and copying by wages, with chastity and piety, and I do not crowd a jurist in a circle, and I do not ask myself a rank from the ranks of scholars who cut me off from the benefit”!!

When you find such a saying - which was mentioned by Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (d. 795 AH / 1393 CE) in "The Tail of the Hanbali Layers" - it adorns the biography of the translation of a scholar of Islamic history.

You should notice that you are facing the story of a mind striving towards something dear and difficult, which is: independence in sight and thought!

This applies perfectly to the story of Imam Ibn Aqil al-Hanbali (d. 513 AH / 1119 CE) and to the biography of his mind.

Ibn Aqil was a Hanbali jurist and a rational thinker at the same time.

It is unpalatable to some, because the Hanbalis are famous among people for being “textualists”, to the extent that the term “Ahl al-Hadith” is often meant - when it is launched - the Hanbali crowds, but it is strange that this impudent Hanbali imam was inclined towards the Mu'tazila despite His rooted cannabis plant!!

It will not be difficult for the contemplator to identify factors that can explain Ibn Aqil's position and his propensity for this tendency in thinking, for which he fought the most severe intellectual war.

The first of these factors is the nature of his psyche, which was distinguished by openness to the other and the assimilation of his virtues, and the second is the conditions of his upbringing environment, which allowed him to expand his options in benefiting and training, and the third is his view of the conflicts that broke out between Islamic sects, considering that most of them are politically motivated, and therefore it is not right to root them as a chasm that prevents meeting. between the parties.

In fact, all of these factors were available to many scholars to the extent that Ibn Aqil obtained it.

But possessing the will to change, making it a project that establishes objection to the fragmentation of the nation between currents and sects, and calls for standing against the use of the political authority for this division and fragmentation, is what was available to this imam with distinction, so he achieved it in thought and practice with merit and courage, and his way to that was the renewal of Hanbalism in his time through a process of openness that is common. In the aspects of this doctrine, it establishes a rational current within it and reads the origins of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal (d. 241 AH / 855 CE), a reading different from what is prevalent and common about him.

But this imam was not suffering because of that contemplative, epistemological nature only;

He faced severe hardship due to the interventions of the authority, which is by nature afraid of intellectual personalities with a strong tendency to be independent and self-sufficient, then his opponents sought to besiege his phenomenon by bullying the authority and turning it against him, and what added to the complexity of the conflict is that Ibn Aqil did not stop criticizing the Hanbali epistemological commitment towards opponents, With the same intensity with which he criticized the conversion of some of these Hanbalis to the Shafi'i schools of jurisprudence and the Ash'ari schools of thought, when the importance of the "Nezamiyya School" in Baghdad was exalted!!

What is remarkable in all of this is that Ibn Aqil could have moved to the Ash'ari or Shafi'i schools, except that he was a sincere Hanbali in his loyalty and affiliation, and he was seeking sectarian reform from within and confronting the extremist wing with a broad reading of the fundamentals of the unifying doctrine, and this is a profound idea of ​​change that left its positive historical impact in the school of thought. The Hanbalis, Ibn Aqil - despite every disagreement with him - remained mentioned within the classes of its imams and scholars, and his students and his influential approach became methodological inside and outside his school.

And the most painful moment in the life of this imam remains the moment when his residence was forcibly restricted between the years 461-465 AH / 1069-1074 AD, then his public repentance in the year 465 AH / 1974 AD in the presence of the symbols of authority and Hanbali scholars;

That moment was a black point not only in the biography of this brilliant thinker, but also in the history of the intellectual struggle that the authority has always exploited in order to extend its influence and control over the cultural and scientific field. Most likely, Ibn Aqil’s showing of his retreat from his positions - under pressure - took the form of an intellectual maneuver. To end this tragedy, and it is not clear whether his change in his position towards al-Hallaj the Sufi (d. 309 AH / 921 CE) - who expressed his support for him in general - is included in that formal retreat or not?

This article attempts to trace the mental, environmental and psychological factors driving the emergence of this genius, including his receiving knowledge from the Hanafi origin and benefit, then his affiliation with the Hanbalis with conviction and choice, then his companionship with the Shafi’is and Mu’tazilites in order to expand perceptions and angles of view, and when the vision expanded, the phrase overflowed and he wrote the encyclopedia of arts that he said about. Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, it amounted to "eight hundred volumes"!!

Al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH / 1347 CE) said in the 'History of Islam': "He has a book 'Al-Funoon' that was not classified in this world greater than it. He told me who saw this and that volume of it after the four hundred!"

These descriptions - which came from scholarly personalities who do not know courtesy or exaggeration - indicate the breadth of mind and broad horizons that characterized Ibn Aqeel.

Was his tendency to retire an approximate tendency between the intellectual sects, or was he really convinced of some of the Mu'tazila's sayings?

And to what extent did he succeed in reforming it within the Hanbali school of thought by establishing a rational approach within it that paved the way for the emergence of the "Hanbali Ash'ari" movement, of which Imam Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH / 1201 CE) was one of its pioneers?

That is what this article - which was prepared on the occasion of the 900th anniversary of the death of Ibn Aqil - seeks to find out some of his answer and its aspects in order to reveal the truth of what this controversial imam did!

Rational

upbringing Ibn Aqil grew up rationally in a Hanafi family environment that tended to retire;

So he began his quest for knowledge as a Hanafi imitator, then he switched to the Ahmad school of thought, but he remained open to all currents and schools.

And by following his sheikhs from whom he learned from them, we realize that he did not believe in confining the acquisition of knowledge to the sheikhs of the sect only, as he learned from the pillars of all arts, such as Judge Abi Yali al-Hanbali (d. Al-Walid Al-Mu'tazili (d. 478 AH / 1085 CE), who secretly taught the Mu'tazila sayings to Ibn Aqil.

And in the words of al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH / 1347 CE) in “Biography of the Flags of the Nobles”;

Ibn Aqil "took the knowledge of rationalities from the two sheikhs of the retirement, Abi Ali bin Al-Walid and Abi Al-Qasim bin Al-Taban, two companions of Abi Al-Hussein Al-Basri (d. 436 AH / 1045 CE), so he deviated from the Sunnah";

And he said in his translation of this Ibn Al-Walid: “He was a caller to retirement, and Ibn Aqeel deviated from it.”

However, al-Dhahabi described him - in his books "Biographies of the Nobles' Flags" and "Lessons" - as "he was a prominent imam with many sciences and extraordinary intelligence", and that he was "Sheikh of the Hanbalis";

And it is the same description that he also gave to Sheikh Ibn Aqil: Judge Abi Ya’la al-Hanbali, to whom “the imamate in jurisprudence ended, and he was the scholar of Iraq in his time”!!

And in the translation of Ibn Aqil al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH / 1448 CE) - in his book 'Lisan al-Mizan' - he said that he was "one of the scholars and singled out his time with knowledge, transmission, intelligence and sophistication ... except that he contradicted the predecessors and agreed with the Mu'tazila in several heresies."

By examining the translation of Ibn Aqil al-Hanbali, we realize that he was not a Mu'tazilite with the testimony of his opponents, but rather he agreed with the Mu'tazila only in some issues, and this is the apparent point of disagreement between him and his opponents.

Upon investigation, we find that many Islamic scholars agreed with the Mu'tazila, the Shiites, the Kharijites, and other sects on many issues.

Al-Juwayni (d. 478 AH / 1085 CE), for example, disagreed with the predecessors in the condition of the Quraish people in the imam, and agreed with the Kharijites in not requiring them, and made the matter to choose and elect the nation.

Therefore, al-Juwayni rejected the hadith “the imams are from Quraysh,” which the majority of Sunnis relied on.

He says in his book “Giath of the Nations”: “Who clarifies the truth in that is that we do not find from ourselves the snow of the chests; The [definite] knowledge of the requirement of lineage in the Imamate.”

And we find al-Dhahabi - who describes Ibn Aqil as deviating from the Sunnah due to issues - defending his sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH / 1328 CE) in his translation, despite his report that he disagrees with him in the origins and branches;

As Ibn Hajar quotes him - as part of his translation of Al-Dhahabi in 'The Pearls Hidden in the Notables of the Eighth Hundred' - as he said on the authority of Ibn Taymiyyah: "And I do not believe in his infallibility, but rather I disagree with him on original and subsidiary issues."

What al-Dhahabi’s words imply is that the origins themselves are of varying degrees.

Abu al-Tayyib al-Baqillani (d. 402 AH / 1012 CE) disagreed with his imam, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari (d. 324 AH / 935 CE) on many issues, as stated by al-Ghazali in “Faisal al-Tafariqah”;

Where he says: “From where did it prove to him (i.e. the one who made the infidel in opposition to the Al-Ash’ari doctrine) that the truth was a waqf upon him until he decreed the disbelief of Al-Baqillani when he contradicted him (= Al-Ash’ari) in the attribute of survival of God Almighty, and claimed that it is not a description that is superfluous to the Essence ?! Al-Ash’ari, who is Al-Ash’ari in opposition to Al-Baqalani?

Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH / 1111 CE) also opposed his Ash'ari group on many issues, until fanatics among them expelled him from the religion.

And his disbelief - from within the Shafi’i sect, not from outside it - was a reason for his classification of his book “Faisal Al-Tarafa between Islam and heresy”, in which he says, refusing to limit the truth to a specific doctrine: “If he claims that the limit of blasphemy does not contradict the doctrine of [Abi Al-Hassan] Al-Ash’ari (d. 324 AH / 936 AD) - or [the] doctrine of the Mu'tazilites, the Hanbali, or others - so know that he has become unruly, has been restricted by imitation, and he is blind from the blind, so do not waste time reforming him!!

Scientific tolerance

The people of Islamic sects may have mercy on each other despite the disagreement between them;

Imam Al-Fakhr Al-Razi (d. 606 AH / 1209 CE) approves of Ibn Sina (d. 429 AH / 1039 CE) in his book 'The Basis of Sanctification' and says: "The sheikh - that is, Ibn Sina, the president - may God be pleased with him, said: This speech is in agreement with revelation and prophecy," although Ibn Sina Sina is farthest from the Sunnis from the Mu'tazila.

Many of the Sunnis were taught by other than the Sunnis and vice versa, and when tracking, we find that many of them differ in doctrinal and jurisprudence with their sheikh or student.

Rather, hadith scholars permitted the narration of the innovator with conditions known to them, the most important of which is that he be trustworthy and truthful.

The books of authenticity among the Sunnis - headed by Sahih al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH / 870 CE) and Muslim (d. 261 AH / 875 CE) - narrated from the innovator.

Concerning that, Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar says:

“As for heresy, the one who is described in it is either one who disbelieves in it or commits transgression. So the one who disbelieves in it must be that expiation agreed upon by the rules of the imams…, and the one who disbelieves in it is like heresy… sects opposing the principles of the Sunnah in an apparent disagreement, but it is based on an interpretation that appears to be justifiable. Acceptance of the hadeeth of this is his way if he is known to guard against lying, is well-known for his safety, from the wickedness of manhood, and is described as religious and worshipful.

And we conclude from all this that what happened to Ibn Aqil in terms of persecution at the hands of his peers from the Hanbalis cannot be understood as a result of his approval of the Mu'tazila or because of his request for the sciences of rationalities only on some of them, but there are intertwined matters that must be overlooked and followed.

If Ibn Aqil, according to the testimony of his opponents, is not a Mu'tazilite, rather he is only influenced by some of their sayings;

It seems that it was inclusive and synthesized, and among his words that support his syncretic nature is what Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali (d. 763 AH / 1362 CE) quoted him in his book “Al-Furu’”: “It is not necessary to deviate from people’s habits except in what is forbidden, because he, peace be upon him, left the building of the Kaaba. And he left Ahmad (Ibn Hanbal, who died in 241 AH / 855 CE) performed the two rak’ahs before Maghrib and said: I saw people not knowing him.

And he is in this syncretic school of thought similar to a few in the history of Islam, who tried to approximate, contain and synthesize at the level of the men of the doctrines and the sayings of the doctrines, such as al-Ezz Ibn Abd al-Salam al-Shafi'i (d. 660 AH / 1262 CE), who criticized the extremism of some Ash'aris in the takfir;

And al-Qarafi al-Maliki (d. 684 AH / 1285 CE), who permitted sectarian fabrication, and deviated from some of the sayings of his Maliki school of thought.

And other scholars who spend their time in order to renew the matter of religion, and to enhance the jurisprudential study with their deep readings.

It seems that Ibn Aqil's synthesis philosophy was an important factor in the causes of his ordeal as well.

As he had an approximate approach towards Sufism - and according to al-Dhahabi he was a prominent preacher until Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH / 1201 CE) was affected by his preaching approach - as he first defended Abi al-Hussain al-Hallaj (d. 309 AH / 921 CE), praising him even though he was killed on charges of heresy.

And he said about that, according to Ibn al-Jawzi’s narration in “The Regular”: “I believed in al-Hallaj that he was one of the people of religion, asceticism, and dignity, and I supported that in part of his work, and I repent to God Almighty for him.”

And towards the Mu'tazila, where he was apprenticed to their men, so he embraced some of their views, or in Ibn Taymiyyah's phrase - in 'Preventing the Conflict of Reason and Transmission' - he had "an agreement with the Mu'tazilah, as he did in his book "Slandering Similarity and Ithbat al-Tanzih" and other books.

As well as his syncretism towards the Ash'aris;

Where Abu Ishaq Al-Shirazi studied, who said that he taught him the art of debating, and took over his washing when he died.

And in the year 495 AH / 1102 AD, the Shafi’i jurist Abi al-Hasan al-Tabari, known as Ikiya al-Harasi (d. 504 AH / 1110 AD) - and he was the chief teacher of the Nizamiyya school after Imam al-Ghazali left it - was arrested on charges of saying “in the opinion of the esoteric ...”, and a group testified to his innocence of that, including Abu Al-Wafa bin Aqeel";

As narrated by Ibn Al-Jawzi in his book 'The Regular'.

The conflict of authority

and it seems that Ibn Aqil’s synthesis spread its spirit among his students until it became common for them to travel between schools of thought.

Ibn al-Jawzi was mentioned among Ibn Aqil's students: Aba al-Fath Ibn Burhan al-Baghdadi (d. 518 AH / 1124 CE), who was a Hanbali and then became a Shafi'i. And acumen, so our companions did things to him that their coarse morals could not bear, so he moved .. and found the companions of Al-Shafi’i on the most fulfilling of what he wanted of honor, then he was promoted and they made him a teacher of discipline!!

Ibn al-Jawzi also translated to Ibn Aqil's other student, Abu Jaafar Ibn al-Zaytouni (d. 542 AH / 1147 CE), who was a Hanbali and then moved to "the Abu Hanifa school of thought ... and became a speaker calling for retirement," unlike his sheikh Ibn Aqil, whose family was a Hanafi school of thought, so Hanbali himself.

And Ibn Aqil has an explicit statement - transmitted by Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (d. 795 AH / 1393 CE) in “The Tail of the Hanbali Layers” - indicating the preponderance of reading the role of his conciliation in his ordeal.

He says: "Our Hanbali companions wanted me to desert a group of scholars, and that deprived me of useful knowledge."

He describes the dissenters here as scholars, and bemoans the benefits he missed because of the tyranny of the hard-liners of his school of thought and their deprivation of him from attending the lessons of the dissenters.

Perhaps Ibn Taymiyyah was successful when he casually tried to justify Ibn Aqil’s departure from the stable doctrinal of his Hanbali companions.

He said: “And Ibn Aqil has different types of speech, because he was one of the smartest people in the world who thought and looked into people’s words!!”

The most prominent issues for which Ibn Aqeel was attacked can be summarized as follows: 1- His mercy on al-Hallaj and his defense of him.

2- His closeness to the Mu'tazila.

3- His relationship with the political authority.

4- His relationship with the scholars of his school of thought.

These factors were among the most important things that his opponents relied on in pitting the state against him, and we say: the state, because had it not been for the state’s intervention, Ibn Aqil would have remained on the same intellectual line, practicing his jurisprudential study and the acceptance of scholars and the public on him, and perhaps his reform line would have had another matter if the spaces were left to him without Intrusion of the Caliphate Palace.

It is clear that the intervention of the caliphate palace and its industry is the ordeal of the man who exaggerated his arguments.

Ibn Aqil himself taught at the Al-Mansur Mosque in Baghdad, succeeding his sheikh, Abu Ali al-Hanbali, and took the lead in the Hanbali community.

Which we detail as follows:

When Sheikh Abu Yali died - who was Ibn Aqil, one of his loyal students - Ibn Aqil was singled out by his succession in the authority of the sect, but one of the students of Abu Ya Ali al-Nabaha, who is the honorable Abu Jaafar bin Abi Musa al-Hashemi (d. A reference to his being the most deserving of Sheikh Al-Alami's inheritance - he did not accept Ibn Aqil's succession to Abu Ya'la.

Most of the Hanbalis viewed with suspicion the leadership of Ibn Aqil after the death of their sheikh, and they supported the leadership of Al-Hashemi, so he became - in Al-Dhahabi's expression in the 'History of Islam' - "the imam of the Hanbali sect in his time without defense."

Thus, the waves were high in front of Ibn Aqil, so he prevented him from being alone in the reins of the religious authority after the death of his sheikh.

Abu Mansur Ibn Yusuf (d. after 458 AH / 1067 AD) - a great Hanbali merchant and advisor to the caliph al-Qaim - helped Ibn Aqil take the lead after Abu Ya’la, and introduced him as a teacher at the al-Mansur mosque in which Abu Ya’la was studying, and undertook to sponsor him financially and protect him doctrinally and politically.

Ibn Aqeel says about himself during that period, according to Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali: “Abu Mansour Ibn Yusuf came to me, and I had the greatest favor from him, and he introduced me to fatwas with the presence of someone older than me (meaning his arch-rival the Hashemite), and he sat me in the Baramkeh circle in the Mansour mosque when he died My sheikh (= Abu Ya’la) in the year fifty-eight [and four hundred], and he did all my supplies and beautified me.”

Internal polarization

It was remarkable that most of the Hanbalis supported the "authentic" Hashemite Hanbali against the sectarian "intruder" Ibn Aqil;

This is due to the most important reasons:

1- Al-Hashemi's representation of the Hanbali heritage;

He is the closest scholar of the sect to his jurisprudential and doctrinal legacy, and he was not a critic of Hanbali practices like Ibn Aqil, who was famous for his rationality and doctrinal self-criticism.

Also, Al-Hashemi is the true representative of the conservative school of Abi Ali, which was pursuing a strict approach towards the Mu'tazila and Ash'arites, and then Ibn Aqil with the approximate approach was seen as not representing the school of his sheikh in real representation.

2- Al-Hashemi’s doctrinally strict personality, who does not know any concession to opponents from outside or within the sect, and he was very heavy on the violators, practicing enjoining good and forbidding evil himself, and he had a major role in what was called the sedition of Sheikh Abi Nasr Ibn Al-Qushayri (d. 514 AH / 1120 CE) - Or the Hanbali strife - the year 469 AH / 1076 AD, in which a number of Hanbalis and Ash’aris died, which led to the intervention of the caliphate palace for reconciliation between the wrestlers, which contributed to strengthening the authority of the Hashemite among the Hanbali masses.

Hence, we realize some of the reasons for his severity towards Ibn Aqil.

3- Ibn Aqil's practice of self-criticism of the sectarian interior;

Where Ibn Aqil attacked the Hanbali adherence to opponents, and criticized the doctrinal shifts of many Hanbalis towards the Shafi'i and Ash'ari school when he exalted the importance of the Nizamiyya school, and accused them of having only converted to greed for money and prestige;

And he says, according to what Ibn al-Jawzi narrates about him in the “Al-Muntazim”: “And I saw many of the followers of the sects moved and hypocritical, and documented [they] the doctrine of Al-Ash’ari and Al-Shafi’i, hoping for glory and rewards.”

Ibn Aqil could have moved to the Ash'arites or the Shafi'is, except that he was a sincere Hanbali, but his Hanbali project was a mediator between the opponents of the sect and the dominant militant wing in it.

Which reduced his authority and position within the Hanbali school of thought.

4- What weakened Ibn Aqeel’s authority within the school of thought was his apprenticeship of the opponents of the Hanbali, such as some of the Mu’tazila sheikhs, and Shirazi al-Shafi’i, who does not forget the Hanbali role in the sedition of Abi Nasr Ibn al-Qushairi, as he was one of those who attended the councils of Ibn al-Qushairi in the Nizamiyya school in which he criticized his Hanbali opponents.

There were great scholarly battles between Shirazi and al-Hashemi related to the influence of their respective sects and their position in the jurisprudential arena.

It seems that Al-Hashemi saw Ibn Aqil's apprenticeship at the hands of his opponent as a betrayal of him and the doctrine.

It seems that the biggest factor in the dispute between al-Hashimi and Ibn Aqil was related to the leadership of the authority, and speaking in the name of the doctrine after the death of their sheikh, Abu Ya'la.

This struggle over reference reminds us of the struggle that took place after the death of Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar between some of his students, which ended in a struggle between the two nations of two scholars in their era: his direct student Al-Hafiz Al-Sakhawi (d. One of the most famous conflicts between peers in the history of Islam!

This struggle between scholars over reference is part of the nation's history and reflects the richness of jurisprudence and science, and serves the development of the scientific lesson.

Thus it leads to deep discussions on particular issues, to ratings and responses to ratings, and responses to responses;

Which is considered a preserver of the scientific community's heritage, and a record full of what is historical and what is jurisprudential, and thus contributes to understanding the course of events at that time scientifically and socially.

Authoritarian intervention

Ibn Aqil’s ordeal began scientifically with the clash of his peers from within the sect with him because of the leadership of the Hashemite since the year 458 AH / 1067 AD approximately, then with the intervention of the Caliphate Palace and Ibn Aqil placed him under house arrest between the years 461-465 AH / 1070-1074 AD, then with his public repentance in the year 465 AH / 1074 AD With the attendance of the symbols of authority and the Hanbali scholars.

It is the repentance, the text of which was preserved for us by Ibn al-Jawzi in 'Al-Muntazim', quoting from Ibn Aqil's handwriting, and among what was stated in it: "I disavow God Almighty from the innovated doctrines, isolation and others, and from the company of his lords and glorification of his companions, and to have mercy on their predecessors and multiply their opponents. And I would not have suspended him ( = I summarized it) and my writing was found in it from their doctrines and delusions, so I repent to God Almighty for writing it, and that it is not permissible to write it, read it, or believe it.

At that time, the political authority did not view the dispute between Ibn Aqil and his opponents as a private doctrinal matter, but rather tried to use it in order to enhance its presence and dominance in religious affairs.

Al-Hashemi was close to the Abbasid caliph, Al-Qaim bi-Amr Allah (d. 467 AH / 1074 CE), and they were related, and he tried to include the caliph in his battle against Ibn Aqil to curb him from his “heresy” represented by repeating some of the Mu'tazilah sayings and general sympathy for Sufism.

In the end, Ibn Aqil was forced and carried a burden to write "Repentance", but realistically he remained on his convictions until he died on them;

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali says in his translation of it: “This is because our companions used to resent him for his hesitation to Ibn al-Walid and Ibn al-Tabban, the two sheikhs of the Mu’tazila, and he used to read to them the science of theology secretly, and sometimes a kind of deviation from the Sunnah appeared from him, and he interpreted some of the attributes; and some of that remained in him.” Until he died, may God have mercy on him.”

Ibn Rajab's statement is explicit in that his "repentance" was apparent and by the pressure of the sword of power that was drawn upon him!

This is confirmed by this incident narrated by Judge Ibn al-Arabi al-Maliki (d. 543 AH / 1148 CE);

He said in his interpretation of “Ahkam al-Qur’an” (Surat al-Tawbah / verse: 77): “I was in the council of the just minister Abi Mansour bin Jahir (d. 493 AH / 1100 CE) …, and the reader read: {Greeting them on the day they meet him with peace} and I was in the second row of the episode So, Abu Al-Wafa Ali bin Aqeel, the imam of the Hanbalis, appeared in it, and he was a Mutazili of the fundamentals (= creed). When I heard the verse, I said to a friend of mine who was sitting on my left: This verse is evidence of seeing God in the afterlife, because the Arabs do not say: “I met so-and-so” unless if She saw him, so the aforementioned Abu Al-Wafa turned his face to us quickly, and said that he supports the doctrine of isolation that God does not see in the Hereafter: He [the Almighty] said: {So he followed them with hypocrisy in their hearts until the day they meet Him}, and you have that the hypocrites do not see God in the Hereafter.

Moreover, the phrase Ibn Rajab is also explicit in Ibn Aqil's approximate approach, which "interpreted some attributes" in the Ash'ari way, so is it an approximate verb that includes the nation's currents?

Or is it the result of being influenced by his Shirazi sheikh?

Maybe both.

But the important question is: Why did the political authority decide its position on Ibn Aqil and deal firmly with his ideas: stone, coercion, and prevention?

Was the political authority keen on the belief of the Sunnis and the community.. Or were there other reasons that made the authority adopt a hard line towards Ibn Aqil?

There are several hypotheses through which one can understand the position of the state/palace of the caliphate towards him:

1- Ibn Aqil's political position: We note from his words that his position on the political authority and on the scholars close to it was negative, as he criticized the conversion of the Hanbali scholars from their school of thought because of the greed for Money and prestige, this predicts a rebellious and bold personality, seeking reform without equivocation.

Ibn Aqil warns - in his book "The Arts", as reported by Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali (d. 763 AH / 1362 CE) in his book "Shari'ah Literature" - scholars who approach power.

And he says: “Those who mix with the Sultan most of all because of their keenness to spend their souls on him by showing virtues and scrutinizing doctrines in realizing the goals and demands; they reach an amount that they neglect from what is right, because the sultans are always sensing and fearing the temptations of the enemies, so if they feel from a person alienation (= disguise) and a glimpse, they will beware of him Their conditions are urgent, and avoidance is a kind of exclusion, because there is no closeness to those whose plots you do not believe... The Sultan has a treasure that he does not like to appear to everyone.

And when Al-Ghazali criticized the violators of Sufism;

He said, according to what Ibn al-Jawzi quoted him in “Dressing the Devil”: “And I censure Sufism for reasons that the Sharia requires censuring those who do it, including … [they] accept food and expenses from darkness, immorality, and usurpers of money!!”

In no uncertain terms;

Ibn Aqil explains his position on the state and the princes by saying what Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali narrated about him: “And the states turned against me, so the state of authority - not in general - took me from what I think is the truth, so I was harmed by my companions (= the Hanbalis) until blood was demanded, and I was harmed in the state of the system (= minister The Seljuk Nizam al-Malik, who died in 485 AH / 1092 CE) by request (= persecution) and imprisonment, for whom I feared everyone, do not disappoint me in you!

However, it seems that he died satisfied with this minister who harassed him.

Al-Dhahabi quoted him - in “Biography of the Flags of the Nobles” - as saying in it: “The minds are dazzled by the biography of the regime, with generosity, generosity, and justice, and a revival of the landmarks of religion. In the hereafter, may God have mercy on him.”

It was his independent position on authority that allowed him to denounce it whenever he saw a deviation from what he considered the correct legal position.

And let us listen to him saying to the minister Ibn Juhayr in a letter addressed to him in the year 488 AH / 1095 CE, criticizing some wrong practices, and Ibn al-Jawzi conveyed to us the text of it in the “Regular”: “If it were not for my belief in the validity of the resurrection, and that we have another house - so that I may be in it as I praise it - I would not hate it.” My soul to a modern owner..., But if the religion of Muhammad and the religion of Bani Jahir meet, then by God, I do not weigh this with this...; [q] Fear God's wrath, for His wrath cannot be resisted by heaven or earth!"

2- The shortening of the caliphate and the settling of scores: The shortening of the caliphate was inclined towards the Hanbali line at that time, as there was an alliance between the two sides, and the caliph standing by the command of God revered Abu Jaafar al-Hashemi, and therefore he recommended that al-Hashemi undertake the matter of washing and shrouding him after his death;

While the people of opinion - especially the Ash'aris and Shafi'is - were allied with the vizier Nizam al-Mulk.

The caliph was anxiously looking at the Shafi'i Ash'ari influence supported by the vizier, waiting for the opportunity to limit their expansion.

and pending the improvement of the political situation;

The caliph supported the conservative Hanbali line to ensure its legitimacy in the heart of Baghdad.

Therefore, Ibn Aqil's reformism, which seemed to be collusion with the Hanbali opponents - from the Mu'tazila, Ash'ari and Shafi'i - not only worried al-Hashemi;

Rather, it may have worried the caliph himself, who was politically keen on the coherence of the Hanbali school of thought to balance the influence of the Seljuk minister, in addition to his close relationship with al-Hashemi!

3- The same Ibn Aqil al-Abiya: He was not one of those who flattered for the sake of money or prestige, and therefore he did not like the proximity to the caliphate palace as did his Hashemite opponent, although the latter clashed with power in the last year of his life (year 469 AH / 1076 AD) during the reign of the Caliph Al-Jadid Al-Muqtada bi-Amr Allah (d. 487 AH / 1094 CE), and was imprisoned until he died of his illness in prison.

Then, Ibn Aqil lived poor because of his ordeal, especially after the death of his sponsor, Abu Mansour, the great Hanbali merchant.

And he says about himself, according to what Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali narrated about him: “And I suffered from poverty and copying for rent, with chastity and piety, and I do not crowd a jurist in a circle, and I do not ask myself to rank among the ranks of scholars who cut me off from the benefit.”

It cannot be claimed that Ibn Aqil completely failed to pass his project;

Before his death (in the year 513 AH / 1119 CE), Ibn al-Jawzi was born in the year 510 AH / 1116 CE, and he ended his life as a Hanbali reformist on the same approach as Ibn Aqil in doctrine and preaching, even if he did not declare that;

The reformist school of Ibn Aqil strengthened within the Hanbali school, which was then highly centralized.

Perhaps it is useful in that that Ibn al-Jawzi was a student of Abi al-Fadl Muhammad bin Nasser al-Baghdadi (d. 550 AH / 1155 CE), and he is one of Ibn Aqil’s students.

It is no secret that Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH / 1201 CE) is one of the most scholars who mentioned the sayings of Ibn Aqil, and therefore Ibn Rajab said - in his translation of Ibn al-Jawzi - that he "was glorifying Abu al-Wafa' Ibn Aqil," and he said in his translation of Ibn Aqil that "from the meanings of his words he derives Abu al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzi in preaching.

Rather, the tribe of Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 654 AH / 1256 CE) accurately informs us of the size of what his grandfather took from Ibn Aqil.

He says - in his book 'Mirror of Time' - speaking of Ibn Aqil's huge book called 'The Arts': "My grandfather summarized ten volumes from it and divided them into his compilations!"

Ibn Taymiyyah was aware of this intellectual connection between the two men, so he made the Ash’aris closer to the Ahmad school of thought than Ibn al-Jawzi and Ibn Aqil, when he said in “During the Conflict of Reason and Narration”: “And Al-Ash’ari was closer to the school of Ahmad and the Sunnis than many of the later people affiliated with Ahmad who leaned To some of the Mu'tazila's words, such as Ibn Aqil and the charity of Ibn al-Hussein (d. 573 AH / 1177 CE, and he was one of Ibn Aqil's students) and Ibn al-Jawzi.

Ibn al-Jawzi follows the path of Ibn Aqil, directing arrows of his criticism of the rigid Hanbali scholars in his view, who are fanatical towards Ahmad and correct all the narrations of the Musnad with fanaticism. He even criticized Sheikh Aba Ya'la - Ibn Aqil's teacher - because of his doctrinal rigidity.

This led to the accusation of Ibn al-Jawzi - later - of the deviance of the doctrine.

As happened before with Ibn Aqil.

Ibn al-Jawzi took wider steps when he adopted the method of Ash'ari interpretation in the verses of attributes, so he decided on his famous law, which he stipulated in his book 'Fayd al-Khater': "Delegation to the public and interpretation to scholars."

As if he was preoccupied and concerned with that eternal Hanbali/Ash’ari conflict, so he wanted to be a connecting link and convergence between the two sides in what could be called the “Hanbali Ash’ari” movement, which seems to have had many Hanbali affiliates until Najm al-Din al-Tawfi al-Baghdadi al-Hanbali (d. 716 AH / 1316 CE) Who was taken from Ibn Taymiyyah in Damascus.

Ibn al-Imad al-Hanbali (d. 1089 AH / 1678 CE) translated - in 'Gold Fragments' - by this al-Tufi, describing him as "the fundamentalist, fanciful Hanbali ... and with all that he was a Shiite ..., even he said to himself [poetry]: A seemingly rejecting

Hanbali * feel that it is one of arrogance!!

And after him, Imam Al-Sakhawi mentions - in his book 'The Luminous Light' - among the notables of the ninth AH / 15th century CE who he called "the jurist Omar al-Maqdisi al-Hanbali al-Ash'ari (d. after 865 AH / 1460 CE)"!!

It is not farfetched that the emergence of this Ash'ari current within the Hanbalis was the one that paved the way for the emergence of the "Hanbesha" phenomenon, which is an etymological carving of the adjective: "Hanbali / Shafi'i";

That is, the Hanbali scholars who converted to the Shafi'i school of thought closely related to the Ash'ari faith.

Among the examples of this phenomenon is that Ibn Hajar, when he translated - in “Nuzhat al-Albab” - by Muhammad bin Ahmed bin Khalaf al-Bandaniji (d. 538 AH / 1143 CE), nicknamed “Hanbash”, he said that “he was a Hanbali, so he turned Shafi’i, so he was called that (title: Hanbash)”! !

According to what appears from the data of the books of biographers and classes of scholars who converted to sects, the Hanbalis were the most adherents of the Shafi’i schools of thought.

ومن منتقلي الحنابلة غير "حَنْبشَ" المذكور: أسعدُ بن أحمد الشيباني المعروف بابن البلدي (ت 601هـ/1204م) الذي أورد المؤرخ الصفدي (ت 764هـ/1362م) ترجمته -في ‘الوافي بالوفيات‘- فقال إنه "تفقه في صباه على مذهب أحمد.. ثم انتقل إلى مذهب الشافعي". وذكر ابن النجار -في ‘تتمة ذيل تاريخ بغداد‘- أبا القاسم عمر بن أبي بكر الدبّاس (ت 601هـ/1204م) فقل إنه "كان حنبليا ثم انتقل إلى مذهب الشافعي، وقرأ الكلام على مذهب الأشعري، وسكن المدرسة النِّظامية [ببغداد]..، وسمع الحديث الكثير..، وكان يتولى الإشراف على دار الكتب النظامية بالمدرسة".

وحين ترجم ابن خلّكان (ت 681هـ/1282م) -في ‘وفيات الأعيان‘- للإمام سيف الدين الآمديّ (ت 631هـ/1234م) وصفه بأنه "الفقيه الأصولي..، كان في أول اشتغاله حنبلي المذهب، وانحدر إلى بغداد وقرأ بها..، وبقي على ذلك مدة ثم انتقل إلى مذهب الإمام الشافعي". وأورد ترجمتَه الذهبيُّ -في ‘سِيَر أعلام النبلاء’- فقال إنه "العلامة المصنِّف فارس الكلام، سيف الدين الآمدي الحنبلي ثم الشافعي..، لم يكن في زمانه من يُجاريه في الأصليْن (= أصول الدين وأصول الفقه)". وربما يُفهم من ربط ابن خلكان بين انتقال الآمدي إلى الحنبلية وإقامته ببغداد -وهي حينها معقل للحنابلة- أن تحوله المذهبي جاء مُواءمةً مع بيئته الجديدة، هذا مع تلمذته لبعض أئمة الحنابلة فيها.

لقد كانت محنة ابن عقيل ملهمة للداخل المذهبيّ ولخارجه على السواء، بيد أنّ التأثير الداخلي كان أعظم أثراً، إذ إن ذكريات محنة خلق القرآن الكبرى لإمام المذهب كانت لا تزال تؤثر في المخيال الحنبليّ، ومن ثمّ استمد ابن عقيل قوّته وأثره بعد وفاته من نفس المحنة التي تسببت في انزوائه وتراجعه ظاهرياً عن مقولات كثيرة له اعتقدها خشية من بطش مذهبي يستقوي بالسلطة.

ثمرات المحنة
لم تمرّ محنة ابن عقيل -التي تمثلت في اضطهاده علمائياً وسياسياً ونفيه ومنعه من التدريس- مروراً عابراً؛ إذ إنّه عكف على تأليف أكبر مُصنّف في تاريخ الإسلام حسب وصف كثير من العلماء، وهو كتاب ‘الفنون‘ الذي قال ابن رجب إنه بلغ "ثمانمئة مجلدة"، وقال الذهبي في ‘تاريخ الإسلام‘: "له كتاب ‘الفنون‘ لم يُصنَّف في الدنيا أكبر منه، حدثني من رأى منه المجلد الفلاني بعد الأربعمئة"!!

لكنّ هذا الكتاب ما زال مفقودا، وقد عُثر على جزء صغير منه يدلّ على أهمية الكتاب وعبقرية صاحبه؛ ولعل ابن عقيل نافس به موسوعة أبي يوسف القَزْويني المعتزلي (ت 488هـ/1095م) في التفسير فإنه "جمع [فيه] كتابا بلغ خمسمئة مجلد"؛ وفقا لما جاء في ‘تاريخ الإسلام‘ للذهبي الذي يفيدنا بأن ابن عقيل كان معجبا بالقزويني وتفسيره، ولعل ذلك من بقايا تأثره بفكر المعتزلة.

على أن طبيعة تكوين ابن عقيل الموسوعية لا يستغرب معها مثل هذا الإنجاز العلمي المتفنّن، كيف وهو الفقيه المحدّث الذي كان يطالع كتب علوم الهندسة والفلك وينقل مضامينها دون ردٍّ لها؛ كما يفيدنا هذا النص الثمين بشأن مفاهيم مثل كروية الأرض وخط الاستواء، والذي خلده لنا ابن الجوزي في ‘المنتظم‘:

"قال أبو الوفاء بن عقيل: ونقلتُ من ‘كتاب الهندسة‘: ذكر علماء الهندسة أن الأرض على هيئة الكرة على تدوير الفلك، موضعهـ[ـا] في جوف الفلك كالمُحّة (= صُفار البيض) في جوف البيضة…؛ والأرض مقسومة نصفين بينهما خط الاستواء، وهو [يمتدّ] من المشرق إلى المغرب، وهو طول الأرض، وهو أكبر خط في كرة الأرض".

لقد تعلم ابن عقيل في محنته كيف يُجلّ العلم ويستغل كل لحظة في إفادة أو استفادة؛ فهو يقول عن نفسه كما نقله عنه ابن رجب: "إنه لا يحل لي أن أضيع ساعة من عمري، فإذا تعطل لساني من مذاكرة ومناظرة وبصري من مطالعة، عملتُ في حال فراشي وأنا مضطجعٌ، فلا أنهض إلا وقد يحصل لي ما أسطّره، وإني لأجد من حرصي على العلم في عشر الثمانين أشد مما كنتُ وأنا ابن عشرين". وهذا شأن المصلحين دائما، أنهم لا يضيعون لحظة إلا في إفادة واستفادة.

ويبدو أنّ المحنة أثرت كثيراً في ابن عقيل، فلغته وأدبه وفقهه ونظرته للكون والدين والدنيا مختلفة عن غيره من العلماء، أو إذا شئت فقل إنّ هذا قانون الإصلاح، فالإصلاحيون دوماً هكذا لأنهم غالباً ما يتعرضون في حياتهم لعوائق ومشكلات لكونهم ضد العوائد ومعتقدات العامة.

ومن أقوال ابن عقيل في ذلك ما نقله عنه ابن مفلح في ‘الآداب الشرعية‘: "قال أبو الوفاء ابن عقيل في ‘الفنون‘: من صدَر اعتقادُه عن برهان لم يبقَ عنده تلوّنٌ يراعي به أحوالَ الرجال ﴿أَفَإِن مَّاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَىٰ أَعْقَابِكُمْ﴾"؛ (سورة آل عمران/الآية: 144).

ورغم وطأة المحنة على ابن عقيل فإنه ظل منصفا لأصحابه الحنابلة ومعتزا بالانتماء إلى ركبهم، مع علمه العميق بتكوينهم النفسي والمنهجي؛ فها هو –فيما يرويه ابن رجب نقلا عن الحافظ ضياء الدين المقدسي الحنبلي (ت 643هـ/1245م)- يقول فيهم حين سُئل عن وصفهم بـ‘إنصاف‘: "هم قوم خُشُنٌ، تقلصت أخلاقهم عن المخالطة وغلظت طباعهم عن المُداخلة، وغلب عليهم الجِدّ وقلّ عندهم الهزل، وغربت نفوسهم عن ذلّ المراءاة، وفزعوا عن الآراء إلى الروايات، وتمسكوا بالظاهر تحرجا عن التأويل، وغلبت عليهم الأعمال الصالحة، فلم يدققوا في العلوم الغامضة بل دققوا في الورع، وأخذوا ما ظهر من العلوم".

والعجيبُ في أمر ابن عقيل أنّ الجماعة الحنبلية أهدرت دمَه ولم ينصره سوى القليل، ومع ذلك بقي اسمه ورسمه وبقيت محنته ملهمة تُتدارس، في حين اختفى خصومه وكَمُنَ ذكرهم، ولم تذكر المصادر أسماء معظمهم، ومات كثير من تصانيفهم.

بل إن السلطة اضطرت إلى الاعتراف بمكانته، فاستعانت به لحل كثير من الأزمات المجتمعية التي واجهتها كالفتنة الطائفية التي عصفت مجددا ببغداد سنة 482هـ/1089م "فقُتل فيها نحو مئتي قتيل ودامت شهورا"، بتعبير ابن الجوزي في ‘المنتظم‘؛ وكان لابن عقيل الإسهام الأعظم في احتوائها. بل وصل اعتراف قصر الخلافة به إلى حد أنه لما تُوفي الخليفة المستظهِر بالله سنة 512هـ/1118م "غسّله أبو الوفاء بن عقيل"؛ طبقا لابن الجوزي في ‘المنتظم‘.

وبقاء أثر ابن عقيل إنما يعكس شأن مقولات العلماء؛ فإنها لا يمكن الحكم عليها بعصر صاحبها فقط بل بعد موته بعقود وربما قرون؛ فكم من عالم ذاع صيته ثم خفت أثره ونُسي اسمه، وكم من عالم آخر نُبذ في حياته وارتفع شأنه بعد مماته. ويحدث ذلك فيما يمكن تسميته بعملية "الانتقاء" أو "الانتخاب الطبيعي"؛ فـ‘موافقات‘ الشاطبيّ (ت 790هـ/1388م) لم تُعرف وتشتهر إلا بعد موته بقرون على يد الشيخ محمد عبده (ت 1323هـ/1905م)، وكذلك مقدمة ابن خَلْدُون (ت 808هـ/1406م).

The truth is that exploring the history of currents and sects and their relationship to political power and their relationship to each other is very important for contemporary religious and scholarly institutions, and is indispensable for any renewal and reform project that wants to overcome the negatives that the predecessors fell into.

Likewise, let everyone realize the process of history and that eliminating intellectual opponents with the help of authority has never succeeded in the history of ideas.

Hence, any victory by the sword of power in the world of ideas is a momentary victory and is linked to the social, political and religious context, and any euphoria for it is purely a limited vision of the history of scientific groups and intellectual currents.