WI: Ahmad Ibn Hanbal dies in prison

[Isfendil]

Ahmad Ibn Hanbal was a ninth century Muslim jurist and founder of the Hanbali school of Sunni Islamic thought. This school is central to all branches of orthodox Sunni Islam, it is the foundation for Wahhabism, and the central school of every modern Sunni terror organization today.
Unfortunate, because Ibn Hanbal was a really nice guy for his time period, but...
While he was practicing, another school of Islam was currently the most popular in the Abbasid caliphate- the Mu'tazila- which was arguably the exact opposite of the Hanbali school. It extolled the virtues of rationalism and science as the main methods of interpreting gods creation, believing that the Qu'ran was created by God through human hands and thus both imperfect and not above any other thing available in creation. I myself am a subscriber to this school.
However, during the ninth century, this school let its power go to its head. Caliph al-Ma'mun made the Maddhab the state school and have its jurists great power- this is when they started on a less lethal version of what I can only liken to the Reign of Terror in revolutionary enlightenment era France. They would imprison and in many cases kill orthodox Sunnis, and they did the same to Ibn Hanbal. However, Ma'mun put a stop to this madness and Hanbal was freed before he could be killed. (As a side note, this is why the Maddhab is not popular anymore: they abused their power and tried to force their views on everyone, and afterwards were barely believed to be a step above heretic. Rationalism would become the domain of the Ash'ariyya Maddhab from then on, which still believed rationalism was above the Quran but that the Quran had authority and was the divine word of God)

Here's the proposed point of divergence: What if a diseased rat bit him while he was in prison and infected him with a virulent disease that killed him very quickly? Before he had a chance to be freed, or soon afterwards, thus preventing the creation of the Hanbali Maddhab.

The butterflies will probably flap long before the present day, but the Hanbali Maddhab really only regained its prominence in the 19th-20th centuries, when Wahhabism was founded and Hasan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood.
I am a student, I do not know everything, so I propose the question here to you fine, more highly educated and experienced folks.

 

[Isfendil]

I am bumping this.

 

[Hamurabi]

Ibn Hanbal did not create a new direction in thought a new school of jurisprudence or theology.
He built upon earlier schools like all other great schools.
His death would not have eliminated his ideas because they were common and
were a continuation of the earlier athari school.

 

[Virginian]

Ibn Hanbal did not create a new direction in thought a new school of jurisprudence or theology.
He built upon earlier schools like all other great schools.
His death would not have eliminated his ideas because they were common and
were a continuation of the earlier athari school.

While I don't have much knowledge of Muslim schools of thought/jurisprudence from OP's description I agree. If Ibn Hanbal had died then somebody else would have been the one to do what he did, and likely come to a similar result if they draw from the same earlier ideas and hold similar orthodox beliefs.

 

[Isfendil]

I suppose I overlooked that. Still, there is no guarantee that it would've been founded at the same time or in the same era as the others.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Ahmad Ibn Hanbal was a ninth century Muslim jurist and founder of the Hanbali school of Sunni Islamic thought. This school is central to all branches of orthodox Sunni Islam, it is the foundation for Wahhabism, and the central school of every modern Sunni terror organization today.
Unfortunate, because Ibn Hanbal was a really nice guy for his time period, but...
While he was practicing, another school of Islam was currently the most popular in the Abbasid caliphate- the Mu'tazila- which was arguably the exact opposite of the Hanbali school. It extolled the virtues of rationalism and science as the main methods of interpreting gods creation, believing that the Qu'ran was created by God through human hands and thus both imperfect and not above any other thing available in creation. I myself am a subscriber to this school.
However, during the ninth century, this school let its power go to its head. Caliph al-Ma'mun made the Maddhab the state school and have its jurists great power- this is when they started on a less lethal version of what I can only liken to the Reign of Terror in revolutionary enlightenment era France. They would imprison and in many cases kill orthodox Sunnis, and they did the same to Ibn Hanbal. However, Ma'mun put a stop to this madness and Hanbal was freed before he could be killed. (As a side note, this is why the Maddhab is not popular anymore: they abused their power and tried to force their views on everyone, and afterwards were barely believed to be a step above heretic. Rationalism would become the domain of the Ash'ariyya Maddhab from then on, which still believed rationalism was above the Quran but that the Quran had authority and was the divine word of God)

Here's the proposed point of divergence: What if a diseased rat bit him while he was in prison and infected him with a virulent disease that killed him very quickly? Before he had a chance to be freed, or soon afterwards, thus preventing the creation of the Hanbali Maddhab.

The butterflies will probably flap long before the present day, but the Hanbali Maddhab really only regained its prominence in the 19th-20th centuries, when Wahhabism was founded and Hasan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood.
I am a student, I do not know everything, so I propose the question here to you fine, more highly educated and experienced folks.

Hmm interesting question. As well, I wouldn't say that Mu'Tazila are the opposite of those within Ahl Sunnah wa l'Jama'ah who follow Ahmad ibn Hanbal. In fact the Mu'Tazila (the withdrawers or those who abstain from a position) are the opposite of the radical Khawarij and Murji'ah, they take the view that there is a middle ground between righteous and Kuffar which is neither destined for heaven nor hell. This is opposed to the view from Ahl Sunnah that only Kuffar enter the hell, not sinners who proclaim the Shahada and the Tawheed. Further, the Mu'Tazila took the Biddah to a whole new level in their massive innovations in the faith, really they would just say because I think this and I believe it (the neutral stance has no scriptural basis) and I won't get into some of the more pervasive problems the Mu'Tazila caused the Abbasids that did not exist in the Sunni dominated Umayyad Caliphate.


But as far as killing Ahmad ibn Hanbal, you are correct this will be a huge blow for Islam and would be a true loss of one of the greatest Ulema in history. Hanbali Fiqh had significant effects on all major schools, but for the most part he disagreed little with the others and the change to them would be minor at best, that being said I could see Hanafi being more subjective about ethnic practices in regard to the Fiqh without Hanbali.

Now as far as Wahhabism, it is still a derogatory term that doesn't mean much, but oh well. As well, the Hanbali Fiqh is not the basis of every terrorist group, the Taliban were definitely Deobandi and had no leanings toward Hanbali Fiqh, aside from Khataab, the Caucasian Emirate was not Hanbali, ISIS is basically it's own Madhab, any Shi'i group, really Boko Haram does its own thing but from what I read they mainly prescribe to Maliki, etc...

As far as Salafism, the ideology and style of Fiqh found in Saudi Arabia would most likely not exist.

 

[Isfendil]

Hmm interesting question. As well, I wouldn't say that Mu'Tazila are the opposite of those within Ahl Sunnah wa l'Jama'ah who follow Ahmad ibn Hanbal. In fact the Mu'Tazila (the withdrawers or those who abstain from a position) are the opposite of the radical Khawarij and Murji'ah, they take the view that there is a middle ground between righteous and Kuffar which is neither destined for heaven nor hell. This is opposed to the view from Ahl Sunnah that only Kuffar enter the hell, not sinners who proclaim the Shahada and the Tawheed. Further, the Mu'Tazila took the Biddah to a whole new level in their massive innovations in the faith, really they would just say because I think this and I believe it (the neutral stance has no scriptural basis) and I won't get into some of the more pervasive problems the Mu'Tazila caused the Abbasids that did not exist in the Sunni dominated Umayyad Caliphate.


But as far as killing Ahmad ibn Hanbal, you are correct this will be a huge blow for Islam and would be a true loss of one of the greatest Ulema in history. Hanbali Fiqh had significant effects on all major schools, but for the most part he disagreed little with the others and the change to them would be minor at best, that being said I could see Hanafi being more subjective about ethnic practices in regard to the Fiqh without Hanbali.

Now as far as Wahhabism, it is still a derogatory term that doesn't mean much, but oh well. As well, the Hanbali Fiqh is not the basis of every terrorist group, the Taliban were definitely Deobandi and had no leanings toward Hanbali Fiqh, aside from Khataab, the Caucasian Emirate was not Hanbali, ISIS is basically it's own Madhab, any Shi'i group, really Boko Haram does its own thing but from what I read they mainly prescribe to Maliki, etc...

As far as Salafism, the ideology and style of Fiqh found in Saudi Arabia would most likely not exist.

The ISIS Maddhab is an extreme version of the Maddhab once prescribed to by Al Qaeda, which as far as I know was a fairly extreme version of the Hanbali Maddhab.

Although, why is Wahhabism a "derogatory term that doesn't mean much"?

 

[WanderingWanderer]

Although, why is Wahhabism a "derogatory term that doesn't mean much"?

Maybe he prefers the term "salafist", Wahhabism sounds like those outdated 'Mohameddans' used in olden days

ISIS is basically it's own Madhab

Convenient that we Muslims can wash our hands and shout "We have nothing to do with them!" when the laws of some countries are no different from Daesh

 

[Isfendil]

Maybe he prefers the term "salafist", Wahhabism sounds like those outdated 'Mohameddans' used in olden days



Convenient that we Muslims can wash our hands and shout "We have nothing to do with them!" when the laws of some countries are no different from Daesh

Oh if I could only agree with you more. Maybe a better POD would be increased popularity of the ideas of Muhammad Abduh (whom I've only recently been told about)...

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Maybe he prefers the term "salafist", Wahhabism sounds like those outdated 'Mohameddans' used in olden days



Convenient that we Muslims can wash our hands and shout "We have nothing to do with them!" when the laws of some countries are no different from Daesh

Because the word Wahhabi is used as a derogatory term for Salafi or Muslim who do not identify with a Madhab. It is like calling an Iranian Shi'i a Majoos, it is not a friendly term and is unrepresentative of the belief of those among Saudi Arabia.

So explain how Daesh is like Saudi Arabia? But then again supporting the Kingdom is highly controversial so I most likely won't respond to this for fear of being kicked again or being banned.