The formative years of Islamic scholarship throughout the ninth and tenth centuries displayed an overlap between the main Sunni schools of law, strictly adhering to the Quran and Sunnah, and notions of Islamic spirituality or mysticism. Misunderstandings of the Islamic tradition have inaccurately implied Sunni orthodoxy is antithetical to Islamic spirituality. However, Sunni orthodoxy and spirituality often overlap in the early writings of the Hanbali school of law founded by Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal (d. 241 A.H./855 C.E.). Although some Hanbalis saw certain variations of Tassawuf, or Sufism, as heretical innovations foreign to the original ritual practices of Sunni Islam, others from among the earliest Hanbali scholars suggested otherwise. The writings of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal and other early Hanbali jurists and theologians who emerged afterwards tend to display inclinations towards some modality of Islamic spirituality and mysticism. Imam Ahmed’s writings, along with other early Hanbali scholars characterize and frame Tassawuf in such a way that strongly suggests its integration into Sunni orthodoxy was paralleled with the formal schools of law. We see a coherent merging of law and spirituality masterfully woven which manifests in the embodiment of the original Hanbali school to an extent. The biographical writings that we find such as ibn Abi Ya’la’s Tabaqat al-Hanabilah, for instance, provide an indication towards some variation of Islamic spirituality in the descriptions of some of the earliest Hanbali jurists. Even Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal’s book, Kitab al-Zuhd, was very much indicative of Islamic spirituality. While some opposition existed towards Sufism, it is also significant to the field to explore when and in what ways did early Hanbali scholarship and different modalities of Tasawwuf merge.

Defining Tasawwuf.

Defining Tasawwuf is crucial to understanding the epistemological underpinnings of the Hanbali school in its earliest days while reconciling that which came into fruition during its later years. The term Tasawwuf typically comes from the Arabic word Souf in reference to wearing wool clothing as many early Sufi gnostics did as opposed to cotton or linen as a way of expressing detachment from material pleasures[1]. Although Tasawwuf is generally seen as the purification of the heart and disciplining of the soul which define the internal processes of spiritual transformation, elements of asceticism and mysticism also develop and are integrated into the esoteric concept. The Encyclopaedia of Islam specifically defines it as, “the phenomenon of mysticism within Islam. It is the maṣdar of Form V of the radical ṣ-w-f indicating in the first place one who wears woolen clothes (ṣūf), the rough garb of ascetics and mystics. Other etymological derivations which have been put forward in Western and, especially, Islamic sources, are untenable. Hence a mystic is called ṣūfī or mutaṣawwif , ṣūfiyya or mutaṣawwifa”[2] . The term is often debated, however, and many disagree over the origins of how the Sufis originated, the nature of their practices and the deeper meanings of their doctrines. Due to much ambiguity, Sufis were then defined based on their characteristics and their common tendencies. Christopher Melchert writes that the first to be called a Sufi was a Kufan named Abu Hashim (d. 150/767)[3]. Abu Hamza, a Sufi mystic from Baghdad, is also referred to as a “Sufi” by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Although some have perceived the Hanbali school and Sufiism as being contradictory and incohesive to one another, historians such as George Makdisi would also argue that there is some overlap between the two and have characterized both as being compatible. Sufism is seen as an integral aspect of Islam that is essentially inseparable from the Shari’a and is often woven into Islamic doctrinal beliefs and ritual practice. We also see a cohesive fusion of Tasawwuf and orthodoxy that crystalizes and comes into fruition after the tenth century. However, elements of Tassawuf are seen earlier in the historicity of early Islamic scholarship. Zuhd, or asceticism, another component of Sufism, is also invoked in many Hanbali texts such as Tabaqat al-Hanabilah by ibn Abi Ya’la and Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal’s book, Kitab al-Zuhd. When discussing Tasawwuf, one of the questions that often arises centers around the origins thereof. Whether Islamic spirituality is endogenous, being deduced from the Islamic tradition in and of itself, or exogenous, being extrapolated from other religions. Academic scholars, such as Louis Massignon, have concluded, however, that its impetus is found from within Islam through a means of cumulative meditation of the Quran itself along with other teachings found in the religion[4].

Defining Hanbalism.

In addition to how we define Tasawwuf, we must also understand how we define the term Hanbali and those who claim to be its adherents, specifically during the ninth and tenth centuries. This would require us to assess and look at the Hanbali school in its earliest days without any contemporary connotations or later influences associated with the term. According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, it is defined as “the school of theology, law, and morality, which grew up from the teachings of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855) whose principal works, the Musnad and the responsa (masa’il), had begun to be codified even during the lifetime of their author”[5]. Although known to be hostile to the principles of speculative theology, or Kalam, and extreme esoteric Sufism, there were those from among the early Hanbalis who were thought to have been Sufis themselves or at least had Sufi inclinations of some kind. Hanbalism did not come to develop completely on its own in total isolation either while there was some degree of overlap with certain components of Sufism. Nor did the rigidity of the dogmatism of the Hanbalis, which primarily recognized no other legitimate sources other than the Quran and Sunnah, fail to further help cultivate the formation of other Sunni schools of law.

Looking at Tabaqat literature and how to use them

Tabaqat, or biographical, literature is significant in understanding who certain scholars were, what theological trends they adhered to, and what schools of law they belonged to as well. Such biographical works also assist us in understanding how some scholars and theologians are also given specific honorifics or titles that are indicative of what kinds of sectarian leanings they were inclined towards. These texts, overall, systematize the way we look at groups of scholars yet at the same time may perhaps be somewhat problematic as they can potentially be polemical in proving the validity of their own theological and sectarian leanings and thus, carry apparent biases. In addition, biographical literature, however, does provide a general overview to in the way scholars are categorized and how they are grouped with others. In this instance, they are relevant to the research of this paper in the sense that they are detailed enough to provide pertinent information as to what scholars lived in the early periods of early Islamic scholarship and were associated with Hanbali orthodoxy and known for their leanings towards Sufism and its characterizations and tendencies.

Looking at non-Hanbali sources (Tabaqat al-Sufiyyah and Hilyat al-Awliya)

Unlike many of the other sources I will be analyzing, Tabaqat al-Sufiyya primarily focuses on Sufi mystics, saints, scholars, and Imams. Many of those who are mentioned in the text are of different backgrounds in terms of what legal schools they adhered to. Just as other biographical works, Imam al-Sulami writes on the contents of the book and briefly discusses who he generally tends to include. Imam al-Sulami states,

“Thus, I seek to gather the lives of the recent awlīyā’ in a book which I named Kitāb Ṭabaqāt al-Ṣufīyyah, in which I have placed some of the leaders (imāms) of the Sufis, their shaykhs, and their scholars into five generations. I mention in each generation twenty shaykhs among the masters who were [alive] in a single time period and were close to one another. I mention some of their words, their qualities, and their lives. What it shows is the way to their path, state, and their knowledge to the extent of my ability, power, and my aptitude”[6].

From what is apparent, Ma’ruf al-Karkhi (200 A.H./815 C.E.) appears in Tabaqat al-Sufiyya and is referred to as being a Zahid, an ascetic. It is reported to us in the text as follows; “it was reported to us from Yusuf bin Omar al-Zahid of Baghdad (the ascetic of Baghdad), it was told to us from ‘Ubaydallah bin Ja’far al-Sighani who told us Omar bin Wasl who said ‘Sahl bin Abdallah reported to me Muhammad bin Siwar on the authority of Ma’ruf bin Ali al-Karkhi who was a Zahid (an ascetic)”[7]. Many other scholars and transmitters are have reported to explicitly name Ma’ruf al-Karkhi as being a Sufi of some sort. The text states, “and from them (the Sufis), was Ma’ruf al-Karkhi and he is Abu Mahfoudh Ma’ruf bin Fayruz”[8]. Another primary source that mentions Ma’ruf al-Karkhi is Hilyat al-Awliya written by Abu Nu’aym, a tenth-century Shafi’i Sunni scholar from Isfahan, who was known for his knowledge in hadith sciences and hadith criticisms. This text consists of a substantial ten volumes which contain 650 biographies of different scholars of the early Islamic period, some of whom partook in the development of Sufism. This text is stringent in mentioning the legal and theological affiliations of the individuals mentioned throughout. In the text, it is mentioned

“al-Karkhi is known, and among those whom are longing to be known by the annihilation of themselves (in God), and those who are dispensed, and by the One who remains is captivated, and they are surrounded by His encompassing nature. For His subtlety is known. Al-Karkhi is the father of Mahfoudh Ma’ruf and it is said the Tasawwuf protects from grievances and purifies from impurities”[9].

Known to be one of the early Hanbali scholars, Ma’ruf al-Karkhi is described in the aforementioned excerpt as having tendencies oriented towards Sufism. Furthermore, he is described as possessing traits and qualities of those who would, later on, be known as practicing fana’, annihilating oneself in God out of love for the divine. It is plausible to now speculate, although not definitively, on these later Sufi concepts and themes and whether or not they were made manifest in the embodiment of earlier proto-Sufis and Hanbalis of Baghdad. Interestingly enough, it is written in Kitab al-Zuhd that other scholars, including Imam Ahmad himself, along with Abu Nu’aym and Abi Farj are also described as having invoked aspects of Sufism. The text states,

“From among those who invoke ascetism are the latter and the former (scholars), are Abi Nu’aym in the Hilyat al-Awliya and Abi al-Farj in Saffa al-Safwa. And of them who sought it enough to only mention those who came later (later scholars) in terms how the word Sufiyya originated. The same way, and this is what Abdulrahman al-Sulami did in his Tabaqat al-Sufiyya, and Qushayri in his Risala, then the narratives that of which they mention are deconstructed just like ibn Khamees and the likes of him they mention the mursal narratives and some of them are authentic and some of them are undoubtedly false”.[10]

How Hanbalism and Sufism overlapped in 9th/10th century Baghdad

George Makdisi writes on the depictions of the role of Sufism in relation to Hanbalism and how they manifest in three separate stages; the advent of Sufism and its climactic rise, the often-repeated narrative of the binary struggle between Sufism and orthodoxy, and lastly the integration and spread of Sufiism in spite of Hanbali opposition[11]. In later historiographies the reconciliation between orthodoxy and Sufiism becomes crystalized, yet only when they are fragmented from one another as a result of the early religious discourses. Yet at the same time, we can also speculate as to whether or not this would have actually occurred as we know from the lives of the Sufis that they were in fact also jurists and engaged with the traditional and orthodox Islamic sciences and were active participants in society and within Muslim communities as opposed to being isolated mystics. Therefore, the theories of Hanbali hostility towards Sufiism perhaps may not be entirely accurate when analyzing the theological trends in ninth and tenth century Baghdad. In all actuality, one can argue there exists a relationship between early Hanbalism and Tasawwuf that can be found within their common spiritual origins, specifically, that which manifests in the earliest religious movement in seventh-century Arabia and deep meditation on the Quranic text. In addition, both, Hanbalis and Sufis, were members of Ahl al-Hadith, also commonly perceived as Traditionalists, as opposed to embodying rationalist Mu’tazilite theological doctrine during the Abbasid era. Furthermore, while some Hanbalis rebuked al-Hallaj, for instance, they had paralleled their condemnation of such mystics with that of other Traditionalist Sufis whereas other Traditionalist Sufis along with Hanbali Sufis also advocated for the sainthood of al-Hallaj in the early period of the Hanbali school[12].

Imam Ahmad’s variation of Sufiism.

Unlike many perceptions of Hanbalism, we find much inclination towards Islamic spirituality and many elements of Tasawwuf within the piety and character of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and in his followers as well according to ibn al-Jawzi. It is also evident that he was tolerant of figures such as Bishr al-Hafi (d. 236/850). Yet at the same time, he was known to be hostile towards the likes of al-Muhasibi and Sari al-Saqati along with certain practices and rituals that would become integral to later variations of Sufism[13]. Despite this, what we can characterize more precisely is the relation between ninth century Hanbalis and their Sufi contemporaries. Melchert writes that Sufiism would come to be associated more with the Shafi’i school over the next century and a half, yet when analyzing Imam Ahmad’s writings, we will see that in the formative years of the Hanbali school Sufiism was not so fragmented from the Hanbali tradition either. Interestingly enough, Melchert makes a clear distinction between Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and, what he refers to as, the proto-Sufis of Baghdad, often associated with Junayd al-Baghdadi (d. 298/910). Yet it is not inconceivable that Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal would have established cordial relations with the aforementioned proto-Sufis as his personal theological doctrine and practice consisted of some variation of Islamic spirituality. It is said he “believed in the power of relics: when he was stripped for his chastisement, a purse was discovered in his sleeve containing two hairs of the Prophet. He later ordered he be buried with one on each eye and a third on his tongue”[14]. When analyzing the hadith text written and compiled by Imam Ahmad, Musnad, we find that many hadith reports regarding abdal, extraordinarily pious Muslims, was always consistent while later Sufi conceptualizations of the qutb is plain”[15]. Furthermore, ibn al-Jawzi, a later twelfth century Sunni Hanbali jurist, wrote a biographical work titled Virtues of the Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. In the text we see examples substantiated through Imam Ahmad himself, suggesting that Islamic spirituality was not entirely condemned by him or his school of thought that would come to develop further in later years. Ibn al-Jawzi writes on mystical events in which Imam Ahmad was given greetings by the prophet Elijah in addition to al-Khidr, a mystical figure mentioned in the Quran, speaking in his praise. He also writes on pious strangers and awliyah (allies of God as they are often referred to in the Islamic tradition) also praising him and visiting him as a means of seeking blessings[16]. What is even more striking is the significance of relics through veneration and seeking blessings and cures through them. Although this is often seen as extreme veneration by some, it is known to be common among Sufi asceticism and is also demonstrated in Imam Ahmad’s actions as well[17]. Ibn al-Jawzi discusses Imam Ahmad’s seeking of blessings and cures using the Quran and water from the well of Zamzam as well as the strands of hair of the Prophet Muhammad he possessed. Ibn al-Jawzi writes that Imam Ahmad’s son, Abdallah stated, “I saw my father take one of the Prophet’s hairs, place it over his mouth, and kiss it. I may have seen him place it over his eyes, and dip it in water and then drink the water for a cure. Once I saw him take the Prophet’s bowl, wash it in the water jar, and drink from it. And more than once I saw him drink water from the well of Zamzam for a cure, and rub it on his hands and face”[18].

Moreover, the ascetic component of Sufism, al-Zuhd, is also very much embodied within the character and piety of Imam Ahmad in the sense that he sought to never pursue notoriety. It is written in ibn al-Jawzi’s biographical work of Imam Ahmad that he was known to abstain from recognition and fame. Ibn al-Jawzi writes that it was narrated from ‘Ubayd al-Qari, Imam Ahmad’s uncle, “Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s uncle once went to see him and found him with his chin cupped in his hand. ‘Nephew’, he asked, ‘what’s troubling you? Why so glum?’. ‘Uncle’, Ahmad replied, ‘happiness is when God makes sure that no one’s ever heard of you’”[19]. Furthermore, Ibn al-Jawzi writes “al-Marrudhi said, ‘Ahmad once said to me, ‘Tell ‘Abd al-Wahhab to hide his light under a bushel. Fame has brought me nothing but suffering’”[20]. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal once again expresses his lack of desire for fame in which ibn al-Jawzi writes “al-Khallal said: ‘I heard him say, ‘I swear that if I knew a way to leave this city, I’d leave it. Then no one would mention me to them, and they’d forget about me’”[21]. Additionally, Imam Ahmad is also described as the Imam of Zuhd, asceticism, and Haqa’iq, spiritual realities, in Kitab al-Zuhd.

“Ibn ‘Imad al-Hanbali said about him (Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal) in his book Shidharat al-Dhahab, ‘He was an Imam in numerous hadiths, an Imam in jurisprudence and its details, an Imam in the Sunnah and all its points, an Imam in religiosity and its obscurities, an Imam in asceticism and its spiritual realities. He traveled to Kufa, and Basra, and Mecca, and Madinah, and Yemen, and Sham (Syria), and the Arabian Peninsula”[22].

Moreover, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal also focuses on the asceticism of the prophets, messengers, the companions of Prophet Muhammad and those who came after them[23]. He often invokes and describes the asceticism of Prophet Muhammad, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Jesus, and many others.

Early Hanbali Scholarship.

As we look to early Hanbali scholarship, primarily to the traditional sources, particularly those that consist of biographical works, we come across early Hanbali scholars that embodied Tasawwuf more or less in some variation. In Tabaqat al-Hanabilah, composed by ibn Abi Ya’la (458 A.H./1066 C.E.), those who are mentioned consist of Ma’ruf al-Karkhi from Baghdad (200 A.H./815 C.E.), Ahmad ibn Abi l-Hawari of Damascus (230 A.H./844 C.E.), Muhammad ibn Abi l-Ward of Baghdad (263 A.H./877 C.E.), Abu Hamza of Baghdad (269 A.H./882 C.E.), and al-Junayd of Baghdad (298 A.H./911 C.E.). The aforementioned scholars are also mentioned and are listed in Tabaqat al-Sufiyya written by al-Sulami. They also had, although tenuous, established relations with Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal or with his affiliates. Each of them was known for a specific component of Tasawwuf they embodied. For instance, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal spoke in defense of Mar’ruf al-Karhi, an early Sufi of Baghdad, when he was accused of having little religious knowledge as a way to discredit him to which Imam Ahmad responded by saying “Is religious knowledge anything else than what Ma’ruf achieved?”[24]. The second early Hanbali figure ibn Abi Ya’la discusses is Ahmad ibn Abi l-Hawari, known to be a traditionalist, who would have contacted Imam Ahmad in the formative years of the Hanbali school’s scholarly development[25]. Furthermore, the Tabaqat al-Hanabilah text discusses Muhammad ibn Abi l-Ward as being an associate of significant early Sufis. It is said he was a disciple of Sari al-Saqati and al-Muhasibi as well as other prominent early Sufi figures[26]. Interestingly enough, he also sat in the gatherings of Junayd al-Baghdadi as is mentioned in the Tabaqat of Abu Bakr al-Khallal (d. 311/923), one of the earliest biographical works of Hanbali scholarship[27]. The fourth figure among suspected early Hanbali Sufis is Abu Hamza al-Baghdadi who was said to have frequented Sufi circles more than the others and was closer to classical Sufism. Melchert writes on ibn al- ‘Arabi’s statements regarding Abu Hamza al-Baghdadi saying “that the first circle in the Friday mosque in Baghdad for the Sufis was that of al-Hasan al-Musuhi (d. 256/869-70), another disciple of al-Sari al-Saqati, and that after his circle came that of Abu Hamza”[28]. What is interesting to note here is that when sitting with Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the Imam would refer to him as “Sufi” which demonstrates Imam Ahmad’s awareness of the term and its implications when applying it to early mystics[29]. Despite being one of the most prominent and most important Sufis of the ninth century, Junayd al-Baghdadi was also identified as a Hanbali by ibn Abi Yal’a in his Tabaqat al-Hanabilah text. However, this assumption by ibn Abi Ya’la is made only on the premise of Junayd simply telling stories about Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal rather than actually meeting him and frequenting his circles of religious learning[30]. Even so, there were also Hanbali scholars who did not affiliate themselves closely enough with other proto-Sufis around Junayd al-Baghdadi either. However, the Hanbalis were evidently closer to a renunciant, also known for asceticism, from Basra by the name of Sahl al-Tustari. One of the prominent figures of the early Hanbalis in the 320’s/930s was al-Barbahari who was known to be a disciple of al-Tustari and even had ideological commonalities with proto-Sufis[31].

One theory that explains the confusion surrounding the dichotomy between Hanbalism and Sufiism is due to the type of language that is utilized throughout Hanbali texts which invoke different components of Tasawwuf. In ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s text, al-Dhayl ‘ala al-Tabaqat al-Hanabilah, he often refers to some of the Hanbali scholars as “al-Zahid”, the ascetic and “al-Sufi”, a mystic[32]. Throughout al-Dhayl ‘ala al-Tabaqat al-Hanabilah, a biographical work which covers a period of three centuries of Hanbalism, many of the Hanbali scholars ibn Rajab writes about are identified as Sufis when one looks to their full names and epithets in the headings of the notices[33]. According to George Makdisi, “by reading beyond the names into the text of the notices, he can find again nearly three times as many Hanbalis easily identifiable as Sufis. And with still closer scrutiny the total number can amount to over one hundred, that is to say, over one-sixth of the Hanbalis treated by ibn Rajab”[34]. What also must be taken into account, however, are other Hanbali Sufis who ibn Rajab does not explicitly identify in his biographical works yet have been identified and corroborated in other texts. We can, therefore, propose the idea that the number of Hanbali Sufis may have possibly been higher. Throughout ibn Rajab’s text, descriptions of these early scholars are provided and contain Sufi concepts that allude to notions of Islamic spirituality and its themes. For instance, ibn Rajab writes about a Hanbali scholar by the name of ‘Uthman ibn Marzuq ibn Humayd ibn Salamah al-Qurashi, referred to as Shaykh Abu ‘Amr ibn Marzuq by ibn Rajab, and describes him as such;

“‘Uthman ibn Marzuq ibn Humayd ibn Salamah al-Qurashi, the jurist and ascetic, Abu ‘Amr, the resident of the lands of Egypt. He remained in the company of Sharaf al-Islam ‘Abd al-Wahhab ibn al-Hanbali in Damascus and mastered fiqh. He made Egypt his home and remained there till he died. He issued fatwas there, taught, debated and spoke regarding the Knowing of Allah (ma‘arif) and spiritual realities (haqa’iq). The spiritual training of the murids in Egypt was his responsibility and a large number of pious individuals attribute themselves to him. The shaykhs praised him and he gained complete acceptance from the elite and the lay masses. Many people benefitted from his company“[35].

It is clearly demonstrated in the aforementioned Hanbali scholar’s vocabulary and rhetoric that the indications towards Islamic spirituality are explicitly indicative. The usage of language and how we define specific terminologies are also relevant to the way in which narratives and themes are constructed.

Ultimately, the evidences that demonstrate the correlation between Hanbalism and Sufism in the formative period of early Islamic scholarship are clear at times yet speculative, however, still prevalent nonetheless. Although Imam Ahmed wrote somewhat vaguely about Islamic spirituality, and more definitively on asceticism, it was made manifest in his character, piety, associates, students, and contemporaries. Although he had not particularly established close relations with later Sufis, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was known to engage in theological discourse and debate with proto-Sufis such as Sari al-Saqati and Muhasibi and was critical of specific Sufi practices deemed as religious innovations foreign to Islam as opposed to Tasawwuf in and of itself. Nor could they have done so without rejecting and denying their own brand of Sufism which was a type of Sufism which they staunchly proclaimed as being parallel to the way of the Salaf, the early predecessors, and companions of Prophet Muhammad. At the same time, however, one can even go as far as suggesting a higher number of Sufi Hanbalis existed, also mentioned in ibn Rajab’s text as being corroborated in other texts as being Sufis[36]. The corroboration of Sufi Hanbalis is also found in both Tabaqat al-Hanabilah by ibn Abi Ya’la as well as Tabaqat al-Sufiyya written by al-Sulami[37]. Although some of the challenges that arise when assessing the correlation between the two, the complex yet cordial relations that did ambiguously exist cannot be completely omitted from the Hanbali school’s formative years. Humble piety, asceticism, and spirituality, all of which are different components of Tasawwuf, can all be traced to the origins of Islam within the Quranic text, in the biography of the Prophet Muhammad, and in the first generation of Muslims living alongside the Prophet. From this, both Hanbalis and the proto-Sufis trace their origins to and therefore find a sense of commonality rather than mutual exclusivity.

[1] Massington, L., Radtke, B., Chittick, W.C., Jong, F. de., Lewisohn, L., Zarcone, Th., Ernst, C, Aubin, Françoise and J.O. Hunwick, “Taṣawwuf”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/tasawwuf-COM_1188?s.num=0&s.rows=20&s.mode=DEFAULT&s.f.s2_parent=encyclopaedia-of-islam-2&s.start=0&s.q=tasawwuf

[2] Massington, L., Radtke, B., Chittick, W.C., Jong, F. de., Lewisohn, L., Zarcone, Th., Ernst, C, Aubin, Françoise and J.O. Hunwick, “Taṣawwuf”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs.

[3] Melchert, Christopher, The Hanbalis and the Early Sufis, p. 354.

[4] Makdisi, George, “The Hanbali School and Sufiism”, Humaniora islamica, 1974, vol. 2, p. 115, 116.

[5] Laoust, H., “Ḥanābila”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. (https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-2/hanabila-COM_0263?s.num=17&s.rows=20&s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.encyclopaedia-of-islam-2&s.q=Hanbali)

[6] al-Sulami, Muhammad ibn al-Husayn, Tabaqat al-Sufiyya. Edited by Mustafa ‘Abd Al-Qadir ‘Atta. Beirut, Dar Al-Kutub Al- ‘Ilmiyah, 1998, p. 20.

[7] Al-Sulami, Muhammad ibn al-Husayn, Tabaqat al-Sufiyya, Edited by Mustafa ‘Abd Al-Qadir ‘Atta. Beirut, Dar Al-Kutub Al- ‘Ilmiyah, 1998, p. 80.

[8] Al-Sulami, Muhammad ibn al-Husayn, Tabaqat al-Sufiyya, Edited by Mustafa ‘Abd Al-Qadir ‘Atta. Beirut, Dar Al-Kutub Al- ‘Ilmiyah, 1998, p. 80.

[9] Ibn Abdallah al-Isfahani, Abu Nu’aym Ahmad, Hilyat al-Awliya, Beirut, Dar Al-Kutub Al- ‘Ilmiyah, vol. 8, p. 360.

[10] Hanbal, Ahmad ibn, Kitab al-Zuhd, Beirut, 1981, Dar Al-Kutub Al- ‘Ilmiyah, p. 24.

[11] Makdisi, George, “The Hanbali School and Sufiism”, Humaniora islamica, 1974, vol. 2, p. 115.

[12] Makdisi, George, “The Hanbali School and Sufiism”, Humaniora islamica, 1974, vol. 2, p. 120.

[13] Melchert, Christopher. “The Ḥanābila and the Early Sufis.” Arabica48, no. 3 (2001): p. 353. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4057727.

[14] Melchert, Christopher. “The Ḥanābila and the Early Sufis.” Arabica48, no. 3 (2001): pp. 355, 356. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4057727.

[15] Melchert, Christopher. “The Ḥanābila and the Early Sufis.” Arabica48, no. 3 (2001): p. 356. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4057727.

[16] Ibn Al-Jawzī, Abū Al-Faraj ʻAbd Al-Raḥmān Ibn ʻAlī, and Michael Cooperson. Virtues of the Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal: Volume One. New York University Press, 2013. p. vii.

[17] Ibn Al-Jawzī, Abū Al-Faraj ʻAbd Al-Raḥmān Ibn ʻAlī, and Michael Cooperson. Virtues of the Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal: Volume One. New York University Press, 2013. p. 346.

[18] Ibn Al-Jawzī, Abū Al-Faraj ʻAbd Al-Raḥmān Ibn ʻAlī, and Michael Cooperson. Virtues of the Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal: Volume One. New York University Press, 2013., p. 349.

[19] Ibn Al-Jawzī, Abū Al-Faraj ʻAbd Al-Raḥmān Ibn ʻAlī, and Michael Cooperson. Virtues of the Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal: Volume Two. New York University Press, 2013. p. 21.

[20] Ibn Al-Jawzī, Abū Al-Faraj ʻAbd Al-Raḥmān Ibn ʻAlī, and Michael Cooperson. Virtues of the Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal: Volume Two. New York University Press, 2013. p. 21.

[21] Ibn Al-Jawzī, Abū Al-Faraj ʻAbd Al-Raḥmān Ibn ʻAlī, and Michael Cooperson. Virtues of the Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal: Volume Two. New York University Press, 2013. p. 21.

[22] Hanbal, Ahmad ibn, Kitab al-Zuhd, Beirut, 1981, Dar Al-Kutub Al- ‘Ilmiyah, p. 11.

[23] Hanbal, Ahmad ibn, Kitab al-Zuhd, Beirut, 1981, Dar Al-Kutub Al- ‘Ilmiyah, p. 24.

[24] Ibn Abi Ya’la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila, ed. Muhammad Hamid al-Fiqi, Cairo, Publishing Company of the Sunnah of Muhammad, vol 1, p. 381.

[25] Melchert, Christopher. “The Ḥanābila and the Early Sufis.” Arabica48, no. 3 (2001): p. 357. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4057727.

[26] Melchert, Christopher. “The Ḥanābila and the Early Sufis.” Arabica48, no. 3 (2001): p. 357. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4057727.

[27] Melchert, Christopher. “The Ḥanābila and the Early Sufis.” Arabica48, no. 3 (2001): p. 357. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4057727.

[28] Melchert, Christopher. “The Ḥanābila and the Early Sufis.” Arabica48, no. 3 (2001): p. 357. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4057727.

[29] Ibn Abi Ya’la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila, ed. Muhammad Hamid al-Fiqi, Cairo, Publishing Company of the Sunnah of Muhammad, vol 1, p. 268.

[30] Melchert, Christopher. “The Ḥanābila and the Early Sufis.” Arabica48, no. 3 (2001): p. 358. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4057727.

[31] Melchert, Christopher. “The Ḥanābila and the Early Sufis.” Arabica48, no. 3 (2001): p. 353. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4057727.

[32] Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, Dhayl ‘ala al-Tabaqat al-Hanabilah, ed. Muhammad Fiqi, Cairo, Publishing Company of the Sunnah of Muhammad, Vol 1, p. 290.

[33] Makdisi, George, “The Hanbali School and Sufiism”, Humaniora islamica, 1974, vol. 2, p. 117.

[34] Makdisi, George, “The Hanbali School and Sufiism”, Humaniora islamica, 1974, vol. 2, p. 117.

[35] Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, Dhayl ‘ala al-Tabaqat al-Hanabilah, ed. Muhammad Fiqi, Cairo, Publishing Company of the Sunnah of Muhammad, Vol 1, p. 306.

[36] Makdisi, George, “The Hanbali School and Sufiism”, Humaniora islamica, 1974, vol. 2, p. 117.

[37] Makdisi, George, “The Hanbali School and Sufiism”, Humaniora islamica, 1974, vol. 2, p. 356.