nuh ha mim keller - masud questions 5 imam ahmad ibn hanbal

8/14/2019 Nuh Ha Mim Keller - Masud Questions 5 Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal

1/9

The Re-Formers of Islam The Mas'ud Questions

Nuh Ha Mim Keller - Question 5

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal

Was Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal an anthropomorphist as is alleged by the Salafis?Can you provide me examples of the sayings of Imam Ahmad that show he didnot hold the anthropomorphic aqida of the neo-Salafis, as they claim?Answer

Regarding the question of whether Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241/855) was ananthropomorphist, this is something that has been asked since early times,particularly since someone forged an anthropormorphic tract called Kitab al-sunna [The book of the sunna] and put the name of Imam Ahmads son Abdullah(d. 290/903) on it.

I looked this book over with our teacher in hadith, Sheikh Shuayb al-Arnaut,who had examined it one day, and said that at least 50 percent of the hadiths in itare weak or outright forgeries. He was dismayed how Muhammad al-Qahtani, theeditor and commentator, could have been given a Ph.d. in Islamic faith (aqida)from Umm al-Qura University in Saudi Arabia for readying for publication awork as sadly wanting in authenticity as this.

Ostensibly a "hadith" work, it contains some of the most hard-coreanthropomorphism found anywhere, such as the hadith that "when He MostBlessed and Exalted sits on the Kursi, a squeak is heard like the squeak of a newleather saddle" (Kitab al-Sunna [Dammam, Dar Ibn al-Qayyim, 1986/1406],

1.301), or "Allah wrote the Torah for Moses with His hand while leaning back on arock, on tablets of pearl, and the screech of the quill could be heard. There was noveil between Him and him" (ibid., 1.294), or "The angels were created from thelight of His two elbows and chest" (ibid., 2.510), and so on.

The work also puts lies in the mouths of major Hanbali scholars and others, suchas Kharija [ibn Musab al-Sarakhsi] (d. 168/785), who is quoted about istiwa(translated above as being 'established' on the Throne), "Does istiwa meananything except sitting?" (ibid., 1.106)with a chain of transmission containing aliar (kadhdhab), an unidentifiable (majhul), plus the text with its contradiction(mukhalafa) of Islamic faith (aqida). Or consider the forty-nine pages of

vilification of Abu Hanifa and his school that it mendaciously ascribes to majorImams, such as that relating that Ishaq ibn Mansur al-Kusaj (d. 251/865) said, "Iasked Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Is a man rewarded by Allah for loathing Abu Hanifaand his colleagues? and he said, Yes, by Allah" (ibid., 1.180). To ascribe thingsso stupid to a man of godfearingness (taqwa) like Ahmad, whose respect for otherscholars is well attested to by chains of transmission that are rigorouslyauthenticated (sahih), is one of the things by which this counterfeit workoverreaches itself, and ends in cancelling any credibility that the name on it may


2/9

have been intended to give it. Sheikh Shuayb told us he doesnt believe it is reallyfrom Ahmad ibn Hanbals son Abdullah, since there is an unidentifiable (majhul)transmitter in the books chain of ascription to Abdullah. But the fact that such awork exists may give you an idea of the kinds of things that have been circulatedabout Ahmad after his death, and the total lack of scrupulousness among a

handful of anthropomorphists who tried literally everything to spread theirbidas.

Another work with its share of anthropomorphisms and forgeries is Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyas Ijtima al-juyush al-Islamiyya [The meeting of the Islamicarmies], which mentions such "hadiths" as, "Honor the cow, for it has not liftedits head to the sky since the [golden] calf was worshipped, out of shame (haya)before Allah Mighty and Majestic" (Ijtima al-juyush al-Islamiyya [Riyad: AwwadAbdullah al-Mutiq, 1408/1988], 330), a forged (mawdu) hadith apparentlyintended to encourage Muslims to believe that Allah is floating about the sky. Ibnal-Qayyim also mentions the hadith of al-Bukhari warning of the Antichrist (al-Masih al-Dajjal), who, in the Last Days will come forth and claim to be God, ofwhich the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, "Allah has sent noprophet except that he warned his people of the One Eyed Liar, and that he isone-eyedand that your Lord is not one-eyedand that he shall have unbeliever(kafir) written between his two eyes" (Sahih al-Bukhari [1350/1898. Reprint.Istanbul: Maktaba Pamuk, n.d.], 8.172). Ibn al-Qayyim comments, "The Prophet(Allah bless him and give him peace) negated the attribute of one-eyedness [ofAllah], which is proof that Allah Most High literally has two eyes" [emphasismine] (Ibn al-Qayyim (Ijtima al-juyush al-Islamiyya [Riyad: Awwad Abdullahal-Mutiq, 1408/1988], 97). Any primer on logical fallacies could have told Ibn al-Qayyim that the negation of a quality does not entail the affirmation of itscontrary, an example of "the Black and White fallacy," (e.g. "If it is not black, it is

therefore white," "If you are not my friend, you must be my enemy," and so on),though what he attempts to prove here does show the kind of anthropomorphismhe is trying to promote. Forged chains of hadith transmission of Ibn al-QayyimsIjtima al-juyush al-Islamiyya will be exhaustively dealt with in a forthcomingwork by Hasan al-Saqqaf, Allah willing, which those interested may read.

For all of these reasons, the utmost care must be used in accepting the ascriptionof tenets of faith to Ahmad ibn Hanbal or other Imams, especially when made byanthropomorphists whose concern is to create credibility for the ideas we aretalking about. It seems to me that what has misled the Salafi revivers of theseideas, in the Najd and elsewhere, is their uncritical acceptance of the statements

and chains of ascription found in the books of Ibn Taymiya (d. 728/1328) and hisstudent Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751/1350), which they continually cite to one anotherand rely on, and from whence they get the idea that these were the positions ofthe early Muslims and Companions (Sahaba).

Umbrage has unfortunately been taken at the biographies I appended to Relianceof the Traveller [a translation of Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misris Umdat al-salik](Evanston: Sunna Books, 1994) about Ibn Taymiya and Ibn al-Qayyim, which


3/9

detail the gulf between Ibn Taymiyas innovations and the aqida of the earlyMuslims, though anyone interested can read about it in any number of otherbooks, ancient and modern. One of the best is Ibn Taymiya laysa salafiyyan [IbnTaymiya was not an early Muslim] (Cairo: Dar al-Nahda al-Arabiyya,1390/1970), by the Azhar professor of Islamic faith (aqida) Mansur Muhammad

Uways, which focuses primarily on tenets of belief. Another was written by ascholar who lived after Ibn al-Qayyim in the same city, Taqi al-Din Abu Bakr al-Hisni (d. 829/1426), author of the famous Shafii fiqh manual Kifaya al-akhyar[The sufficiency of the pious], whose book on Ibn Taymiya is called Daf shubahman shabbaha wa tamarrada wa nasaba dhalika ila al-sayyid al-jalil al-ImamAhmad [Rebuttal of the insinuations of him who makes anthropomorphisms andrebels, and ascribes that to the noble master Imam Ahmad] (Cairo: Dar Ihya al-Kutub al-Arabiyya, 1350/1931). Whoever reads these and similar works with anopen mind cannot fail but notice the hoax that has been perpetrated by moneyedquarters in our times, of equating the tenets of a small band ofanthropomorphists to the Islamic belief (aqida) of Imam Ahmad and otherscholars of the early Muslims (al-salaf).

The real (aqida) of Imam Ahmad was very simple, and consisted, in the main, ofaccepting the words of the mutashabihat or unapparent meanings of the Quranand hadith as they have come without saying how they are meant. His position isclose to that of a number of other early scholars, who would not evencountenance changing the Quranic order of the words or substituting wordsimagined to be synonyms. For them, the verse in Sura Taha,

"The All-merciful is established (istawa) upon the Throne" (Quran 20:5)

does not enable one to say that "Allah is established upon Throne," or that "The

All-merciful is upon the Throne" or anything else besides "The All-merciful isestablished (istawa) upon the Throne." Full stop. Their position is exemplifiedby Sufyan ibn Uyayna (d. 98/717), who said, "The interpretation (tafsir) ofeverything with which Allah has described Himself in His book is to recite it andremain silent about it." It resembles the position of Imam Shafii, who simplysaid: "I believe in what has come from Allah as it was intended by Allah, and Ibelieve in what has come from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and givehim peace) as it was intended by the Messenger of Allah." We have mentionedthis school of tafwid or consigning the knowledge of what is meant to Allah inquestions (1) and (2) above.

It should be appreciated how far this position is from understanding themutashabihat or unapparent in meaning, scriptural expressions about Allah asthough they were meant literally (ala al-dhahir). The Hanbali Imam Ahmad ibnMuhammad al-Khallal (311/923), who took his fiqh from Imam Ahmadsstudents, relates in his al-Sunna [The sunna] through his chain of narrators fromHanbal [ibn Ishaq al-Shaybani] (d. 273/886), the son of the brother of Ahmadibn Hanbals father, that


4/9

Imam Ahmad was asked about the hadiths mentioning "Allahs descending,""seeing Allah," and "placing His foot on hell"; and the like, and he replied: "Webelieve in them and consider them true, without how and without meaning (bila kayfa wa la mana) [emphasis mine]."

And he said, when they asked him about Allahs istiwa [translated above asestablished]: "He is established upon the Throne (istawa ala al-Arsh) how Hewills and as He wills, without any limit or any description that be made by anydescriber (Kawthari, Daf shubah al-tashbih. Cairo n.d. Reprint. Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Tawfiqiyya, 1396/1976, 28).

This demonstrates how far Imam Ahmad was from anthropomorphism, though athird example is even more explicit. The Imam and hadith master (hafiz) Ahmadibn al-Husayn al-Bayhaqi (d. 458/1066) relates in his Manaqib al-Imam Ahmad[The memorable actions of Imam Ahmad], through his chain of narrators that

Ahmad condemned those who said Allah was a "body," saying, "The names ofthings are taken from the Sharia and the Arabic language. The languagespossessors have used this word [body] for something that has height, breadth,thickness, construction, form, and composition, while Allah Most High is beyondall of that, and may not be termed a "body" because of being beyond any meaningof embodiedness [emphasis mine]. This has not been conveyed by the Sharia,and so is refuted" (Azzami, al-Barahin al-satia [Cairo: Najm al-Din al-Kurdi,1366/1947], 164).

The above provides an idea of Ahmads aqida, as conveyed to us by the hadithmasters (huffaz) of the Umma who have distinguished the true reports from thespurious attributions of the anthropomorphists opinions to their Imam, both

early and late. But it is perhaps even more instructive, in view of therecrudescence of these ideas today, to look at an earlier work against Hanbalianthropomorphists about this bida, for the light this literature sheds upon thescience of textual interpretation.

As you may know, the true architect of the Hanbali madhhab was not actuallyImam Ahmad, who did not like to see any of his positions written down, butrather these were conveyed orally by various students at different times, onereason there are often a number of different narratives from him on legalquestions. It is probably no exaggeration to say that the real founder of theHanbali madhhab was the Imam and hadith master (hafiz) Abd al-Rahman ibn

al-Jawzi (d. 597/1201), who recorded all the narratives from Imam Ahmad,distinguished the well-authenticated from the poorly-authenticated, andorganized them into a coherent body of fiqh.

Ibn al-Jawzi took the question of people associating anthropomorphism withHanbalism so seriously that he wrote a book, Daf shubah al-tashbih bi akaff al-tanzih [Rebuttal of the insinuations of anthropomorphism at the hands of


5/9

transcendence] (N.d. Reprint. Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Tawfiqiyya, 1396/1976),refuting this heresy and exonerating his Imam of any association with it.

One of the most significant points he makes in this work is the principle that al-Idafatu la tufidu al-sifa ("an ascriptive construction (Ar. idafa, "the X of the Y")

does not establish [that X is] an attribute [of Y]"). This is very interesting becausethe anthropomorphists of his day, as well as Ibn Taymiyya in the seventh centuryafter the Hijra, used many ascriptive constructions (idafa) that appear in hadithsand Quranic verses as proof that Allah had "attributes" that bolstered theirconceptions of Him.

To clarify with examples, you are doubtless familiar with the Quranic verse of theSahaba swearing a fealty pact (baya) to the Prophet (Allah bless him and givehim peace), that says, "Allahs hand is above their hands" (Quran 48:10). Here,Ibn al-Jawzis principle means that we are not entitled to affirm, on the basis ofthe Arabic wording of the verse alone, that "Allah has a hand" as an attribute(sifa) of His entity. It could be that this Arabic expression is simply meant toemphasize the tremendousness of the offense of breaking this pact, as somescholars state.

There are many similar examples in the Arabic language in which an ascriptiveconstruction (idafa) conveys something about the possessor that is not literally anattribute. For example, in Arabic, it is said of someone with considerable powerand influence in society that Bauhu tawil ("His fathom (the length of hisoutstretched arms) is long,"), in which the ascriptive construction His fathomdoes not prove that the individual literally "has the attribute of an fathom," butthe words rather signify that he has power, and mean nothing besides. Or asImam al-Ghazali says of the word hand:

One should realize that hand may mean two different things. The first is theprimary lexical sense; namely, the bodily member composed of flesh, bone, andnervous tissue. Now, flesh, bone, and nervous tissue make up a specific body withspecific attributes; meaning, by body, something of an amount (with height,width, depth) that prevents anything else from occupying wherever it is, until it ismoved from that place.

Or [secondly] the word may be used figuratively, in another sense with norelation to that of an body at all: as when one says, "The city is in the leadershands," the meaning of which is well understood, even if the leaders hands are

amputated, for example (Ghazali, Iljam al-awam an ilm al-kalam [Beirut: Daral-Kitab al-Arabi, 1406/1985], 55).

Because that was the way the Arabic language was, and also to protect against thedanger of anthropomorphism, many Muslim scholars were to explain certain ofthe mutashabihat or unapparent in meaning expressions in Quranic verses andhadiths by tawil, or figuratively.


6/9

This naturally drew the criticism of neo-Hanbalis, at their forefront Ibn Taymiyaand Ibn al-Qayyim, as it still does of todays "reformers" of Islam, who echo theformer twos arguments that figurative interpretation (tawil) was a reprehensibledeparture (bida) by Asharis and others from the way of the early Muslims(salaf); and who call for a "return to the sunna," that is, to anthropomorphic

literalism. Now, it seems worthwhile in the face of such "reforms," to first ask anobvious question, namely: Is literalism really identical with pristine Islamic faith(aqida)? Or rather did figurative interpretation (tawil) exist among the salaf? Wewill answer this question with a few actual examples of mutashabihat orunapparent in meaning Quranic verses and hadiths, and examine how theearliest scholars interpreted them:

1. Forgetting. We have mentioned above the Quranic verse,

"Today We forget you as you have forgotten this day of yours" (Quran 45:34),

which the early Muslims used to interpret figuratively, as reported by a scholarwho was himself an early Muslim (salafi) and indeed,the sheikh of the earlyMuslims in Quranic exegesis, the hadith master (hafiz) Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (d.310/922); who explains the above verse as meaning: "This day, ResurrectionDay, We shall forget them, so as to say, We shall abandon them to theirpunishment" [emphasis mine] (Tabari, Jami al-bayan [Beirut: Dar al-Fikr,1405/1984], 8.202). Now, this is precisely tawil, or interpretation in other thanthe verses ostensive sense. Al-Tabari ascribes this interpretation, through hischains of transmission, to the Companion (Sahabi) Ibn Abbas (Allah be wellpleased with him) (d. 68/687) as well as to Mujahid [ibn Jabr] (d. 104/722), IbnAbbass main student in Quranic exegesis.

2. Hands. In the verse,

"And the sky We built with hands; verily We outspread [it]" (Quran 51:47),

al-Tabari ascribes the figurative explanation (tawil) of with hands as meaning"with power (bi quwwa)" through five chains of transmission to Ibn Abbas (d.68/687), Mujahid (d. 104/722), Qatada [ibn Daama] (d. 118/736), Mansur [ibnZadhan al-Thaqafi] (d. 131/749), and Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 161/778) (Jami al-bayan, 27.78).

3. Shin. Of the Quranic verse,

"On a day when shin shall be exposed, they shall be ordered to prostrate, but beunable" (Quran 68:32),

al-Tabari says, "A number of the exegetes of the Companions (Sahaba) and theirstudents (tabiin) held that it [a day when shin shall be exposed] means a dirematter (amr shadid) shall be disclosed [emphasis mine] [n: the shins associationwith direness being that it was customary for Arab warriors fighting in the desert


7/9

to ready themselves to move fast and hard through the sand in the thick of thefight by lifting the hems of their garments above the shin. This was apparentlylost upon later anthropomorphists, who said the verse proved Allah has a shin,or, according to others, two shins, since one would be unbecoming]" (Jami al-bayan, 29.38). Al-Tabari also relates from Muhammad ibn Ubayd al-Muharibi

(d. 245/859), who relates from Ibn al-Mubarak (d. 181/797), from Usama ibnZayd [al-Laythi] (d. 153/770), from Ikrima [ibn Abdullah al-Barbari] (d.104/723), from Ibn Abbas (d. 68/687) that shin in the above verse means "a dayof war and direness (harb wa shidda)" [emphasis mine] (ibid., 29.38). All of thesenarrators are those of the rigorously authenticated (sahih) collections exceptUsama ibn Zayd, whose hadiths are well authenticated (hasan).

4. Laughter. Of the hadith related in Sahih al-Bukhari from Abu Hurayra that theProphet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,

"Allah Most High laughs about two men, one of whom kills the other, but bothof whom enter paradise: the one fights in the path of Allah and is killed, andafterwards Allah forgives the killer, and then he fights in the path of Allah and ismartyred,"

the hadith master (hafiz) Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458/1066) records that[Muhammad ibn Yusuf] al-Farabri (d. 320/932) related from the hadith masterImam al-Bukhari (d. "The meaning of laughter in it is mercy" [emphasis mine](Bayhaqi, Kitab al-asma wa al-sifat [1358/1939. Reprint. Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, n.d.], 298).

5. Coming. The hadith master (hafiz) Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1373) reports that Imamal-Bayhaqi (d. 458/1066) related from al-Hakim (d. 405/1014), from Abu Amr

ibn al-Sammak (d. 344/955), from Hanbal [ibn Ishaq al-Shaybani] (d. 273/886),the son of the brother of Ahmad ibn Hanbals father, that "Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d.241/855) figuratively interpreted the word of Allah Most High,

"And your Lord shall come . . . (Quran 89:22),

"as meaning His recompense (thawab) shall come" [emphasis mine]. Al-Bayhaqisaid, "This chain of narrators has absolutely nothing wrong in it" (Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya [Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, 1985/1405], 10.342). Inother words, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, like the Companions (Sahaba) and other earlyMuslims mentioned above, also gave figurative interpretations (tawil) to

scriptural expressions that might otherwise have been misinterpretedanthropomorphically, which is what neo-Salafis condemn the Ashari school fordoing.

In light of the above examples, it is plain that the Ashari school did not originatefigurative interpretation, but rather it had been with Muslims from thebeginning. And if the above figures are not the salaf or early Muslims, who are?Ibn Taymiya (d. 728/1328) and Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751/1350)?


8/9

The question of tawil or figurative interpretation is the reason that our"reformers" refer to Asharis (as did Ibn Taymiya and Ibn al-Qayyim did beforethem) as Jahmiyya, or Jahmites, after Jahm ibn Safwan (d. 128/745), anextreme Mutazilite who denied that Allah had any attributes. Or as Nafat, or

Negaters, meaning of the attributes they would infer from verbs and ascriptive(idafa) constructions of the above type of mutashabihat, or unapparent inmeaning verses and hadiths that we have discussed. Despite the inaccuracy ofthese labels, which beg the question that the mutashabihat signify attributes, onecannot doubt the sincerity with which these people advocate their "return to earlyIslam." Yet, in view of the foregoing examples of figurative interpretation by earlyMuslims, one cannot help feeling entitled to ask, Whose early Islam would theyhave us return to?

It was Imam Abu Hanifa (d. 150/767) who first noted, "Two depraved opinionshave reached us from East, those of Jahm [ibn Safwan] (d. 128/745), the nullifierof the divine attributes, and those of Muqatil [ibn Sulayman al-Balkhi (d. c.a.150/767)], the likener of Allah to His creation" (Dhahabi, Siyar alam al-nubala[Beirut: Muassasa al-Risala, 1401/1984], 7.202).

These do not have to be an either-or for Muslims. Jahms brand of Mutazilismhas been dead for over a thousand years, while anthropomorphic literalism is aheresy that in previous centuries was confined to a handful of sects like theHanbalis addressed by Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Jawzi in his Daf shubah al-tashbih, or like the forgers of Kitab al-sunna who ascribed it to Imam Ahmadsson Abdullah, or like the Karramiyya [the followers of Muhammad al-Karram (d.255/869)], who believed Allah to be a corporeal entity "sitting in person on HisThrone."

It is with all the greater concern that we see, in our times, pamphlets beingcirculated in an attempt to create acceptance for these ideas, such as TheMuslims Belief, a English tract on Islamic faith (aqida) that tells WesternMuslim readers:

His [Allahs] settling [istiwa] on the Throne means that He is sitting in personon His Throne [emphasis mine] in a way that is becoming to His Majesty andGreatness. Nobody except He knows exactly how He is sitting (SheikhMuhammad al-Salih al-Uthaymin, The Muslims Belief [tr. Dr. Maneh Hammadal-Juhani. Intr. Sheikh Ibn Baz. Riyad: World Assembly of Muslim Youth,

1407/1987], 11).

In previous Islamic centuries, someone who worshipped a god who sits, movesabout, and so forth, was considered to be in serious trouble in his faith (aqida).Listen to the words of the Imam of Ahl al-Sunna in tenets of faith andheresiology, Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi (d. 429/1037):


9/9

Anyone who considers his Lord to resemble the form of a personas do theBayaniyya [the followers of Bayan ibn Saman al-Tamimi (d. 119/737)], theMughiriyya [followers of al-Mughira ibn Said al-Ajali (d. 119/737)], theJawaribiyya [followers of Dawud al-Jawaribi, (d. 2nd Hijra century)], and theHishamiyya [followers of Hisham ibn Salim al-Jawaliqi, the teacher of al-

Jawaribi in anthropomorphism]is only worshipping a person like himself. Asfor the permissibility of eating the meat he slaughters or of marriage with him,his ruling is that of an idol-worshipper. . . . Regarding the anthropomorphists ofKhurasan, of the Karramiyya, it is obligatory to consider them unbelieversbecause they affirm that Allah has a physical limit and boundary fromunderneath, from whence He is contact with His Throne (Baghdadi, Usul al-din[Istanbul: Matbaa al-Dawla, 1346/1929], 337).

If anthropomorphic literalism were an acceptable Islamic school of thought, whywas it counted among heresies and rejected for the first seven centuries of Islamthat preceded Ibn Taymiya and his student Ibn al-Qayyim?

To summarize: we have distinguished three ways of understanding themutashabihat, or unapparent in meaning verses and hadiths. The first is the wayof tafwid, or consigning the knowledge of what is meant to Allah, which was theway of Shafii and many of the early Muslims; in accordance with the reading ofthe Quranic verse about the mutashabihat:

"though none knows its meaning except Allah [emphasis mine]. And those firmin knowledge say, We believe in all of it. All is from our Lord" (Quran 3:7);

though another possible reading of the same verse is closer to the way of tawil, orfigurative interpretation which, as reported above, was done by the Companion

(Sahabi) Ibn Abbas and many other early Muslims; namely,

"though none knows its meaning except Allah and those firm in knowledge[emphasis mine]; they say, We believe in all of it. All is from our Lord" (Quran3:7);

In my view, both these are Islamic, and both seem needed, though tafwid issuperior where it does not lead to confusion about Allahs transcendence beyondthe attributes of created things, in accordance with the Quranic verse,

"There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him" (Quran 42:11).

As for anthropomorphism, it is clear from this verse and from the entire previoushistory of this Umma, that it is not an Islamic school of thought, and never hasbeen. And Allah knows best.

nuh ha mim keller - masud questions 5 imam ahmad ibn hanbal

Documents