“Mihna” is the Arabic term for a test or a trial.

In its most common historical

usage, Mihna refers to the inquisition launched by the seventh Abbasid caliph, al-
Ma_mun (r. 813–833) toward the end of his reign to enforce the doctrine of the
createdness of the Qur_an. The Mihna has loomed large in the way medieval
historians represented the reign and the legacy of al-Ma_mun, and modern
scholars have often seen the Mihna and its eventual failure as a major episode in
the religious and political history of the first centuries of Islam.

History
In 833, while at Raqqa in northern Mesopotamia, al-Ma_mun wrote to his
governor of Baghdad, ordering him to examine the views held by his judges and
the scholars of hadith regarding the Qur_an. The caliph believed that, contrary to
what “ignorant” people thought, the Qur_an was not eternally existent—for this
was an attribute that belonged only to God—but created by Him, and that this
was how God Himself had spoken of it. Therefore, al-Ma_mun believed,
supposing the Qur_an to be uncreated and eternal threatened to compromise the
unity (tawhid) of God, and thus to undermine the very foundations of religion. As
he lamented in his letters to his governor, most people were too ignorant of the
reality of religion to hold sound beliefs about it, and yet they—and the
demagogues who aspired to their leadership— claimed to be the most assiduous
followers of Muhammad’s normative example, the hadith. As one entrusted with
knowledge, and with the obligation to uphold “God’s right[s],” al- Ma_mun wanted
therefore to see to it that false beliefs about the Qur_an were rectified. Most of
those who were examined on the question of the Qur_an’s createdness—by al-
Ma_mun’s governor of Baghdad, by the caliph himself, or by his officials in the
provinces— ended up declaring their adherence to the caliphal position. The
most famous dissenter, however, was the noted hadith scholar of Baghdad,
Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855). He, alongside another recalcitrant scholar, was sent
to al-Ma_mun’s military camp in Tarsus to be interrogated, but the caliph died
before he could attend to the matter and Ibn Hanbal was returned to Baghdad.
This, however, was only the beginning of the Mihna, and of Ibn Hanbal’s long and
muchcelebrated ordeal.
In the history of Islamic theology, the doctrine of the uncreatedness of the
Qur_an (khalq al-Qur_an) is associated primarily with the rationalist Mu_tazila
school. However, several other theologians also held this position. These
theologians have often been characterized in Islamic heresiography as the
“Jahmiyya,” for their putative association with doctrines held by an early and
much-maligned figure named Jahm b. Safwan (d. 745). Al-Ma_mun himself was
not a Mu_tazili, for he did not share the Mu_tazila’s characteristic doctrine of free
will, but he agreed with them on the createdness of the Qur_an. Already in 827,
the caliph had publicly declared his support for this doctrine, though it was only in
833 that he went on to institute the Mihna. On his deathbed, al-Ma_mun left
instructions that his successor, Abu Ishaq al-Mu_tasim (r. 833–842), continue to
uphold his position on the Qur_an. During the latter’s reign,
Ibn Hanbal was interrogated and flogged for refusing to accept the Qur_an’s
createdness. A central figure during the Mihna years was the Mu_tazili chief
judge, Ahmad Ibn Abi Du_ad (d. 854), who is represented in Sunni historiography
as being far more anxious to continue the Inquisition than the caliphal successors
of al-Ma_mun themselves might have been. Later historians also lay much of the
responsibility for the flogging of Ibn Hanbal on Ibn Abi Du_ad. For his part, Ibn
Hanbal is reported to have remained steadfast despite the flogging, after which
he was released and left alone by the prosecutors of the Mihna. His release is
usually explained in Sunni historiography as being due to fears of popular
commotion against his persecution, though some (largely unfavorable) sources
claim the real reason for it to have been that he too had eventually capitulated to
the authorities. This, however, seems unlikely, in view of the severity with which
Ibn Hanbal himself later treated many of those who had acknowledged the
doctrine of the Qur_an’s createdness during the Mihna.
The Inquisition continued under al-Mu_tasim’s successor, al-Wathiq (r. 842–847),
who appears to have pursued it rather more vigorously than had al-Mu_tasim.
Indeed, he went so far as to interrogate Muslim prisoners in Byzantine captivity
about their view of the Qur_an before deciding whether or not they were to be
ransomed. The harshness of the state’s inquisitorial policies led some people of
Baghdad to attempt a revolt, but the plot failed and its leader, Ahmad ibn Nasr al-
Khuza_i, who was closely associated with the scholars of hadith, was executed
(c. 845–846). Soon, however, with the accession of a new caliph—al-Mutawakkil
(r. 847–861)—the Mihna itself began to unravel. In 849, this caliph forbade
disputations about the Qur_an, and in the same year he ordered several leading
scholars to narrate hadith to the people, refuting the doctrines of the Mu_tazila
and the Jahmiyya. A more decisive demonstration of the shift in caliphal policy
came when, in 851, the Mu_tazili chief judge, Ibn Abi Du_ad, and his son (also a
judge in the then-Abbasid capital of Samarra) were removed from office and their
property was confiscated. This, for practical purposes, signaled the end of the
Mihna, though the doctrine of the createdness of the Qur_an would continue to
be debated in
theological circles for centuries.

Interpretations of the Mihna

Modern scholars have much debated the meaning and significance of the Mihna,
and there is no consensus on why al- Ma_mun so insisted on the doctrine of the
Qur_an’s createdness.
Al-Ma_mun’s own explanation was that it was his calling, as caliph and imam, to
provide guidance to his subjects and, in particular, to rectify their dangerously
wayward beliefs about the Qur_an. Yet modern scholars have often discerned
motives behind the Mihna which go beyond a specific theological controversy. In
God’s Caliph, Patricia Crone and Martin Hinds have argued that al-Ma_mun was
really trying, through the Mihna, to make a last-ditch effort to reclaim a religious
authority that had belonged to earlier caliphs but which had been eroded by the
growing influence of the scholars of hadith and of the ulema in general. To these
scholars, religious authority was enshrined, not in the will or verdicts of the
caliphs, but rather in the hadith of the Prophet, and of this the ulema claimed to
be the sole interpreters. This position was unacceptable to al-Ma_mun, and the
Mihna represented a vigorous if ultimately abortive effort to make the scholars
subservient to the caliphs. It is not clear, however, if the Abbasid caliphs prior to
al- Ma_mun did claim the sort of overarching religious authority that Crone and
Hinds impute to them. The Mihna is perhaps better interpreted not as the
decisive culmination of a struggle over the form or locus of authoritative religious
guidance but, instead, as a break with the evolving patterns of caliphal patronage
under the early Abbasids. Rather than co-opt or draw close to the emerging
scholars of hadith, al-Ma_mun sought to rein in their influence and assert his own
authority as the arbiter of right belief. These scholars, best represented by Ibn
Hanbal, were the principal target of the caliph’s ire and of his effort to assert his
authority. As the names of those questioned indicate, however, scholars of hadith
were not alone in their tribulation. Some of those examined also had a record of
political opposition to the caliph, and this suggests that the Mihna’s uses
extended beyond theological speculation and even beyond the caliph’s assertion
of religious authority. For instance, several recent authors have observed that
Ibrahim b. al-Mahdi was among those interrogated during the Mihna. Ibrahim was
not a religious scholar but, rather, a prominent member of the Abbasid family and
he had been declared caliph in Baghdad following the civil war between al-Amin
and al-Ma_mun. Even some of the scholars who were questioned during the
Mihna were suspect on political grounds. For instance, the widely respected
scholar Abu Mushir al-Ghassani (d. 833) of Damascus had sided with an anti-
Abbasid revolt in Syria. Ahmad b. Nasr al-Khuza_i’s execution during the reign of
al- Wathiq owed more to his abortive revolt than to his views on the Qur_an, even
though it was ostensibly for the latter that he was killed. In general, it seems fair
to say that a variety of factors were involved in the institution and continuation of
the Mihna, as well as in the choice of those who were interrogated during its
course.
Modern scholarly interpretations of the larger significance of the Mihna are
necessarily shaped by how it is seen in relation to Abbasid history, and to early
Islamic history in general. If early Abbasid history is viewed as a continuing
contest over religious authority between “God’s caliph” and the emerging ulema,
then the Mihna assumes the character of a watershed event, the failure of which
permanently divested the caliphs of any significant role in religious life and
established a lasting “separation” between the political and the religious
authorities. However, there is little evidence for such a contest between the
caliphs and the ulema prior to al-
Ma_mun, just as there are many indications of caliphal participation in the
community’s religious life after the Mihna. Caliphs could still undertake the
Qur_anic obligation of“commanding right and forbidding wrong.” The caliphs al-
Qadir (r. 991–1031) and al-Qa_im (r. 1031–1075) led efforts to devise a
theological creed against the Mu_talzila and other unwelcome groups; and
caliphs could still participate in the deliberations of the jurists. It is also worth
noting that, in his influential treatise on constitutional theory, al-Mawardi (d. 1058)
should have listed juridical expertise among the necessary qualifications for the
caliphate, for even if such a stipulation was more wishful thinking than a realistic
expectation, it still reveals something about how jurists viewed the caliphate two
centuries after the Mihna. It is true, of course, that as the ulema’s scholarly
specializations evolved—a process already unmistakably underway before al-
Ma’mun—there was progressively less space for caliphs to authoritatively shape
religious discourses in the community over which they presided. Yet the
constraining of that space is better analyzed not with reference to any decisive
impact the Mihna itself may have had on it, but rather in light of the long and
complex history of the ulema and, of course, that of the caliphate. If the failure of
the Mihna did not remove the caliphs from religious life, the entire protracted
episode and its aftermath did nevertheless contribute to the vigor and identity of
the emerging ulema. The end of the Mihna brought to a close the political
ascendancy of the Mu_tazili theologians, who were replaced in caliphal favor by
the scholars of hadith. Ibn Hanbal was much sought after by Caliph al-
Mutawakkil and his officials; and though he is reported to have been much
perturbed by what he saw as this unwanted attention, there can be little doubt
that royal patronage was one of the factors contributing, in the succeeding
generations, to the growing prominence of Ibn Hanbal’s followers in the religious
life of Baghdad. The scholars of hadith had already, during the Mihna, shown
themselves to have considerable popular support. Indeed, such increasing
prominence may, arguably, have provoked at least some of al-Ma_mun’s
suspicions of them in the first place. The end of the Mihna further deepened and
extended the populist roots of early Sunnism and, in particular, of those adhering
to the school of law that came to be identified with the name of Ahmad b. Hanbal.
In theological terms, a major facet of the Mihna’s significance lies in its
contribution to the articulation of the “orthodox” Sunni view on the nature of the
Qur_an. Al-Ma_mun had accused his opponents of believing the Qur_an to be
coeternal with God but, as Madelung—following the medieval Hanbali jurist and
theologian Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328)—has observed, early hadith scholars had
usually been content to characterize the Qur_an as God’s speech and to leave
the matter there. In response to the doctrine al-Ma_mun wanted to enforce,
however, the traditionists came to hold that the Qur_an was indeed uncreated.
This dogma then became a defining feature of Sunni theology, though there
continued to be much disagreement, long after the Mihna, on its precise meaning
and implications.

Muhammad Qasim Zaman

See also Caliphate; Disputation; Ibn Hanbal; Imamate; Ma_mum, al-;
Mu_tazilites, Mu_tazila; Qur_an.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abou El Fadl, Khaled. Rebellion and Violence in Islamic Law. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Cooperson, Michael. Classical Arabic Biography: The Heirs of the Prophets in
the Age of al-Ma_mun. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Crone, Patricia, and Hinds, Martin. God’s Caliph: Religious Authority in the First
Centuries of Islam. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Ess, Josef van. Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991–1997.
Hinds, Martin. “Mihna.” In The Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2d ed. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1960.
Lapidus, Ira M. “The Separation of State and Religion in the Development of
Early Islamic Society.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 6 (1975):
363–385.
Madelung, Wilferd. “The Controversy on the Creation of the Koran.” In
Orientalia Hispanica sive studia F. M. Pareja octogenario dedicata. Edited by M.
M. Barral. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974.
Nawas, John A. “A Reexamination of Three Current Explanations for al-
Ma_mun’s Introduction of the Mihna.” International Journal of Middle East
Studies 26 (1994): 615–629.
Patton, Walter M. Ahmad ibn Hanbal and the Mihna. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997.
Tabari, al-. The History of al-Tabari. Vol. 32: The Reunification of the _Abbasid
Caliphate. Translated by C. E. Bosworth. Albany: State University of New York
Press, 1987.
Zaman, Muhammad Qasim. Religion and Politics under the Early _Abbasids.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997.

Muhammad Qasim Zaman