ABSTRACT
The caliph's duress probably had to do with his fear that Ibn l:Ianbal would galvanize the masses and lead a rebellion. By the time al-Wathiq came into power, and probably before that, Ibn l:Ianbal's fate and opinions had become potent forces in Baghdadi politics. According to al-DhahabI, during Ibn l:Ianbal's interrogation, the participants considered the possible consequences of a Ibn I:Ianbal's death or serious deterioration in his physical condition, and some thought these might spark riots. Fearing the violent reaction of the masses, Ibn AbI Du'ad wanted to release Ibn l:Ianbal immediately following his torture.6 Ibn Abl Du'ad had good reason to fear Ibn I:Ianbal's political clout. Sometime after his release, Ibn l:Ianbal was approached by a group 'of
theJuqaha' of the people of Baghdad,' who tried to organize a rebellion against al-Wathiq. Ibn I:Ianbal refused to cooperate and vehemently criticized the potential rebels. 7
Ibn I:Ianbal's torments did not cease when ·al-Mutawakkil came to power. Even though a reversal of policy was already in the making in the last years of al-Wathiq's reign,8 some of Ibn I:Ianbal's old enemies and a handful of mutakallimlln still wielded power over al-Mutawakkil in his first years as caliph.9 During the first two years of al-Mutawakkil's reign, as he reconsidered his religio-political policy, Ibn I:Ianbal's old enemies did all they could to tarnish his reputation. One Is1).aq b. IbrahIm al-Mu~'abI, the governor of Baghdad who interrogated Ibn I:Ianbal and witnessed his flogging, was instructed to bring Ibn I:Ianbal to the caliphal court. While Is1).aq b. IbrahIm al-Mu~'abIwas staying in the caliph's court, word reached him that Ibn I:Ianbal had insulted his son Mul)ammad by leaving Baghdad without paying his respects to him. Isl)aq b. IbrahIm al-Mu~'abI reported the incident to alMutawakkil, who instructed Ibn I:Ianbal to return to Baghdad. 10
This embarrassment was followed by a more serious entanglement in which Ibn I:Ianbal was said to have harbored an 'AlawI in his home. I:Ianbali sources consider Mul)ammad b. Shuja' b. al-ThalgI as the culprit. I I A biographical sketch of Ibn al-ThalgI sheds light on his motive for trying to tarnish Ibn I:Ianbal's reputation. Ibn al-ThalgI was a I:Ianafi jurist who has been described as 'having sympathy for the Mu'tazili school (wa-lahu mayl ila madhhab al-Mu'tazila).'12 He was also well versed in traditions and was accused by the Traditionists of using his familiarity with this branch of religious knowledge to contrive (yaqa'u) traditions related to anthropomorphism and attributing theln to the Traditionists. 13 As for courtly politics, suffice it to say that he gained access to the court through the mediation of Islfaq b. IbrahIm
al-Mu~'abI, Ibn I:Ianbal's long-time enemy, who had persuaded the caliph to send Ibn I:Ianbal back to Baghdad before they even met. 14
This short profile dove-tails with the above-stated observation that the main actors in the persecution of the Traditionists were I:IanafiMu'tazilis. As the members of the I:Ianafi-Mu'tazili milieu watched their power decline, Ibn al-ThalgI, one of the last Mu'tazilis with leverage in the court, played upon al-Mutawakkil's animosity to the ShI'Is, in order to create a rift between the wavering caliph and Ibn I:Ianbal, the ascending moral leader of the Traditionists.
