…was a batini, i.e. he espoused the Ismaili creed. A serious turmoil broke out against him even though he was innocent. The confusion arose because the lord of Alamut, Hasan ibn al-Sabbah, the Ismaili batini, was likewise known by the laqab al-Kiya. Once this became clear the distress of Shaykh al-Islam—may Allah have mercy on him—was removed, and people realised that the accusation stemmed solely from the coincidence of the two honorifics. I add: we have already noted that in the Persian language al-Kiya means “a person of great standing, pre-eminent among the people.” (1) I.e. the juridical questions on which Imam Ahmad alone differs from the other three imams. These «mufradat» were versified by the scholar Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-Maqdisi al-Hanbali (d. 820 AH) in a poem entitled al-Nazm al-mufid al-ahmad fi mufradat al-Imam Ahmad, now published together with its commentary. (*) Basic sources: Tarikh al-Islam, vol. 4, folio 170/2; al-Ibar, 4/8; Uyoun al-tawarikh, 13/folio 261; al-Nujum al-zahira, 5/202; Shadharāt al-dhahab, 4/8. (2) Tarikh al-Islam, 4/171: al-Salafi said, “Abu Ya‘la was of lofty stature; he was born in 407 AH and transmitted to us from Abu l-Ala al-Wasiti and Abu Muhammad al-Khallal. He told me that he had studied the Kitab al-fasih with Ali ibn Isa al-Ruba‘i.” I—the speaker is al-Dhahabi—add: Ibn al-Sam‘ani dated his birth the same way. Had Hamza, while young, heard as much as his brother Turad, he would have studied with Abu l-Husayn ibn Bishran and Hilal al-Haffar and become the leading musnid of his time; I am amazed that they did not have him attend their sessions.