Ahaz'' (see the LXX.). Ahaz was succeeded by his son Hezekiah.
On the ritual changes which he introduced see W. R. Smith,
Relig. of Semites (2), pp. 485 sqq.; and on his reign, idem,
Prophets of Israel (2), pp. 415 sqq. On 2 Kings xvi. 3 (cf.
2 Chron. xxviii. 3) see Moloch. See further Isaiah and Jews.
AHAZIAH (``he whom Yahweh sustains''), the name of two
kings in the Bible, one of Israel, the other of Judah. (1)
Ahaziah, 8th king of Israel, was the son and successor of
Ahab, and reigned for less than two years. On his accession
the Moabites refused any longer to pay tribute. Ahaziah lost
his life through a fall from the lattice of an upper room in
his palace, and it is stated that in his illness he sent to
consult the oracle of Baal-zebub at Ekron; his messengers,
however, were met by Elijah, who bade them return and tell the
king he must die (e Kings i. 2-17; cf. Luke ix. 54-56). (2)
Ahaziah, 6th king of Judah, was the son cf Jehoram and Ahab's
daughter Athaliah, and reigned one year. He is described as
a wicked and idolatrous king, and was slain by Jehu, son of
Nimshi. He is variously called Jehoahaz and Azariah.
AHENOBARBUS (``brazen-bearded''), the name cf a plebeian
Roman family of the gens Domitia. The name was derived
from the red beard and hair by which many of the family were
distinguished. Amongst its members the following may be mentioned:--
GNAEUS DOMITIUS AHENOBARBUS, tribune of the people 104 B.C.,
brought forward a law (lex Domitia de Sacerdotiis) by which
the priests of the superior colleges were to be elected by
the people in the comitia tributa (seventeen of the tribes
voting) instead of by co-optation; the law was repealed by
Sulla, revived by Julius Caesar and (perhaps) again repealed
by Marcus Antonius, the triumvir (Cicero, De Lege Agraria,
ii. 7; Suetonius, Nero, 2). Ahenobarbus was elected pontifex
maximus in 103, consul in 96 and censor in 92 with Lucius
Licinius Crassus the orator, with whom he was frequently at
variance. They took joint action, however, in suppressing
the recently established Latin rhetorical schools, which they
regarded as injurious to public morality (Aulus Gellius xv. 11).
LUCIUS DOMITIUS AHENOBARBUS, son of the above, husband of
Porcia the sister of Cato Uticensis, friend of Cicero and
enemy of Caesar, and a strong supporter of the aristocratical
party. At first strongly opposed to Pompey, he afterwards sided
with him against Caesar. He was consul in 54 B.C., and in 49
he was appointed by the senate to succeed Caesar as governor of
Gaul. After the outbreak of the civil war he commanded the
Pompeian troops at Corfinium, but was obliged to surrender.
Although treated with great generosity by Caesar, he stirred
up Massilia (Marseilles) to an unsuccessful resistance against
him. After its surrender, he joined Pompey in Greece and was
slain in the flight after the battle of Pharsalus, in which he
commanded the right wing against Antony (Caesar, Bellum Civile,
i., ii., iii.; Dio Cassius xxxix., xli.; Appian, B.C. ii. 82).
GNAEUS DOMITIUS AHENOBARBUS, son of the above, accompanied his
father at Corfinium and Pharsalus, and, having been pardoned by
Caesar, returned to Rome in 46. After Caesar's assassination
he attached himself to Brutus and Cassius, and in 43 was
condemned by the lex Pedia as having been implicated in the
plot. He obtained considerable naval successes in the
Ionian Sea against the triumvirate, but finally, through the
mediation of Asinius Pollio, became reconciled to Antony,
who made him governor of Bithynia. He took part in Antony's
Parthian campaigns, and was consul in 32. When war broke out
between Antony and Octavian, he at first supported Antony,
but, disgusted with his intrigue with Cleopatra, went over
to Octavian shortly before the battle of Actium (31). He
died soon afterwards (Dio Cassius xlviii.-l; Appian, Bell.
Civ. iv., v.). His son was married to Antonia, daughter
of Antony, and became the grandfather of the emperor Nero.
See Drumann, Geschichte Rom., 2nd ed. by Groebe,vol. iii. pp.14 ff.
AHITHOPHEL (Heb. for ``brother of foolishness,'' i.e.
foolish!), a man of Judah whose son was a member of David's
bodyguard. He was possibly the grandfather of Bathsheiba (see
2 Sam. xi. 3, xxiii. 34), a view which has been thought to
have some bearing on his policy. He was one of David's most
trusted advisers, and his counsel was ``as though one inquired
of the word of God.'' He took a leading part in Absalom's
revolt, and his defection was a severe blow to the king, who
prayed that God would bring his counsel to ``foolishness.''
The subsequent events are rather obscure. At Ahithophel's
advice Absalom first took the precaution of asserting his
claim to the throne by seizing his father's concubines (cf.
ABNER.) The immediate pursuit of David was then suggested;
the advice was accepted, and the sequence of events shows
that the king, being warned of this, fled across the Jordan
(2 Sam. xvi. 20-23, xvii. 1-4, 22). Inconsistent with
this is the account of the intervention of Hushai, whose
counsel of delay (in order to gather all Israel ``from Dan
to Beersheba''), in spite of popular approbation, was not
adopted, and with this episode is connected the tradition
that the sagacious counsellor returned to his home and,
having disposed of his estate, hanged himself. Instances of
suicide are rare in the Old Testament (cf. SAUL), and it
is noteworthy that in this case, at least, a burial was not
refused. (See further ABSALOM; DAVID; SAMUEL, BOOKS OF.)
AHMAD IBN HANBAL (780-855), the founder, involuntarily and
after his death, of the Hanbalite school of canon law, was
born at Bagdad in A.H. 164 (A.D. 780) of parents from Merv
but of Arab stock. He studied the Koran and its traditions
(hadith, sunna) there and on a student journey through
Mesopotamia, Arabia and Syria. After his return to Bagdad he
studied under ash-Shafi'i between 195 and 198, and became,
for his life, a devoted Shafi-'ite. But his position in both
theology and law was more narrowly traditional than that of
ash-Shafi'i; he rejected all reasoning, whether orthodox
or heretical in its conclusions, and stood for acceptance on
tradition (naql) only from the Fathers. (See further on this,
MAHOMMEDAN RELIGION and MAHOMMEDAN LAW.) In consequence,
when al-Ma'mun and, after him, al-Mo'tasim and al-Wathio
tried to force upon the people the rationalistic Mo'tazihte
doctrine that the Koran was created, Ibn Hanbal, the most
prominent and popular theologian who stood for the old view,
suffered with others grievous imprisonment and scourging.
In 234, under al-Motawakkil, the Koran was finally decreed
uncreated, and Ibn Hanbal, who had come through this trial
better than any of the other theologians, enjoyed an immense
popularity with the mass of the people as a saint, confessor and
ascetic. He died at Bagdad in 241 (A.D. 855) and was buried
there. There was much popular excitement at his funeral, and his
tomb was known and visited until at least the 14th century A.D.
On his great work, the Musnad, a collection of some thirty
thousand selected traditions, see Goldzther in ZDMG, l. 463
ff. For his life and works generally see W. M. Patten, Ahmed
ibn Hanbal and the Mihna; C. Browkelmann, Geschichte der
Arab. Lit. i. 181 ff.; F Wustenfeld, Schfai'iten, 55 ff.;
M`G. de Slane's transl. of Ibn Khallikan, i. 44 ff.; Macdonald,
Development of Muslim Theology, 110, 157, index. (D. B. MA.)
AHMAD SHAH (1724-1773), founder of the Durani dynasty in
Afghanistan, was the son of Sammaun-Khan, hereditary chief of
the Abdali tribe. While still a boy Ahmad fell into the hands
of the hostile tribe of Ghilzais, by whom he was kept prisoner at
Kandahar. In March 1738 he was rescued by Nadir Shah, who
soon afterwards gave him the command of a body of cavalry
composed chiefly of Abdalis. On the assassination of Nadir in
1747, Ahmad, having failed in an attempt to seize the Persian
treasures, retreated to Afghanistan, where he easily persuaded
the native tribes to assert their independence and accept him
as their sovereign. He was crowned at Kandahar in October 1747,
and about the same time he changed the name of his tribe to
Durani. Two things may be said to have contributed greatly
to the consolidation of his power. He interfered as little
as possible with the independence of the different tribes,
demanding from each only its due proportion of tribute and
military service; and he kept his army constantly engaged
in brilliant schemes of foreign conquest. Being possessed
of the Koh-i-noor diamond, and being fortunate enough to
intercept a consignment of treasure on its way to the shah
of Persia, he had all the advantages which great wealth can
give. He first crossed the Indus in 1748, when he took
Lahore; and in 1751, after a feeble resistance on the part
of the Mahommedan viceroy, he became master of the entire
Punjab. In 1750 he took Nishapur, and in 1752 subdued
Kashmir. His great expedition to Delhi was undertaken in
1756 in order to avenge himself on the Great Mogul for the
recapture of Lahore. Ahmad entered Delhi with his army in
triumph, and for more than a month the city was given over to
pillage. The shah himself added to his wives a princess of
the imperial family, and bestowed another upon his son Timur
Shah, whom he made governor of the Punjab and Sirhind. As his
viceroy in Delhi he left a Rohilla chief in whom he had all
confidence, but scarcely had he crossed the Indus when the
Mahommedan wazir drove the chief from the city, killed the
Great Mogul and set another prince of the family, a tool of his
own, upon the throne. The Mahratta chiefs availed themselves
of these circumstances to endeavour to possess themselves of the
whole country, and Ahmad was compelled more than once to cross
the Indus in order to protect his territory from them and the
Sikhs, who were constantly attacking his garrisons. In 1758
the Mahrattas obtained possession of the Punjab, but on the
6th of January 1761 they were totally routed by Ahmad in the
great battle of Panipat. In a later expedition he inflicted
a severe defeat upon the Sikhs, but had to hasten westward
immediately afterwards in order to quell an insurrection in
Afghanistan. Meanwhile the Sikhs again rose, and Ahmad
was now forced to abandon all hope of retaining the command
of the Punjab. After lengthened suffering from a terrible
disease, said to have been cancer in the face, he died in
1773, leaving to his son Timur the kingdom he had founded.
AHMED I. (1589-1617), sultan of Turkey, was the son of
Mahommed III., whom he succeeded in 1603, being the first
Ottoman sultan who reached the throne before attaining his
majority. He was of kindly and humane disposition, as he
showed by refusing to put to death his brother Mustafa, who
eventually succeeded him. In the earlier part of his reign
he gave proofs of decision and vigour, which were belied by
his subsequent conduct. The wars which attended his accession
both in Hungary and in Persia terminated unfavourably for
Turkey, and her prestige received its first check in the
peace of Sitvatorok, signed in 1606, whereby the annual
tribute paid by Austria was abolished. Ahmed gave himself
up to pleasure during the remainder of his reign, which
ended in 1617, and demoralization and corruption became
as general throughout the public service as indiscipline
in the ranks of the army. The use of tobacco is said to
have been introduced into Turkey during Ahmed I.'s reign.
AHMED II. (1643-1695), sultan of Turkey, son of Sultan
