The essay is mostly based on topics within this reading:
Chase F. Robinson, Islamic Civilization in Thirty Lives: The First 1000 Years, London: Thames & Hudson, 2016.
But I can choose any topic/issue that has two sides of argument, and assess and analyze them and engage with them critically, this last part is where I get the best marks. And do keep in mind that I’m a Muslim Sunni person when writing, so I can’t be overly critical of Islamic faith and such.
My general idea is this: (but if you cant find sources and such you can look for another topic)
“He viewed Ibn Hanbal as a mere traditionist, rather than a jurist, and this scarcely endeared him to the Hanbalis”. p.84 (Chase F. Robinson, Islamic Civilization in Thirty Lives: The First 1000 Years, London: Thames & Hudson, 2016)
I wanted to investigate the issue between Al tabari and the Hanbalites, why were they aggressive towards hi. This issue was discussed in ibn al kathir’s book al-Bidāya w-l-Nihāya, ibn Athīr’s book al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh, and also western books (please look some up). Is this related to what happened between al-Ṭabārī and Muḥammad b. Dāwūd – the sone of the founder of the Ẓahiriya Islamic school of law (do’t mix him up with another person al tabari had issues with which is called ibn Abī dāwūd who was a Hanbali jurist)…
A good place to start is the Arabic language article – Named: Mihan al tabari in the other attached file -, so you understand what I want to argue.