Is it true that Shaykh Al-Albani agrees with Ibn Hazm in the principles of jurisprudence, and that he has a specific methodology in the principles? What is the truth of this?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : May Allah preserve you, my honorable father. It is said that Shaykh Al-Albani agrees with Ibn Hazm in the principles of jurisprudence, and that he has a specific methodology in the principles. What is the truth of this? And is there an intention to write on this? May Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : As for the intention, I have not reached it.
As for my agreeing with Ibn Hazm, that is the furthest thing from the truth. Because I often point out his rigidity in some texts, where understanding the jurisprudence reveals Ibn Hazm's rigidity in some of his rules. Then I give examples of some rigid contemporaries who fall into the same rigidity as Ibn Hazm, even though they claim to be free and claim to be cultured and that they want a reasonable Islam. Their claim leads them, because of this inclination, to make the rulings of the Shari'ah reasonable to all minds. Their affair has reached the point where they deny authentic and famous hadiths. The revolution stirred up by the contemporary Ghazali and the one who responded to him, due to his response to authentic hadiths in the two Sahihs and elsewhere, is of the same kind as these people. On one hand, you see them exaggerating in rejecting some hadiths that do not suit their desires, and I do not say their minds. On the other hand, they fall into a contradiction of sound logic, being rigid on some texts and imitating the apparentism of Ibn Hazm. I have criticized Ibn Hazm for his rigidity on many occasions. But perhaps the reason for this question is that I sometimes say that this is analogical reasoning, and this analogical reasoning is one of the most invalid things on the face of the earth. So I quote from the words of Ibn Hazm, who says: "All analogical reasoning is invalid, and if there were any truth in it, this would be the very essence of invalidity". Some people perform strange and very strange analogies, so I use the words of Ibn Hazm, who exaggerated and denied analogical reasoning, and this is part of his rigidity. But he is truly correct sometimes in responding to those who perform analogies and those who follow opinions, who establish some rulings through analogical reasoning, which is indeed the most invalid analogy on the face of the earth. For example, some schools of jurisprudence say that speech in prayer invalidates it, even if it is by mistake. What is the evidence? They say it is an analogy to intentional speech. You have just heard in the story of Mu'awiyah ibn al-Hakam al-Sulami, who spoke in his prayer by mistake, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) only taught him and did not order him to repeat the prayer. So how is it correct to say that the speech of one who speaks by mistake or ignorance invalidates the prayer by analogy to the speech of one who does it intentionally? I say on this occasion: This is an analogy, as Ibn Hazm says, "and if there were any truth in analogical reasoning, this would be the very essence of invalidity"
So perhaps some people understand from this that I agree with him in denying analogical reasoning and follow his school, but that is not the case.
The Shaykh : As for the intention, I have not reached it.
As for my agreeing with Ibn Hazm, that is the furthest thing from the truth. Because I often point out his rigidity in some texts, where understanding the jurisprudence reveals Ibn Hazm's rigidity in some of his rules. Then I give examples of some rigid contemporaries who fall into the same rigidity as Ibn Hazm, even though they claim to be free and claim to be cultured and that they want a reasonable Islam. Their claim leads them, because of this inclination, to make the rulings of the Shari'ah reasonable to all minds. Their affair has reached the point where they deny authentic and famous hadiths. The revolution stirred up by the contemporary Ghazali and the one who responded to him, due to his response to authentic hadiths in the two Sahihs and elsewhere, is of the same kind as these people. On one hand, you see them exaggerating in rejecting some hadiths that do not suit their desires, and I do not say their minds. On the other hand, they fall into a contradiction of sound logic, being rigid on some texts and imitating the apparentism of Ibn Hazm. I have criticized Ibn Hazm for his rigidity on many occasions. But perhaps the reason for this question is that I sometimes say that this is analogical reasoning, and this analogical reasoning is one of the most invalid things on the face of the earth. So I quote from the words of Ibn Hazm, who says: "All analogical reasoning is invalid, and if there were any truth in it, this would be the very essence of invalidity". Some people perform strange and very strange analogies, so I use the words of Ibn Hazm, who exaggerated and denied analogical reasoning, and this is part of his rigidity. But he is truly correct sometimes in responding to those who perform analogies and those who follow opinions, who establish some rulings through analogical reasoning, which is indeed the most invalid analogy on the face of the earth. For example, some schools of jurisprudence say that speech in prayer invalidates it, even if it is by mistake. What is the evidence? They say it is an analogy to intentional speech. You have just heard in the story of Mu'awiyah ibn al-Hakam al-Sulami, who spoke in his prayer by mistake, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) only taught him and did not order him to repeat the prayer. So how is it correct to say that the speech of one who speaks by mistake or ignorance invalidates the prayer by analogy to the speech of one who does it intentionally? I say on this occasion: This is an analogy, as Ibn Hazm says, "and if there were any truth in analogical reasoning, this would be the very essence of invalidity"
So perhaps some people understand from this that I agree with him in denying analogical reasoning and follow his school, but that is not the case.