Examples of Ibn Hazm’s rigidity regarding the apparent meaning of hadith and Shaykh Al-Albani’s critique of this methodology.

The Shaykh : And I give an example, or rather more than one example, of my dissatisfaction with some of Ibn Hazm’s principles, among which is his failure to look carefully into the understanding of hadith; rather, he insists on sticking to the literal wording of the hadith. For instance, there is the well-known hadith that if a virgin’s guardian wants to marry her off, he must seek her permission. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . All the jurists understand from this noble saying: , meaning that it is sufficient for the virgin daughter, if her guardian consults her, that she remains silent, and her silence is a sign of her consent. As for Ibn Hazm, he came up with something very strange, which we might call a blunder. He said: If she remains silent, it is not valid; she must say, “I consent.” Why? “I consent, O my father” is not valid; she must be mute and remain silent. This is Ibn Hazm’s rigidity. We point out this rigidity not to mock Ibn Hazm, for he has passed away to the mercy of his Lord, Blessed and Exalted is He, and he is a great imam, which we do not deny at all. But he had some deviations, one of which is known as his apparentist (Zahiri) school. This is part of his rigidity regarding the apparent text: if the daughter says “I consent,” it is not valid; rather, she must remain silent. Meanwhile, the other scholars, and this is the truth in which we have no doubt, understood the hadith such that the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: is a consideration by the Lawgiver for the nature of the virgin, who is predominantly characterized by modesty. But that was in the past. As for today, the matter does not need clarification, for most women are characterized by boldness and frankness beyond what the Shari'ah requires.
So the wise Lawgiver considered the nature of the virgin daughter, and for this reason, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) described our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) by saying: . Because of this modesty, the wise Lawgiver was content with the virgin remaining silent. But if she says “I consent,” that is light upon light, because in many cases, the indication of silence may be presumptive. However, if she explicitly states and says “I consent,” that is stronger. As for Ibn Hazm, he made it obligatory for her to remain silent and not say “I consent,” due to his rigidity on this wording and his dissatisfaction with what the majority of scholars understood, namely that his saying: is a consideration for the feeling of the modest girl, who is a virgin.
Similarly, an example of Ibn Hazm’s rigidity—and here the example applies to some of the contemporaries—is that he says regarding the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, which was narrated by the two Shaykhs in their *Sahihayn*: . This hadith is clear in its clarity that the prohibition of urinating in stagnant water is intended, at the very least, to preserve the purity of the water, and at the most, its ritual purity. So what did Ibn Hazm say? He said: If a person urinates in an empty vessel and then pours this urine from the vessel into stagnant water, it is permissible. Why? Because he did not urinate directly in the stagnant water. This is a rigidity that the majority of scholars did not accept, because he did not consider the Lawgiver’s objective in prohibiting urination in stagnant water in his statement. And the meaning of this apparentist philosophy is that if someone urinates in a bucket or a pipe, whether made of wood or metal, and it is poured and this urine goes into the stagnant water, it is permissible. So what is the difference between urinating directly or through a connection like this connection? This is an unacceptable rigidity. But has this rigidity been buried in the present age, or did sound reason lead them not to be rigid like the apparentists? The answer is: unfortunately, many of the contemporaries and Islamic writers fall into this kind of rigidity. The clearest example of that, and on this occasion, I say what I said earlier about Ibn Hazm, is the statement of some of the philosophers of the present age who claim a difference between three-dimensional images, which are forbidden, and non-three-dimensional images, which are permissible. Then, in their view, there is no difference in the second category of images that are not three-dimensional, such as those on paper, on walls, on curtains, or similar things that have no volume and cast no shadow when light is shone on them. This is a statement that some of the early scholars made, but the scholars explicitly declared it invalid due to the coming of many hadiths that clarify that images of this second type are also forbidden. The clearest and strongest evidence is what came in the two Sahihs from the hadith of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her): .
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Is it time for 'Isha' prayer?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : We will suffice with this amount for now so that you may leave and pray with the congregation, if Allah wills.