What is your comment on what Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi mentioned regarding Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him), that he was a severe Jahmi?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The Shaykh of the Imam, Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him), meaning Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi mentioned his statement in the chain that he says he is a severe Jahmi, and we have the statement of Ibn al-Qayyim regarding the Jahmiyyah who said in the creation of the Qur'an.
"And indeed, fifty in ten of the scholars have donned their disbelief"
How do we reconcile this with that?
The Shaykh : Your statement that you quoted has occupied my mind because I saw something of an error in it, so I hope you will repeat to me who said "severe Jahmi" and who it was said about.
The questioner : The one who said it is Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi.
The Shaykh : About whom did he say it?
The questioner : Ibn Hazm.
The Shaykh : Is Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi the one who said it, or is he the one it was said about?
The questioner : No, he is the one who said it.
The Shaykh : And the one it was said about is...
The questioner : Ibn Hazm.
The Shaykh : Ibn Hazm, correct, and the second phrase...
The questioner : Ibn al-Qayyim
The Shaykh : What did he say?
The questioner :"And indeed, fifty in ten of the scholars in the lands have donned their disbelief"
The Shaykh : Raise your voice, my brother, something is lost to me from...
The questioner :"And indeed, fifty in ten of the scholars in the lands have donned their disbelief"
The Shaykh : Okay, who are they?
The questioner : The Jahmiyyah and those who say in the creation of the Qur'an.
The Shaykh : Yes, so your question, which I heard clearly, is how to reconcile this with that.
The questioner : Yes, yes, how do we reconcile...
The Shaykh : Where is the contradiction? It should be said in the question, is there not an exaggeration regarding Ibn Hazm? As for the contradiction between the two statements, why would you ask how to reconcile them?
The questioner : If Ibn Hazm now says he is a severe Jahmi, and Ibn al-Qayyim quotes five hundred scholars that they declare the Jahmiyyah disbelievers, how do we say that Ibn Hazm, meaning, is not among those who do not declare them disbelievers?
The Shaykh : How do we say that Ibn Hazm... what?
The questioner : and not a disbeliever,
The Shaykh : Yes, this is what I am telling you, I am telling you that the validity of the question is: is there not an exaggeration in saying of Ibn Hazm that he is a severe Jahmi?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Because this equates to him being a disbeliever.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Okay, and this is among those disbelievers in your expression. So is there a contradiction such that your question is how to reconcile? The question is invalid, and the truth is how can it be said of Ibn Hazm that he is a severe Jahmi, especially since Ibn al-Qayyim declared the Jahmiyyah disbelievers, and now it is clear that the question was wrong.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : So I say, we have spoken in some of our gatherings on this journey that it is a common error among Muslims today, their scholars except those whom Allah protects, to divide the religion into two parts: principles (usul) and branches (furu'), and they derive from this division that error in the principles is disbelief and error in the branches is forgivable. This division has no basis, and this is what Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) explains in some of his books with a very comprehensive explanation. The error that makes a Muslim a disbeliever does not relate to it being in the creed rather than the branches, but rather relates to the fact that the error becomes clear to him and then he persists in it as a creed, not as an action.
And since the rulings involve action, and action may be accompanied by a bad creed or may not be accompanied by a bad creed.
As for the first part, the part of creeds, there is no action in it. So if one of the scholars speaks with a creed in which he contradicted the text of the Book and the Sunnah in the view of the others, is he declared a disbeliever or not, just as if he erred in a practical ruling?
For example, perhaps you know some of the respected scholars who hold that not all intoxicants are forbidden, contrary to the hadith reported in Sahih MuslimSunan Ibn Majah 3390Hasan (Darussalam). Rather, they distinguish and say that what is extracted from the intoxicant of grapes, its little and much is forbidden, and what is extracted from other than that, its much which intoxicates is forbidden, but its little is lawful. This was found among the Iraqis who said such a statement, and it contradicts his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1865Hasan (Darussalam). So is such a contradictor declared a disbeliever? The answer is no, because it came from him through independent legal reasoning (ijtihad). But if we come to the intoxicant on which there is consensus of prohibition, and one who permits it permits it with his heart, this has apostatized from his religion, even though it is a ruling and not a creed. But just now, I think before many of you came, we were explaining the error of those who distinguish in the obligation of taking the hadith of the singular (ahad) between when it is in a creed or in the creeds, so it is not permissible to take it, unlike the rulings. We have established with some detail and explanation that every legal ruling that includes a creed, the Muslim must become clear of it, otherwise his statement with what this ruling includes would not benefit him. Because which ruling is this? It is forbidden, and the forbidden must be believed in his heart to be forbidden. So if he does not believe that, then this ruling has no value at that time.
So I say, if we move the topic of intoxicant other than grapes, in which there is that disagreement I mentioned just now, to the intoxicant on which there is consensus of prohibition, and one of the Muslims explicitly states that this is not forbidden, as is the case with intoxicant other than grapes, there is no doubt that he, by his belief in this ruling that it is not forbidden, has committed disbelief. Why? Because this ruling included, as we said just now, a creed. So then we move to a text that has a creed and does not have a ruling, as is the case in the matter we are in just now, which relates to the Jahmiyyah who denied many of the attributes of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) that are established in the Book, let alone the Sunnah.
"And indeed, fifty in ten of the scholars have donned their disbelief"
How do we reconcile this with that?
The Shaykh : Your statement that you quoted has occupied my mind because I saw something of an error in it, so I hope you will repeat to me who said "severe Jahmi" and who it was said about.
The questioner : The one who said it is Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi.
The Shaykh : About whom did he say it?
The questioner : Ibn Hazm.
The Shaykh : Is Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi the one who said it, or is he the one it was said about?
The questioner : No, he is the one who said it.
The Shaykh : And the one it was said about is...
The questioner : Ibn Hazm.
The Shaykh : Ibn Hazm, correct, and the second phrase...
The questioner : Ibn al-Qayyim
The Shaykh : What did he say?
The questioner :"And indeed, fifty in ten of the scholars in the lands have donned their disbelief"
The Shaykh : Raise your voice, my brother, something is lost to me from...
The questioner :"And indeed, fifty in ten of the scholars in the lands have donned their disbelief"
The Shaykh : Okay, who are they?
The questioner : The Jahmiyyah and those who say in the creation of the Qur'an.
The Shaykh : Yes, so your question, which I heard clearly, is how to reconcile this with that.
The questioner : Yes, yes, how do we reconcile...
The Shaykh : Where is the contradiction? It should be said in the question, is there not an exaggeration regarding Ibn Hazm? As for the contradiction between the two statements, why would you ask how to reconcile them?
The questioner : If Ibn Hazm now says he is a severe Jahmi, and Ibn al-Qayyim quotes five hundred scholars that they declare the Jahmiyyah disbelievers, how do we say that Ibn Hazm, meaning, is not among those who do not declare them disbelievers?
The Shaykh : How do we say that Ibn Hazm... what?
The questioner : and not a disbeliever,
The Shaykh : Yes, this is what I am telling you, I am telling you that the validity of the question is: is there not an exaggeration in saying of Ibn Hazm that he is a severe Jahmi?
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Because this equates to him being a disbeliever.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Okay, and this is among those disbelievers in your expression. So is there a contradiction such that your question is how to reconcile? The question is invalid, and the truth is how can it be said of Ibn Hazm that he is a severe Jahmi, especially since Ibn al-Qayyim declared the Jahmiyyah disbelievers, and now it is clear that the question was wrong.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : So I say, we have spoken in some of our gatherings on this journey that it is a common error among Muslims today, their scholars except those whom Allah protects, to divide the religion into two parts: principles (usul) and branches (furu'), and they derive from this division that error in the principles is disbelief and error in the branches is forgivable. This division has no basis, and this is what Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) explains in some of his books with a very comprehensive explanation. The error that makes a Muslim a disbeliever does not relate to it being in the creed rather than the branches, but rather relates to the fact that the error becomes clear to him and then he persists in it as a creed, not as an action.
And since the rulings involve action, and action may be accompanied by a bad creed or may not be accompanied by a bad creed.
As for the first part, the part of creeds, there is no action in it. So if one of the scholars speaks with a creed in which he contradicted the text of the Book and the Sunnah in the view of the others, is he declared a disbeliever or not, just as if he erred in a practical ruling?
For example, perhaps you know some of the respected scholars who hold that not all intoxicants are forbidden, contrary to the hadith reported in Sahih Muslim
Every intoxicant is Khamr (wine) and every Khamr is unlawful.
كل مسكر خمر وكل خمر حرامWhatever a lot of it intoxicates, a little of it is unlawful.
كل ما أسكر كثيره فقليله حرامSo I say, if we move the topic of intoxicant other than grapes, in which there is that disagreement I mentioned just now, to the intoxicant on which there is consensus of prohibition, and one of the Muslims explicitly states that this is not forbidden, as is the case with intoxicant other than grapes, there is no doubt that he, by his belief in this ruling that it is not forbidden, has committed disbelief. Why? Because this ruling included, as we said just now, a creed. So then we move to a text that has a creed and does not have a ruling, as is the case in the matter we are in just now, which relates to the Jahmiyyah who denied many of the attributes of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) that are established in the Book, let alone the Sunnah.