What is your opinion regarding what is mentioned by some scholars that Ibn Hazm did not reject analogical reasoning (qiyas) in its entirety, but rather he rejects the statement of those who affirm qiyas?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : O Shaykh, some of the precise scholars have said that when Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) denied qiyas (analogical reasoning), he did not deny qiyas in its entirety. Rather, the denial attributed to Ibn Hazm was that he attacked those who affirm qiyas in their claim that the Shari'ah texts do not cover all Shari'ah issues, i.e., the issues that have arisen. He said: "Every issue must have a text in the Shari'ah, but it may be hidden from the scholar, in which case he uses qiyas out of necessity." They cited as evidence that Ibn Hazm himself sometimes used qiyas based on texts. They said his general wording was clarified by his actions. They added, O Shaykh, by saying that the example Ibn Hazm gave clarifies this matter. He mentioned that the evidence used by those who affirm qiyas is their prohibition of striking one's parents. They said he cited as evidence that it is qiyas on ta'afif (harsh words). They said that Allah the Exalted has forbidden ta'afif, so it is even more forbidden to strike. Ibn Hazm said that the prohibition of ta'afif came through texts in the Book and the Sunnah, including the command to be kind, the command to be dutiful, the command to lower the wing of humility, and the command to do such and such. These commands indicate the prohibition of lying, because no sane person would say that being dutiful means striking your parents, or that being kind means doing so, or anything else. He denied that the Shari'ah texts do not cover these things that have arisen, and he did not deny qiyas out of necessity. He said that he considers qiyas like, for example, eating carrion or like taqlid (following a scholar without knowing his evidence), or other things, which are permissible in cases of dire necessity despite the general prohibition.
The Shaykh : I believe that this answer is a fabrication combining Ibn Hazm's explicit denial of qiyas with the statement of Imam al-Shafi'i that I mentioned earlier, which is the truth: that qiyas is a necessity. This is because Ibn Hazm does not even affirm qiyas awla (a fortiori reasoning). The meaning of the aforementioned ta'wil (figurative interpretation) is that if a man says, "Be polite to so-and-so, and do not say 'af' (a rude word) to him," would Ibn Hazm understand from this that this Arab speaker means, by a fortiori reasoning, that the one commanded is forbidden from saying 'af' to a guest or a scholar, and that he is forbidden even more strongly from striking him with his hand? So what is the benefit of citing the entire verse? He does not affirm qiyas, not even the a fortiori qiyas which is understood from the Arabic language as a matter of course. Therefore, you will not find him affirming any qiyas, not even this a fortiori qiyas. And if all qiyas on earth, as Ibn Hazm says, and what do we say about this phrase he constantly uses to confront his opponents: "This is qiyas, and all qiyas is invalid, and even if there were truth in it, this would be the very essence of falsehood." This is a catchphrase... he never deviates from it. So the truth is that Ibn Hazm greatly expanded in criticizing qiyas and those who practice it. As for the fact that he falls into contradicting the condemnation of qiyas and its practitioners, this does not mean that he affirms any part of qiyas. But it means that the rule he established is not a sound rule. We find, for example, many scholars, especially the Hanafis among them and the scholars of kalam (theology), who establish a rule and then do not adhere to it when applying it. This does not mean that they do not affirm the rule, but it means that they establish rules that they are forced to contradict because they are not sound in their absolute form. For example, it is known in the principles of the Hanafi school that it is not permissible to specify the mu'tabar (the mass-transmitted) with a text of ahad (a report with a limited chain). Do you see if they adhere to this rule in their application of fiqh rulings? By no means, by no means. They say that a weak hadith is not cited as evidence in rulings. Do they adhere to that? How many times have they contradicted this rule and established Shari'ah rulings based on weak hadiths?
The Shaykh : I believe that this answer is a fabrication combining Ibn Hazm's explicit denial of qiyas with the statement of Imam al-Shafi'i that I mentioned earlier, which is the truth: that qiyas is a necessity. This is because Ibn Hazm does not even affirm qiyas awla (a fortiori reasoning). The meaning of the aforementioned ta'wil (figurative interpretation) is that if a man says, "Be polite to so-and-so, and do not say 'af' (a rude word) to him," would Ibn Hazm understand from this that this Arab speaker means, by a fortiori reasoning, that the one commanded is forbidden from saying 'af' to a guest or a scholar, and that he is forbidden even more strongly from striking him with his hand? So what is the benefit of citing the entire verse? He does not affirm qiyas, not even the a fortiori qiyas which is understood from the Arabic language as a matter of course. Therefore, you will not find him affirming any qiyas, not even this a fortiori qiyas. And if all qiyas on earth, as Ibn Hazm says, and what do we say about this phrase he constantly uses to confront his opponents: "This is qiyas, and all qiyas is invalid, and even if there were truth in it, this would be the very essence of falsehood." This is a catchphrase... he never deviates from it. So the truth is that Ibn Hazm greatly expanded in criticizing qiyas and those who practice it. As for the fact that he falls into contradicting the condemnation of qiyas and its practitioners, this does not mean that he affirms any part of qiyas. But it means that the rule he established is not a sound rule. We find, for example, many scholars, especially the Hanafis among them and the scholars of kalam (theology), who establish a rule and then do not adhere to it when applying it. This does not mean that they do not affirm the rule, but it means that they establish rules that they are forced to contradict because they are not sound in their absolute form. For example, it is known in the principles of the Hanafi school that it is not permissible to specify the mu'tabar (the mass-transmitted) with a text of ahad (a report with a limited chain). Do you see if they adhere to this rule in their application of fiqh rulings? By no means, by no means. They say that a weak hadith is not cited as evidence in rulings. Do they adhere to that? How many times have they contradicted this rule and established Shari'ah rulings based on weak hadiths?