Is there not an exaggeration in saying of "Ibn Hazm": that he is a hardcore Jahmi, as that was reported from "Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi"?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The Imam "Ibn Hazm" (may Allah have mercy on him) — what "Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi" mentioned, I transmitted in "al-Silsilah" that he says: that he is a hardcore Jahmi. And we have the statement of Ibn al-Qayyim regarding the Jahmiyyah who said in the creation of the Qur'an:
"So fifty in *** ten of the scholars have donned their disbelief"; how do you reconcile this and that?
The Shaykh : My mind is occupied with the statement you transmitted; because I saw something of an error in it; so I hope you will repeat it to me: who is the one who said: hardcore Jahmi? And who is it 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 : "Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi" is the one who said it?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And he is the one it was said about?
The questioner : No, he is the one who said it.
The Shaykh : And who is it said about?
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 of your voice is missing from me.
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 that I heard is good; what is the reconciliation between this and that?
The questioner : Yes, how do we reconcile this and that?
The Shaykh : Where is the contradiction?
The questioner : I am now.
The Shaykh : It should be said in the question: Is there not an exaggeration in what concerns "Ibn Hazm"? As for whether there is a contradiction between the two statements, so that you say: how is the reconciliation?
The questioner : ... Ibn Hazm now, if he is said to be a hardcore Jahmi, and Ibn al-Qayyim cites five hundred scholars; meaning affiliated with the Jahmiyyah, how do we say that Ibn Hazm means he is not from ...?
The Shaykh : How do we say that Ibn Hazm is what?
The questioner : He is not a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : Yes, this is what I am telling you, I am telling you: the validity of the question is: Is there not an exaggeration in saying of Ibn Hazm: that he is a hardcore Jahmi; because this equates to him being a disbeliever!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay; and this is among those disbelievers in the sense of the expression, and is there a contradiction; so that your question is: how is the reconciliation? So the question is invalid, and the truth is how it is said of Ibn Hazm that he is a hardcore Jahmi; especially since Ibn al-Qayyim declared the Jahmiyyah disbelievers?!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it clear now? Because the question was wrong?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay; the answer: We spoke in some of our gatherings in this journey that it is a common error among Muslims today, their scholars except whom Allah has protected, to divide the religion into two parts; principles and branches, and they derive from this division that error in the principles is disbelief, and error in the branches is forgiven; 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 sufficient explanation.
The error that makes a Muslim a disbeliever does not concern its being in the creed rather than the branches, but it concerns that the error becomes clear to him and then he persists in it as a creed and not as an action, and since the rulings involve action, and action may be accompanied by a bad creed, and 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? 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":Sunan Ibn Majah 3390Hasan (Darussalam), but they detail and say: what is extracted from the intoxicants of the grape; so its little and much is forbidden, and what is extracted from other than that; so its much which intoxicates is the forbidden, as for its little it is lawful, this was found among the Iraqis who said such a statement, and it contradicts his statement (peace be upon him): Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1865Hasan (Darussalam); so is such a contradictor declared a disbeliever?
The answer: No; because it issued from him as independent legal reasoning, but if we come to the intoxicants on which there is consensus of prohibition; so one who deems it lawful with his heart; this has apostatized from his religion; although it is a ruling that is not a creed, but just now I think before many of you came we were explaining the error of those who differentiate in the obligation of taking the hadith of the singular in what is in the creed or is 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 contains a creed that the Muslim must believe in, otherwise his saying what this ruling contains would not be beneficial to him; because which ruling is this forbidden, so the forbidden must be believed in his heart as forbidden, so if he does not believe that, then there is no value to this ruling at that time, so I say: if we move the topic of intoxicants other than the grape - and in it is that disagreement which I referred to just now - if the intoxicants on which there is consensus of prohibition, and one of the Muslims explicitly states that this is not forbidden as is the case with intoxicants other than the grape; there is no doubt that he by his belief in this ruling that it is not forbidden has disbelieved; why? Because this ruling contains - as we said just now - a creed; so then we move to a text in which there is a creed and not a ruling; as is the case in the topic of what we are in just now in what concerns the Jahmiyyah who denied many of the attributes of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) established in the Book; let alone the Sunnah.
So now let us enter into the core of the topic; whoever denies a creed and he believes that this creed has come from Allah and His Messenger, he is a disbeliever, and we do not say of him only: hardcore Jahmi; but also a disbeliever who has apostatized from his religion, but if it does not predominate in our opinion at least that he when he fell into this denial and this rejection of an attribute of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) only fell into it by error and assumption and not by intention; so then it does not follow from our saying of him: that he is a hardcore Jahmi that he is a disbeliever, and on the contrary; if we say of one: that he is a disbeliever hardcore Jahmi; this does not bear any other meaning except declaring him a disbeliever, as for merely our saying of him: hardcore Jahmi; this does not mean that he is a disbeliever.
Perhaps you have reached the answer to your question?
The questioner : Shaykh, now we have the Jahmiyyah.
The Shaykh : Did I ask you?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay; you have relieved me, may Allah reward you with good [everyone laughs!]. Say now, correct whatever you wish.
The questioner : Now Shaykh, we have the Jahmiyyah now they did not go to what they went to except for the sake of figurative interpretation and error, and they only denied the names and attributes.
The Shaykh : Except for the sake of figurative interpretation and error, you added something to me?
The questioner : No; meaning then we do not deny.
The Shaykh : Be careful; you added something to me?
The questioner : No, I did not add anything.
The Shaykh : Then, what is the place of that correction in the grammar?
The questioner : The correction was your first statement was directed to Ibn Hazm, and my statement was directed to the Jahmiyyah.
The Shaykh : Okay; meaning you walked with me and widened the circle; is that so?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay; I say a general word: everyone who fell into Jahmiyyah after the proof became clear to him that he is on misguidance and he persisted, he is a disbeliever, but specifying this particular person is a matter of independent legal reasoning, so does Ibn Hazm, does a Muslim researcher who knows the value of this Imam and his knowledge and his virtue and and so on like "al-Ja'd" the Jahmi; does he equate between them? So from that you take the difference and you cannot measure and say - for example -: why is it said of "al-Ja'd": that he is a disbeliever and he was killed or slaughtered for his disbelief, and this Ibn Hazm is an Imam of the Imams of the Muslims and he shares with him in that? That is because this is separated by his knowledge and his virtue with the Book and the Sunnah from that, even if he shares with him in one of the misguidances, but this does not oblige us to rule upon him with the same ruling that issued from others of those who is not known of him a struggle in knowledge with the Book and the Sunnah.
This is what I have as an answer to that question.
Please proceed.
The questioner : Your Eminence, what reference do you advise us to consult regarding our topic?
"So fifty in *** ten of the scholars have donned their disbelief"; how do you reconcile this and that?
The Shaykh : My mind is occupied with the statement you transmitted; because I saw something of an error in it; so I hope you will repeat it to me: who is the one who said: hardcore Jahmi? And who is it 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 : "Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi" is the one who said it?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : And he is the one it was said about?
The questioner : No, he is the one who said it.
The Shaykh : And who is it said about?
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 of your voice is missing from me.
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 that I heard is good; what is the reconciliation between this and that?
The questioner : Yes, how do we reconcile this and that?
The Shaykh : Where is the contradiction?
The questioner : I am now.
The Shaykh : It should be said in the question: Is there not an exaggeration in what concerns "Ibn Hazm"? As for whether there is a contradiction between the two statements, so that you say: how is the reconciliation?
The questioner : ... Ibn Hazm now, if he is said to be a hardcore Jahmi, and Ibn al-Qayyim cites five hundred scholars; meaning affiliated with the Jahmiyyah, how do we say that Ibn Hazm means he is not from ...?
The Shaykh : How do we say that Ibn Hazm is what?
The questioner : He is not a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : Yes, this is what I am telling you, I am telling you: the validity of the question is: Is there not an exaggeration in saying of Ibn Hazm: that he is a hardcore Jahmi; because this equates to him being a disbeliever!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay; and this is among those disbelievers in the sense of the expression, and is there a contradiction; so that your question is: how is the reconciliation? So the question is invalid, and the truth is how it is said of Ibn Hazm that he is a hardcore Jahmi; especially since Ibn al-Qayyim declared the Jahmiyyah disbelievers?!
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Is it clear now? Because the question was wrong?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay; the answer: We spoke in some of our gatherings in this journey that it is a common error among Muslims today, their scholars except whom Allah has protected, to divide the religion into two parts; principles and branches, and they derive from this division that error in the principles is disbelief, and error in the branches is forgiven; 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 sufficient explanation.
The error that makes a Muslim a disbeliever does not concern its being in the creed rather than the branches, but it concerns that the error becomes clear to him and then he persists in it as a creed and not as an action, and since the rulings involve action, and action may be accompanied by a bad creed, and 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? 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.
كلُّ مسكرٍ خمر ، وكلُّ خمرٍ حرامWhatever a lot of it intoxicates, a little of it is unlawful.
ما - أي : كلُّ ما - أسكر كثيره فقليله حرامThe answer: No; because it issued from him as independent legal reasoning, but if we come to the intoxicants on which there is consensus of prohibition; so one who deems it lawful with his heart; this has apostatized from his religion; although it is a ruling that is not a creed, but just now I think before many of you came we were explaining the error of those who differentiate in the obligation of taking the hadith of the singular in what is in the creed or is 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 contains a creed that the Muslim must believe in, otherwise his saying what this ruling contains would not be beneficial to him; because which ruling is this forbidden, so the forbidden must be believed in his heart as forbidden, so if he does not believe that, then there is no value to this ruling at that time, so I say: if we move the topic of intoxicants other than the grape - and in it is that disagreement which I referred to just now - if the intoxicants on which there is consensus of prohibition, and one of the Muslims explicitly states that this is not forbidden as is the case with intoxicants other than the grape; there is no doubt that he by his belief in this ruling that it is not forbidden has disbelieved; why? Because this ruling contains - as we said just now - a creed; so then we move to a text in which there is a creed and not a ruling; as is the case in the topic of what we are in just now in what concerns the Jahmiyyah who denied many of the attributes of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) established in the Book; let alone the Sunnah.
So now let us enter into the core of the topic; whoever denies a creed and he believes that this creed has come from Allah and His Messenger, he is a disbeliever, and we do not say of him only: hardcore Jahmi; but also a disbeliever who has apostatized from his religion, but if it does not predominate in our opinion at least that he when he fell into this denial and this rejection of an attribute of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) only fell into it by error and assumption and not by intention; so then it does not follow from our saying of him: that he is a hardcore Jahmi that he is a disbeliever, and on the contrary; if we say of one: that he is a disbeliever hardcore Jahmi; this does not bear any other meaning except declaring him a disbeliever, as for merely our saying of him: hardcore Jahmi; this does not mean that he is a disbeliever.
Perhaps you have reached the answer to your question?
The questioner : Shaykh, now we have the Jahmiyyah.
The Shaykh : Did I ask you?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay; you have relieved me, may Allah reward you with good [everyone laughs!]. Say now, correct whatever you wish.
The questioner : Now Shaykh, we have the Jahmiyyah now they did not go to what they went to except for the sake of figurative interpretation and error, and they only denied the names and attributes.
The Shaykh : Except for the sake of figurative interpretation and error, you added something to me?
The questioner : No; meaning then we do not deny.
The Shaykh : Be careful; you added something to me?
The questioner : No, I did not add anything.
The Shaykh : Then, what is the place of that correction in the grammar?
The questioner : The correction was your first statement was directed to Ibn Hazm, and my statement was directed to the Jahmiyyah.
The Shaykh : Okay; meaning you walked with me and widened the circle; is that so?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay; I say a general word: everyone who fell into Jahmiyyah after the proof became clear to him that he is on misguidance and he persisted, he is a disbeliever, but specifying this particular person is a matter of independent legal reasoning, so does Ibn Hazm, does a Muslim researcher who knows the value of this Imam and his knowledge and his virtue and and so on like "al-Ja'd" the Jahmi; does he equate between them? So from that you take the difference and you cannot measure and say - for example -: why is it said of "al-Ja'd": that he is a disbeliever and he was killed or slaughtered for his disbelief, and this Ibn Hazm is an Imam of the Imams of the Muslims and he shares with him in that? That is because this is separated by his knowledge and his virtue with the Book and the Sunnah from that, even if he shares with him in one of the misguidances, but this does not oblige us to rule upon him with the same ruling that issued from others of those who is not known of him a struggle in knowledge with the Book and the Sunnah.
This is what I have as an answer to that question.
Please proceed.
The questioner : Your Eminence, what reference do you advise us to consult regarding our topic?
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.