There is a treatise by Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi on the invalidation of opinion, analogical reasoning, and juristic preference
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : There is a treatise by Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi on the invalidation of opinion, analogical reasoning, and juristic preference. We ask you, may Allah reward you, to comment on it or clarify Ibn Hazm’s position, whether it is correct or not according to the Shari'ah?
The Shaykh : As for his invalidation of juristic preference, that is correct. As for his invalidation of analogical reasoning, Ibn Hazm himself, who denies analogical reasoning, explicitly states... The analogical reasoning that Ibn Hazm denies is the mere use of opinion to prohibit or permit something without looking at other texts that can be used as evidence for the answer to a question for which there is no explicit text. This analogical reasoning that Ibn Hazm invalidates is undoubtedly invalid. This invalid analogical reasoning is specifically committed to by the Hanafi school among the four schools of jurisprudence; therefore, in common parlance... But the analogical reasoning that jurists call "clear analogical reasoning," clear and evident analogical reasoning, and specifically the most compelling analogical reasoning; this is not of the type that... Ibn Hazm [denies]. It is not the saying of opinion, but rather it falls within the very text of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him):; a person exerted effort and analogized one thing to another, so he gave the ruling of the thing being analogized to the thing it is analogized to, which is khamr (intoxicants), for example; he said: this is forbidden by analogy to that due to the obvious similarity between the thing being analogized and the thing it is analogized to.
The questioner : Because of the unity of the operative cause?
The Shaykh : No, if there is an operative cause, this is not analogical reasoning.
The questioner: Was it?
The Shaykh : If there is an operative cause specified in the Shari'ah, this is not analogical reasoning, meaning like the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him):Sunan Ibn Majah 3390Hasan (Darussalam); the operative cause for the prohibition of khamr (intoxicants) is intoxication; if intoxication is found, the prohibition is found. Ibn Hazm does not deny this, let alone others, but...
The questioner : This is a text...
The Shaykh : ...a text; therefore, I am telling you: what Ibn Hazm and others do not deny, this is not analogical reasoning. But the analogical reasoning that must be affirmed, and which Ibn Hazm denies, is as he says in his book "Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam" that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) decreed:[Al-Isra 17:23], he said: His saying (the Exalted): [Al-Isra 17:23] does not indicate that it is not permissible for a Muslim to strike them with his palm. Why? Because the verse prohibits saying "uff" to a father or mother in a grudging manner; so it is not taken from it that it is not permissible for a Muslim to strike his mother with his palm.
Here, the majority of scholars contradict him and deem his understanding foolish; what is this understanding? What is this rigidity to the wording?! Everyone knows that when Allah prohibited the son from saying "uff" to his mother because of the insult to the mother, is hurting the mother by slapping her with a palm more severe than saying "uff" to her?! No sane person doubts that no; striking with the palm is more harmful to the mother than saying "uff" to her. This is analogical reasoning, and it is the most compelling analogical reasoning; meaning if our Lord prohibited "uff," then prohibiting striking with the palm is even more compelling. Even this, Ibn Hazm denies, so Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyyah and others responded to him that this is rigidity to the wording and a failure to look deeply into the objectives of the Wise Lawgiver.
And among that is his saying, for example, regarding the hadith: "The Messenger of Allah prohibited urinating in stagnant water," he said: if one urinates in a vessel, then pours this urine from the vessel into stagnant water, it is permissible. Why? Because he was rigid to the wording of the hadith, "prohibited urinating in stagnant water"; this person did not urinate in stagnant water, he did not urinate in it; he urinated in a vessel that had no water, then poured this urine from the vessel into the vessel that had water, this...
This, also, is due to his rigidity in denying analogical reasoning that he said this falsehood. As for the jurist who affirms analogical reasoning, he says: we all know that the prohibition of urinating in stagnant water is intended either out of fear of the water becoming ritually impure, or at least because of its filthiness; so whether... this or that; when the one urinating urinates in a vessel then pours it... into stagnant water; the result is the same. This is what Ibn Hazm was deemed foolish for, and his statement was refuted by his denial of analogical reasoning.
The questioner : Is this analogical reasoning?
The Shaykh : Analogical reasoning is a necessity that must be used.
Is it analogical reasoning?
The questioner : It is not analogical reasoning.
The Shaykh : Then what is it?
The questioner : Meaning if he said: the Qur'an says:[Al-Isra 17:23].
The Shaykh : What is it?
The questioner : Analogical reasoning...
The Shaykh : This is a matter of the hadith, what is it?
The questioner : It is not analogical reasoning, this is a text.
The Shaykh : He is still repeating to me: it is not analogical reasoning!
The questioner: A text.
The Shaykh : Listen to me, by Allah, listen to my words, Shaykh Muhammad, listen to my words.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, listen to your words... ... pouring urine from the vessel into stagnant water, where did he get... this?
The questioner : A text, he says:Sunan Abi Dawud 69Sahih (Al-Albani); so the intention is that you do not place urine in permanent water without forcing an interpretation of the apparent meaning of the hadith.
The Shaykh : May Allah guide you. Where did you take the impermissibility of pouring urine... where did you take the impermissibility of pouring urine from the vessel into stagnant water? From which text? Where is the text?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Do you have a text?
The questioner : The text of the hadith, it is understood from the text of the hadith that it is not obligatory that urine be placed in permanent water.
The Shaykh : My brother, we agree on what is understood, but is this... is it by the way of the indication of the text?
The questioner : Yes, the text indicates that it is obligatory that urine not be placed in permanent water, if he urinated.
The Shaykh : If the text indicated this, Ibn Hazm would understand the text more than me and you.
The questioner : Ibn Hazm is a Zahiri...
The Shaykh : What does Zahiri mean? He denies analogical reasoning. This is analogical reasoning, my brother. If you are saying: there is no difference between urinating directly in stagnant water or through a medium; this is analogical reasoning. Why? Because the thing that happens in the first form in the water happens in the other form. So if you analogized what came in the text, you analogized to it what did not come in the text.
The questioner : Then what is analogical reasoning?
The Shaykh : Analogizing the similar to the similar...
The questioner : ...in what? In the unity of the operative cause?
The Shaykh : My brother, the unity of the operative cause is not a condition; because when there is unity of the operative cause, it will be specified in the text.
The questioner : Specified.
The Shaykh : It will be specified in the text....
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But when the operative cause is not specified in the text, but the mind of the Muslim understands the purpose of His saying:, is this a matter of pure worship? You pray Maghrib three rak'ahs, why two rak'ahs in travel? We say: we do not know; this matter is a matter of pure worship, is it a matter of pure worship?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : What does pure worship mean?
The questioner : It means there is no operative cause.
The Shaykh : Do you see what pure worship means? It means the secret of this prohibition is not understood? The secret is not understood from it. But if he told you: you pray three rak'ahs only, and Fajr is two rak'ahs; is the secret understood?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : ... .
The Shaykh : As for his invalidation of juristic preference, that is correct. As for his invalidation of analogical reasoning, Ibn Hazm himself, who denies analogical reasoning, explicitly states... The analogical reasoning that Ibn Hazm denies is the mere use of opinion to prohibit or permit something without looking at other texts that can be used as evidence for the answer to a question for which there is no explicit text. This analogical reasoning that Ibn Hazm invalidates is undoubtedly invalid. This invalid analogical reasoning is specifically committed to by the Hanafi school among the four schools of jurisprudence; therefore, in common parlance... But the analogical reasoning that jurists call "clear analogical reasoning," clear and evident analogical reasoning, and specifically the most compelling analogical reasoning; this is not of the type that... Ibn Hazm [denies]. It is not the saying of opinion, but rather it falls within the very text of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him):
If a judge exerts effort and is correct, he has two rewards
إذا اجتهد الحاكم فأصاب فله أجرانThe questioner : Because of the unity of the operative cause?
The Shaykh : No, if there is an operative cause, this is not analogical reasoning.
The questioner: Was it?
The Shaykh : If there is an operative cause specified in the Shari'ah, this is not analogical reasoning, meaning like the saying of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him):
Every intoxicant is Khamr (wine) and every Khamr is unlawful.
كلُّ مسكر خمر ، وكلُّ خمر حرامThe questioner : This is a text...
The Shaykh : ...a text; therefore, I am telling you: what Ibn Hazm and others do not deny, this is not analogical reasoning. But the analogical reasoning that must be affirmed, and which Ibn Hazm denies, is as he says in his book "Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam" that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) decreed:
And your Lord has decreed that you not worship except Him, and to parents, good treatment. Whether one or both of them reach old age [while] with you, say not to them [so much as], "uff," and do not repel them but speak to them a noble word.
وَقَضَى رَبُّكَ أَلَّا تَعْبُدُوا إِلَّا إِيَّاهُ وَبِالْوَالِدَيْنِ إِحْسَانًا إِمَّا يَبْلُغَنَّ عِنْدَكَ الْكِبَرَ أَحَدُهُمَا أَوْ كِلَاهُمَا فَلَا تَقُلْ لَهُمَا أُفٍّ وَلَا تَنْهَرْهُمَا وَقُلْ لَهُمَا قَوْلًا كَرِيمًاsay not to them [so much as], "uff,"
لَا تَقُلْ لَهُمَا أُفٍّHere, the majority of scholars contradict him and deem his understanding foolish; what is this understanding? What is this rigidity to the wording?! Everyone knows that when Allah prohibited the son from saying "uff" to his mother because of the insult to the mother, is hurting the mother by slapping her with a palm more severe than saying "uff" to her?! No sane person doubts that no; striking with the palm is more harmful to the mother than saying "uff" to her. This is analogical reasoning, and it is the most compelling analogical reasoning; meaning if our Lord prohibited "uff," then prohibiting striking with the palm is even more compelling. Even this, Ibn Hazm denies, so Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyyah and others responded to him that this is rigidity to the wording and a failure to look deeply into the objectives of the Wise Lawgiver.
And among that is his saying, for example, regarding the hadith: "The Messenger of Allah prohibited urinating in stagnant water," he said: if one urinates in a vessel, then pours this urine from the vessel into stagnant water, it is permissible. Why? Because he was rigid to the wording of the hadith, "prohibited urinating in stagnant water"; this person did not urinate in stagnant water, he did not urinate in it; he urinated in a vessel that had no water, then poured this urine from the vessel into the vessel that had water, this...
This, also, is due to his rigidity in denying analogical reasoning that he said this falsehood. As for the jurist who affirms analogical reasoning, he says: we all know that the prohibition of urinating in stagnant water is intended either out of fear of the water becoming ritually impure, or at least because of its filthiness; so whether... this or that; when the one urinating urinates in a vessel then pours it... into stagnant water; the result is the same. This is what Ibn Hazm was deemed foolish for, and his statement was refuted by his denial of analogical reasoning.
The questioner : Is this analogical reasoning?
The Shaykh : Analogical reasoning is a necessity that must be used.
Is it analogical reasoning?
The questioner : It is not analogical reasoning.
The Shaykh : Then what is it?
The questioner : Meaning if he said: the Qur'an says:
say not to them [so much as], "uff,"
لَا تَقُلْ لَهُمَا أُفٍّThe Shaykh : What is it?
The questioner : Analogical reasoning...
The Shaykh : This is a matter of the hadith, what is it?
The questioner : It is not analogical reasoning, this is a text.
The Shaykh : He is still repeating to me: it is not analogical reasoning!
The questioner: A text.
The Shaykh : Listen to me, by Allah, listen to my words, Shaykh Muhammad, listen to my words.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, listen to your words... ... pouring urine from the vessel into stagnant water, where did he get... this?
The questioner : A text, he says:
None amongst you should urinate in stagnant water
لا يبولنَّ أحدكم في الماء الدائمThe Shaykh : May Allah guide you. Where did you take the impermissibility of pouring urine... where did you take the impermissibility of pouring urine from the vessel into stagnant water? From which text? Where is the text?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Do you have a text?
The questioner : The text of the hadith, it is understood from the text of the hadith that it is not obligatory that urine be placed in permanent water.
The Shaykh : My brother, we agree on what is understood, but is this... is it by the way of the indication of the text?
The questioner : Yes, the text indicates that it is obligatory that urine not be placed in permanent water, if he urinated.
The Shaykh : If the text indicated this, Ibn Hazm would understand the text more than me and you.
The questioner : Ibn Hazm is a Zahiri...
The Shaykh : What does Zahiri mean? He denies analogical reasoning. This is analogical reasoning, my brother. If you are saying: there is no difference between urinating directly in stagnant water or through a medium; this is analogical reasoning. Why? Because the thing that happens in the first form in the water happens in the other form. So if you analogized what came in the text, you analogized to it what did not come in the text.
The questioner : Then what is analogical reasoning?
The Shaykh : Analogizing the similar to the similar...
The questioner : ...in what? In the unity of the operative cause?
The Shaykh : My brother, the unity of the operative cause is not a condition; because when there is unity of the operative cause, it will be specified in the text.
The questioner : Specified.
The Shaykh : It will be specified in the text...
Every intoxicant is khamr, and every khamr is forbidden
كل مسكر الخمر ، وكل خمر حرامThe questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : But when the operative cause is not specified in the text, but the mind of the Muslim understands the purpose of His saying:
Do not urinate in stagnant water
لا تبُلْ في الماء الراكدDo not urinate in stagnant water
لا تبُلْ في الماء الراكدThe questioner: No.
The Shaykh : What does pure worship mean?
The questioner : It means there is no operative cause.
The Shaykh : Do you see what pure worship means? It means the secret of this prohibition is not understood? The secret is not understood from it. But if he told you: you pray three rak'ahs only, and Fajr is two rak'ahs; is the secret understood?
The questioner: No.
The Shaykh : ... .
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.