Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) and his rigidity regarding the apparent meaning.

The Shaykh : So, if you know, as I think you do, that Ibn Hazm went to the extreme in his rigidity regarding the apparent meaning to a ridiculous degree; that is because he does not see in his school that he must engage his mind and intellect in understanding the objectives of the wise Lawgiver in what he establishes of legal rulings. For example, when he stands before the hadith regarding the virgin asking for permission , he does not think about why it was said: ? While the majority of scholars understand well that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: gently with her; because the virgin does not have that boldness that the married woman usually enjoys; and therefore he (peace be upon him) was content, in order to obtain her permission, with her silence. Ibn Hazm does not look at this at all, and we see this as intellectual rigidity without limits. If the virgins of that era were like the virgins of this era, the Messenger (in my belief) would not have said: ; because you know that the virgins today are raised with a non-Islamic upbringing, and freedom, and they don't just say: I don't want it, and give a lecture justifying their position, but the matter in that time was that women were modest and well-mannered. And for that reason = -- and upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings -- = for that reason, you find the Companion when describing the Messenger (peace be upon him) and describing his modesty, he would say: "He (peace be upon him) was more modest than a virgin in her chamber." Where is that today? It has become a thing of the past!!
Ibn Hazm did not notice the difference between that time and this time, and his own time as well; because I do not find a big difference between our time and the time of the Moroccan state that was in Andalus; because, as you see now, unfortunately, extravagance, luxury, money, and so on corrupt morals and corrupt upbringing. Perhaps we have not gone too far in clarifying that this rigidity is not a way of jurisprudence. When he said: , he derived from that that if the virgin's guardian says to her: So-and-so is asking for your hand; and she says: I agreed; it is not accepted. She must remain silent. Glory be to Allah!! He said gently with her, he did not say it is obligatory for her to remain silent. So today, as we said, most virgins may say: I agreed, or as you wish, O father, or O my guardian, and so on. No; she must remain silent until what is considered? A permission. If she does not remain silent, it is not considered a permission.
He has strange and very strange examples of this type. For example, he said regarding the hadith of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him): "He forbade urinating in stagnant water." It is clear from the Arabic style that what is forbidden is to pour one's urine directly into stagnant water. And based on this rigidity, he said: If he urinated in a vessel, then poured what was in the vessel into stagnant water, it is permissible. Why? Because it does not apply to him linguistically, and I agree with him linguistically, but this is customary language, whereas the legal language, I am not with them on that. So he says: If he urinated in an empty vessel, then poured what was in this empty vessel of urine into stagnant water, this did not contradict the hadith. In my expression, he did not contradict the wording of the hadith. We say he contradicted the intended meaning of the hadith; because no two people differ, and no two camels butt heads, that the intended meaning of the hadith is one of two things; and this differs according to the smallness of the stagnant water and the largeness of the urine poured into the stagnant water. So one of the two matters must be realized: either the stagnant water becomes impure, or at least it becomes soiled. So what is the difference between realizing one of these two prohibited descriptions, whether one urinates directly in stagnant water or urinates in an empty vessel and then pours what is in this vessel of urine into stagnant water?! I wish I knew! If many people gathered and urinated in the empty vessel, then poured it into stagnant water, this apparentist would keep saying, and the water has turned into urine, that there is no harm in this. It is not possible for the apparentist to go the whole way with his rigid mind.
Therefore, we do not follow Ibn Hazm in his statement that the Messenger said: , yes, but what does the Messenger (peace be upon him) intend from this hadith? We can imagine various scenarios to know the ruling of the wise Lawgiver in this issue. I imagine, while the one who is praying voluntary prayer is in the last tashahhud and all that remains for him is to say: "A", and the one who calls for prayer says: "A"; I think you understood me.

Those present: Yes.

The Shaykh : I mean, he wants to say: Peace be upon you, and the mu'adhdhin, what does he say? Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar! Okay, so according to Ibn Hazm's plan, "A" invalidated his prayer; because that one preceded him. This is intellectual rigidity, and the matter is dragged back, meaning, for example, he sat for the tashahhud, and when he wanted to say: "A" the greetings, he said: Allahu Akbar; so there is a pause here.
So, what I understand after studying the contradictory statements of the scholars in this issue extensively, I understand from his saying (peace be upon him): that he wants to free this voluntary prayer worshipper to catch the obligatory prayer behind the imam at the first takbir; because this catching has a special virtue that we understand from, for example, his saying (peace be upon him): ; so this is an intense exhortation beyond limit that the Muslim must strive to catch in every prayer; because he cannot make a schedule, first day, second day, it becomes forty days, then he no longer cares. No, the intended meaning of the hadith is that he should always make it his habit to catch the prayer with the congregation at the first takbir.
So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), in order to prepare the way for every voluntary prayer worshipper so that he does not miss this virtue, which if he prayed many voluntary prayers, he would not reach half of it or a tenth of it, said: . So the issue, in my view, differs according to the difference in the time of starting the iqamah of the prayer -- this is an observation -- from the difference in the time the voluntary prayer worshipper hears the iqamah of the prayer, is that at the beginning, or at the end, or in the middle? All of this should be estimated by the one who is obligated. Add to that, if he is from the people of the mosque, or not from the people of the mosque but he knows the custom of this mosque which he is not from, he knows that the imam of this mosque adheres to the Sunnah. Of the Sunnah is that he turns and says: , align yourselves. Between doing this obligatory duty which the majority of imams here and there neglect, he has finished the prayer. Or he knows that this imam is Hanafi in school, and the one who calls for prayer hardly says: The prayer has begun, but he is, what? He says: Allahu Akbar; because that is his school. So all these things should be observed by the voluntary prayer worshipper, and accordingly, either he cuts off the prayer or he completes it.
This is my opinion on the issue.

The questioner : How does he cut it off, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh : He cuts it off without salam; meaning it is invalidated -- as we said earlier -- automatically.