Is there not an exaggeration in saying that Ibn Hazm is a hardcore Jahmi, as was reported from Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi, and you have cited this in your *Sahih*?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The Imam Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him), I mean, in the period of Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi, he reported in the *Silsilah* that he says he is a hardcore Jahmi. And when Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned the Jahmiyyah who said in the creation of the Qur'an and that they adopted their disbelief... from among the scholars, how do you reconcile this and 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 it to me. Who said "hardcore Jahmi" and who was it said about?
The questioner : Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi said it.
The Shaykh : Yes, 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 : Or is he the one it was said about?
The questioner : No, he is the one who said it.
The Shaykh : And who was 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, five hundred scholars in ten [regions] adopted their disbelief..."
Another questioner: ...
The Shaykh : Raise your voice, my brother... something is escaping me; we need to address it.
The questioner : "And indeed, five hundred scholars in ten [regions] adopted their disbelief in the lands."
The Shaykh : Okay, ...
The questioner : Regarding the Jahmiyyah and those who say in the creation of the Qur'an.
The Shaykh : Yes, so your question, which I heard clearly, is: what is the reconciliation between this and that?
The questioner : Yes, ...
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 saying about Ibn Hazm that he is a hardcore Jahmi? As for the contradiction between the two statements, why do you ask how to reconcile them?
The questioner : ... Ibn Hazm, now it is mentioned that he says he is a hardcore Jahmi, and Ibn al-Qayyim reports five hundred scholars, meaning those affiliated with the Jahmiyyah. How do we say that Ibn Hazm, I mean, is not from...
The Shaykh : How do we say that Ibn Hazm is what?
The questioner : Is not a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is what I am telling you. I am telling you that the correct question is that there is no exaggeration in saying about Ibn Hazm that he is a hardcore Jahmi, because that equates to him being a disbeliever!
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, and he is among those disbelievers in your expression. Is there a contradiction? So that your question would be "how to reconcile?" The question is invalid, and the truth is: how can it be said about 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 that the question was wrong?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, the answer: 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: *usul* (principles) and *furu'* (branches). And they derive from this division that error in the *usul* is disbelief and error in the *furu'* 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 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, whereas the first part, the part of creeds, does not involve action. 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 a disbeliever or not? Just as if he erred in a practical ruling, for example, perhaps you know that some respected scholars hold that not all *khamr* (intoxicants) is forbidden, contrary to the hadith reported in *Sahih Muslim*Sunan Ibn Majah 3390Hasan (Darussalam) Rather, they distinguish and say: what is extracted from *khamr* from grapes, then its little and much is forbidden, and what is extracted from other than that, then its much which is intoxicating is forbidden, but its little is lawful. This was found among the Iraqis who said this statement, and it contradicts his saying (peace and blessings be upon him)... namely Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1865Hasan (Darussalam) So is such a contradictor a disbeliever? The answer is no, because it issued from him as *ijtihad* (independent legal reasoning). But if we come to the *khamr* on which there is consensus of prohibition, and one who deems it lawful does so with his heart, he has apostatized from his religion, even though it is a ruling and not a creed. But just now, I think before many of you arrived, we were clarifying the error of those who differentiate in the obligation of taking the hadith of *ahad* (a report with a limited chain) 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 *Shari'ah* ruling contains a creed, and the Muslim must believe in it, otherwise his statement of what this ruling contains would not benefit him. Because which ruling is this? It is forbidden, so the forbidden must be believed in his heart to be forbidden. If he does not believe that, then this ruling has no value at that time. So I say: if we move the topic of *khamr* other than from grapes, and there is that disagreement I mentioned just now, if the *khamr* on which there is consensus of prohibition, and one of the Muslims explicitly states that this is not forbidden, as is the case with *khamr* other than from 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 contains, 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 regarding 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 the core of the subject: whoever denies a creed while he believes that this creed came from Allah and His Messenger is a disbeliever, and we do not only say that he is a 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 mistake and illusion, and not intentionally, then at that time it does not follow from our saying about him that he is a hardcore Jahmi that he is a disbeliever. And on the contrary, if we say about someone that he is a disbeliever, a hardcore Jahmi, this does not bear any other meaning except *takfir* (declaring someone a disbeliever). But merely our saying about him that he is a hardcore Jahmi 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. Now, correct whatever you wish.
The questioner : Now, Shaykh, we have the Jahmiyyah; they did not go to what they went to except for the sake of *ta'wil* (figurative interpretation) and error, and they only denied the names and attributes...
The Shaykh : Except for the sake of *ta'wil* and error? Did you add something to me?
The questioner : No, because what is denied...
The Shaykh : It seems like, did you add 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 that your first statement was directed to Ibn Hazm, and the statement was directed to the Jahmiyyah.
The Shaykh : Okay, meaning you walked with me... the circle, is it the same?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, I say a general word: everyone who falls into *tuhmah* (Jahmiyyah) after the proof has become clear to him that he is on misguidance and he persists, he is a disbeliever. But specifying such-and-such a person is a matter of *ijtihad*. Does Ibn Hazm, does a Muslim researcher who knows the value of this Imam and his knowledge and his virtue, etc., equate him with the hardcore Jahmi? From that you take the difference, and you cannot measure and say, for example, why is it said about Ja'd that he is a disbeliever and was killed or slaughtered for his disbelief, and this Ibn Hazm is an Imam from the Imams of the Muslims and he shares with him in that? That is because this one is separated by his knowledge and virtue with the Book and the Sunnah from that one, even if he shares with him in one of the misguidances. But this does not compel us to rule on him with the same ruling that issued from others who do not know of him a jihad in knowledge with the Book and the Sunnah. This is what I have as an answer to that question. Please.
The questioner : Your Eminence, what is the stronger position that you advise referring to regarding our topic?
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 it to me. Who said "hardcore Jahmi" and who was it said about?
The questioner : Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi said it.
The Shaykh : Yes, 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 : Or is he the one it was said about?
The questioner : No, he is the one who said it.
The Shaykh : And who was 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, five hundred scholars in ten [regions] adopted their disbelief..."
Another questioner: ...
The Shaykh : Raise your voice, my brother... something is escaping me; we need to address it.
The questioner : "And indeed, five hundred scholars in ten [regions] adopted their disbelief in the lands."
The Shaykh : Okay, ...
The questioner : Regarding the Jahmiyyah and those who say in the creation of the Qur'an.
The Shaykh : Yes, so your question, which I heard clearly, is: what is the reconciliation between this and that?
The questioner : Yes, ...
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 saying about Ibn Hazm that he is a hardcore Jahmi? As for the contradiction between the two statements, why do you ask how to reconcile them?
The questioner : ... Ibn Hazm, now it is mentioned that he says he is a hardcore Jahmi, and Ibn al-Qayyim reports five hundred scholars, meaning those affiliated with the Jahmiyyah. How do we say that Ibn Hazm, I mean, is not from...
The Shaykh : How do we say that Ibn Hazm is what?
The questioner : Is not a disbeliever.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is what I am telling you. I am telling you that the correct question is that there is no exaggeration in saying about Ibn Hazm that he is a hardcore Jahmi, because that equates to him being a disbeliever!
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, and he is among those disbelievers in your expression. Is there a contradiction? So that your question would be "how to reconcile?" The question is invalid, and the truth is: how can it be said about 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 that the question was wrong?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, the answer: 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: *usul* (principles) and *furu'* (branches). And they derive from this division that error in the *usul* is disbelief and error in the *furu'* 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 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, whereas the first part, the part of creeds, does not involve action. 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 a disbeliever or not? Just as if he erred in a practical ruling, for example, perhaps you know that some respected scholars hold that not all *khamr* (intoxicants) is 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 حرامThe 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. Now, correct whatever you wish.
The questioner : Now, Shaykh, we have the Jahmiyyah; they did not go to what they went to except for the sake of *ta'wil* (figurative interpretation) and error, and they only denied the names and attributes...
The Shaykh : Except for the sake of *ta'wil* and error? Did you add something to me?
The questioner : No, because what is denied...
The Shaykh : It seems like, did you add 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 that your first statement was directed to Ibn Hazm, and the statement was directed to the Jahmiyyah.
The Shaykh : Okay, meaning you walked with me... the circle, is it the same?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, I say a general word: everyone who falls into *tuhmah* (Jahmiyyah) after the proof has become clear to him that he is on misguidance and he persists, he is a disbeliever. But specifying such-and-such a person is a matter of *ijtihad*. Does Ibn Hazm, does a Muslim researcher who knows the value of this Imam and his knowledge and his virtue, etc., equate him with the hardcore Jahmi? From that you take the difference, and you cannot measure and say, for example, why is it said about Ja'd that he is a disbeliever and was killed or slaughtered for his disbelief, and this Ibn Hazm is an Imam from the Imams of the Muslims and he shares with him in that? That is because this one is separated by his knowledge and virtue with the Book and the Sunnah from that one, even if he shares with him in one of the misguidances. But this does not compel us to rule on him with the same ruling that issued from others who do not know of him a jihad in knowledge with the Book and the Sunnah. This is what I have as an answer to that question. Please.
The questioner : Your Eminence, what is the stronger position that you advise referring to regarding our topic?