The Shaykh’s remarks on Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) and his rigidity in adhering to the apparent meaning.

The Shaykh : If you have understood, as I suppose, 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 it as obligatory in his school to engage his mind and intellect in understanding the objectives of the Wise Lawgiver in the legal rulings He establishes. For example, when he confronts the hadith that a virgin’s permission is her silence, he does not think about why the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said . Meanwhile, the majority of scholars clearly understand that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said with gentleness toward her, because a virgin does not have the boldness that a married woman usually possesses. Therefore, he (peace be upon him) said that her silence is the means of obtaining her permission. Ibn Hazm never looks at this. We see in this a mental rigidity without limits. If virgins in that era were like they are in this era, I believe the Messenger would not have said , because you know that virgins today are raised with a non-Islamic upbringing and freedom, and they do not just say “I do not want him” and give a lecture justifying their position. But in that time, women were modest and well-mannered. For that reason—and peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you—for that reason, you find that when a Companion described the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and described his modesty, he would say that he (peace and blessings 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, this time, and his own time at all, because I do not find a great difference between our time and the time of the Maghribi state that was in Andalus. 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 path of jurisprudence. When he said , he derived from it that if a virgin’s guardian says to her, “So-and-so is proposing to you,” and she says, “I agree,” it is not accepted; she must remain silent. Glory be to Allah! He said “be gentle with her,” he did not say it is obligatory for her to remain silent. So today, as we said, most virgins may say “I agree” or “as you wish, my father” or “my guardian,” and so on. It is not obligatory for her to remain silent so that it is considered what? Her permission. If she does not remain silent, ... 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) that the Prophet 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. Based on his rigidity, he said that if a person urinated in a vessel and then poured what was in the vessel into stagnant water, it is permissible. Why? Because linguistically, it is not accurate to say he urinated in the water, and I agree with him linguically, but this is customary language, whereas in legal language, I am not with them. So he says if a person urinates in an empty vessel and then pours the urine from this vessel into stagnant water, this does not contradict the hadith. In my expression, it does not contradict the wording of the hadith. We say it contradicts the intended meaning of the hadith, because no two people differ, and no two camels butt heads, on the fact that the intended meaning of the hadith is one of two things: either the stagnant water becomes impure, or at least it changes color. So what is the difference between realizing one of these two prohibited descriptions, whether by urinating directly in stagnant water or by urinating in an empty vessel and then pouring the urine from this vessel into stagnant water? I wonder, if many people gathered and urinated in the empty vessel and then poured it into the stagnant water, and the water turned into urine, this apparentist would still say there is no harm in it. The apparentist cannot go to the end of the road with his rigid mind. For this reason, we do not follow Ibn Hazm in his statement that the Messenger said . Yes, but what does the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) intend by this hadith? We can imagine various scenarios to understand the ruling of the Wise Lawgiver in this issue. I imagine a person who is in the final tashahhud of a voluntary prayer and has only left to say " A ", and then the imam says " A ", meaning “I did not understand you,” because he wanted to say “Peace be upon you,” and then the mu'adhdhin says what? “Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar.” Well, according to Ibn Hazm’s plan, " A " his prayer is invalid because that preceded him. This is mental rigidity and a regression; the matter remains behind you. For example, he sat for the tashahhud, and when he wanted to say " A ", the greetings, he said “Allahu Akbar,” so there is a gap here. What I understand, after studying the contradictory statements of scholars on this issue extensively, is that by his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) , he intends to free this person performing the voluntary prayer so that he can catch the obligatory prayer behind the imam at the first takbir. This is because catching this has a special virtue that we understand from his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) . So this is an emphatic exhortation without limit that a Muslim must strive to catch the first takbir in every prayer, because he cannot make a schedule: the first day, the second day, it becomes forty days, and then he no longer cares. 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.
The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), in order to prepare the way for every person performing a voluntary prayer so that he does not miss this virtue—which, if he prayed many voluntary prayers, he would not reach half or a tenth of it—said . The issue, in my view, differs according to the time the person performing the voluntary prayer hears the iqamah. This is an observation regarding the difference in the time the person hears the iqamah: is it at the beginning, the end, or the middle? All of this should be estimated by the person obligated. Add to this, if he is from the people of the mosque or not from the people of the mosque, but he usually knows this mosque which is not his own, and he knows that the imam of this mosque adheres to the Sunnah. It is from the Sunnah to turn and say , “Align your rows.” By doing this, he fulfills the obligatory duty that the majority of imams here and there neglect. He may have finished his prayer, or he may know that this imam is of the Hanafi school and hardly does the imam say “The prayer has begun” before he says “Allahu Akbar,” because this is how ... So all these things should be observed by the person performing the voluntary prayer. Accordingly, he either cuts off the prayer or completes it. This is my opinion on the matter.

The questioner : How does he cut it off?

The Shaykh : He cuts it off without taslim, meaning it is invalid, as we said earlier, automatically.