Some students of knowledge report that Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi said of Ibn Hazm that he was a severe Jahmi; is this correct?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Some students of knowledge sometimes quote from Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi (may Allah have mercy on him) — I do not know, I think the text is in *Miqamat al-Ikhtilafat* — that Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) was a Jahmi. Is this correct?
The Shaykh : Unfortunately, it is correct.
The questioner : Well, what is the ruling of the Shari'ah? Do we invoke mercy upon him, or what?
The Shaykh : Of course, because he is a mujtahid.
The questioner : One who interprets figuratively...
The Shaykh : I observe that there is exaggeration in the position of some of our brothers from the people of the Sunnah toward those who interpret figuratively, such as the Asha'irah and the Maturidiyyah, and the like. The source of this is the distinction they make between the fundamentals and the branches. They say that the one who disagrees on the branches is excused, but the one who disagrees on the fundamentals is not excused. This distinction, although it has no basis in the Shari'ah, is first of all a terminological matter. Dividing the Shari'ah into fundamentals and branches is a terminological matter, and it is not permissible to apply recent, incidental terminologies to the rulings of the Shari'ah. As we mentioned, this division of the religion into fundamentals and branches, where the one who errs in the branches is excused but the one who errs in the fundamentals is not, has no basis. Therefore, the disagreement that occurred in the past between the saved sect, the people of the Sunnah, and the other innovating sects, such as the Jahmiyyah and the Mu'tazilah, should not be viewed through the lens of disagreement on the fundamentals or the branches. Rather, it should be viewed through the lens of whether they are mujtahids or whether they are people of desires who prefer opinion merely because it aligns with their desires, and do not raise their heads to the evidence of the Book and the Sunnah, which are with the people of the Sunnah and the community. The truth is that this is a matter of the heart, and no one can know it except the Lord of the Worlds (Blessed and Exalted is He). Therefore, the ruling on saying that these opponents of the people of the Sunnah are disbelievers or eternally in the Fire, because they denied something from the evidence of the Qur'an or the Sunnah, is left to Allah. We say that if the denial was intentional, then there is no doubt that they deserve that. But if it was due to misunderstanding and error in ijtihad, then the outcome of their affair is not that they become like the disbelievers who deny Islam in its entirety and in detail. On this basis, Ibn Hazm, as Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi (may Allah have mercy on him) said, was indeed a severe Jahmi, because he denies the names and attributes, and he has very strange, very strange statements. This is one of his contradictions, because you see him as rigid in fiqh and fluid in 'aqidah, meaning he interprets figuratively. This is one of the most amazing things a person sees: if he had used analogical reasoning and figurative interpretation in the rulings of the Shari'ah and was not known for rigidity, perhaps it could be said that this extended to his understanding of some verses related to the attributes. But he truly combined contradictions: he is as rigid as can be in fiqh, and in the names and attributes, he is one who interprets figuratively and denies the attributes. And as you heard from Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi, he was a severe Jahmi. We cannot say of Ibn Hazm, or of anyone else, that he is a disbeliever. Nor can I personally say that he is misguided, even if he truly fell into misguidance, because from my reading of his books and his method of arguing and refuting his opponents, I feel that he seeks the truth. It is sufficient for us to say of him and those like him that he is a mujtahid who is rewarded with one reward. But this does not prevent us from speaking the truth and explicitly declaring his error, whether his error is in 'aqidah or in fiqh. Anyone else?
The Shaykh : Unfortunately, it is correct.
The questioner : Well, what is the ruling of the Shari'ah? Do we invoke mercy upon him, or what?
The Shaykh : Of course, because he is a mujtahid.
The questioner : One who interprets figuratively...
The Shaykh : I observe that there is exaggeration in the position of some of our brothers from the people of the Sunnah toward those who interpret figuratively, such as the Asha'irah and the Maturidiyyah, and the like. The source of this is the distinction they make between the fundamentals and the branches. They say that the one who disagrees on the branches is excused, but the one who disagrees on the fundamentals is not excused. This distinction, although it has no basis in the Shari'ah, is first of all a terminological matter. Dividing the Shari'ah into fundamentals and branches is a terminological matter, and it is not permissible to apply recent, incidental terminologies to the rulings of the Shari'ah. As we mentioned, this division of the religion into fundamentals and branches, where the one who errs in the branches is excused but the one who errs in the fundamentals is not, has no basis. Therefore, the disagreement that occurred in the past between the saved sect, the people of the Sunnah, and the other innovating sects, such as the Jahmiyyah and the Mu'tazilah, should not be viewed through the lens of disagreement on the fundamentals or the branches. Rather, it should be viewed through the lens of whether they are mujtahids or whether they are people of desires who prefer opinion merely because it aligns with their desires, and do not raise their heads to the evidence of the Book and the Sunnah, which are with the people of the Sunnah and the community. The truth is that this is a matter of the heart, and no one can know it except the Lord of the Worlds (Blessed and Exalted is He). Therefore, the ruling on saying that these opponents of the people of the Sunnah are disbelievers or eternally in the Fire, because they denied something from the evidence of the Qur'an or the Sunnah, is left to Allah. We say that if the denial was intentional, then there is no doubt that they deserve that. But if it was due to misunderstanding and error in ijtihad, then the outcome of their affair is not that they become like the disbelievers who deny Islam in its entirety and in detail. On this basis, Ibn Hazm, as Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi (may Allah have mercy on him) said, was indeed a severe Jahmi, because he denies the names and attributes, and he has very strange, very strange statements. This is one of his contradictions, because you see him as rigid in fiqh and fluid in 'aqidah, meaning he interprets figuratively. This is one of the most amazing things a person sees: if he had used analogical reasoning and figurative interpretation in the rulings of the Shari'ah and was not known for rigidity, perhaps it could be said that this extended to his understanding of some verses related to the attributes. But he truly combined contradictions: he is as rigid as can be in fiqh, and in the names and attributes, he is one who interprets figuratively and denies the attributes. And as you heard from Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi, he was a severe Jahmi. We cannot say of Ibn Hazm, or of anyone else, that he is a disbeliever. Nor can I personally say that he is misguided, even if he truly fell into misguidance, because from my reading of his books and his method of arguing and refuting his opponents, I feel that he seeks the truth. It is sufficient for us to say of him and those like him that he is a mujtahid who is rewarded with one reward. But this does not prevent us from speaking the truth and explicitly declaring his error, whether his error is in 'aqidah or in fiqh. Anyone else?
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.