Imām Ibn Bāz on the Dhāhiriyyah:
“The Dhāhirī methodology is well known. It is the path followed by Dāwūd ibn ʿAlī adh-Dhāhirī, Abū Muḥammad Ibn Ḥazm, and those who hold to their view. Its meaning is to adhere to the apparent wording of the texts without considering the underlying reasons (taʿlīl) or analogy (qiyās). Thus, they do not accept qiyās nor the underlying reason behind the Revealed Texts. Rather, they act upon the apparent meanings of the commands and prohibitions, without looking to the underlying causes and meanings. For this reason, they were called Dhāhiriyyah—because they adhered to the outward wording and did not consider the underlying causes, wisdoms, and legal analogies indicated by the Book and the Sunnah.
Nevertheless, their position, in general, is better than that of the People of Opinion (Ahlur-Ra’ī), who give precedence to personal reasoning and analogical deductions while neglecting the due concern for the legislative proofs from the Book and the Sunnah.
However, the Dhāhiriyyah are not without shortcomings and criticisms due to their rigid adherence to the apparent wording and their failure to give due consideration to the underlying causes, wisdoms, and subtle objectives to which the Lawgiver directed attention and what He intended. Because of this, they erred in many issues concerning which the Book and the Sunnah have provided clear guidance.”
Arabic:
الطريقة الظاهرية معروفة، وهي التي يسير عليها داود بن علي الظاهري، وأبو محمد ابن حزم، ومن يقول بقولهما، ومعناها: الأخذ بظاهر النصوص وعدم النظر في التعليل والقياس، فلا قياس عندهم ولا تعليل، بل يقولون بظاهر الأوامر والنواهي، ولا ينظرون إلى العلل والمعاني، فسموا ظاهرية لهذا المعنى؛ لأنهم أخذوا بالظاهر ولم ينظروا في العلل والحكم والأقيسة الشرعية التي دل عليها الكتاب والسنة، ولكن قولهم في الجملة أحسن من قول أهل الرأي المجرد الذين يحكمون الآراء والأقيسة، ويعرضون عن العناية بالأدلة الشرعية من الكتاب والسنة، لكن عليهم نقص ومؤاخذات في جمودهم على الظاهر، وعدم رعايتهم للعلل والحكم والأسرار التي نبه عليها الشارع وقصدها، ولهذا غلطوا في مسائل كثيرة دل عليها الكتاب والسنة
(See Majmūʿ Fatāwā wa Maqālāt Mutanawwiʿah of Shaykh Ibn Bāz, vol. 6, p. 277)
Imam Al-Albānī on the Dhāhiriyyah (Part 1):
“If you have come to know—as I think you have—that Ibn Hazm went to an excessive and almost laughable extreme in his rigid adherence to the apparent wording, it is because he did not believe it was incumbent upon him to engage his intellect in understanding the objectives of the Wise Lawgiver in the rulings He legislated.
For example, when he came across the Hadīth regarding the virgin: “Her permission is her silence,” he did not stop to consider why the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Her permission is her silence.” The overwhelming majority of the scholars understood well that the Prophet (ﷺ) said this out of consideration for her, because a virgin does not usually possess the same boldness as a previously married woman. Therefore, the Messenger (ﷺ) deemed her silence sufficient to establish her consent.
Ibn Hazm paid no attention to this whatsoever. We regard this as a degree of intellectual rigidity that knows no bounds. Had the condition of virgins in that time been like their condition today, I do not believe the Messenger (ﷺ) would have said, “Her permission is her silence.” You know that many young unmarried women today have been raised upon a non-Islamic upbringing, with ideas of unrestricted freedom. It is not merely that she says, “I do not want him”; rather, she may deliver an entire lecture justifying her position. The situation in those days was altogether different. Women were modest, dignified, and well-mannered.
This is why you find that when one of the Companions described the Messenger (ﷺ) and his modesty, he would say: “He was more modest than a virgin in her seclusion.” Where is that today? It has become a thing of the past.
Ibn Hazm failed to observe the difference between that time and his own era—let alone ours. Indeed, I do not see a great difference between our time and the period of the Muslim rule in al-Andalus, for, as you can see, luxury, extravagance, wealth, and the like corrupt people’s character and upbringing.
To illustrate that such rigidity is far removed from true fiqh: when the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Her permission is her silence,” Ibn Hazm concluded that if a virgin’s guardian were to say, “So-and-so has proposed to you,” and she replied, “I am pleased,” her consent would not be accepted. Rather, she must remain silent.
Glorified is Allah! The Prophet (ﷺ) said this out of consideration for her; he did not make silence an obligation upon her. Today, as we have said, many unmarried women would simply say, “I am pleased,” or, “As you wish, my father,” or, “As you wish, my guardian.” Yet according to him, this is insufficient. She must remain silent for it to count as consent. If she does not remain silent, her permission is not considered valid.
He has many strange, indeed, very strange, examples of this kind. Among them is his understanding of the Hadīth of Abū Hurayrah (رضي الله عنه): “The Messenger prohibited urinating into stagnant water.” From the standpoint of the Arabic language, it is obvious that what is prohibited is for a person to urinate directly into stagnant water. Based upon his rigid literalism, Ibn Hazm said: If a person urinates into a container and then pours its contents into stagnant water, this is permissible. Why? Because, linguistically speaking, and I agree with him from the standpoint of language, it cannot be said that he urinated into the stagnant water.
However, this is merely the customary linguistic usage. As for the legal meaning intended by the Sharīʿah, I do not agree with him. According to him, if someone urinates into an empty vessel and then pours that urine into stagnant water, he has not violated the wording of the Hadīth. In my view, he has not violated its wording, but he has violated its intended meaning [of the Shariʿah].
There can be no disagreement that the purpose of the Hadīth is one and the same, regardless of whether the stagnant water is little or much, or whether only a small amount or a large amount of urine is poured into it. One of two outcomes must necessarily occur: either the water becomes impure or, at the very least, contaminated. So what difference is there between causing one of these two prohibited outcomes by urinating directly into the stagnant water or by first urinating into a vessel and then pouring it into the stagnant water?
Moreover, imagine that many people all urinated into separate vessels and then emptied them into the stagnant water. Would this Dhāhirī still maintain, even after the water had effectively become urine, that there is nothing objectionable in this? A strict literalist cannot carry his rigid reasoning through to its logical conclusion.
For this reason, we also do not follow Ibn Hazm in his understanding of the Prophet’s (ﷺ) statement: “There is no prayer once the obligatory prayer has commenced except the prescribed prayer.” Yes, this is what the Messenger (ﷺ) said. But what did he intend by this Hadīth?
We can conceive of numerous situations in order to understand the ruling intended by the Wise Lawgiver, Allah, in this matter. For example, suppose a person is offering a voluntary prayer and has reached the very end of the final tashahhud. Nothing remains except to utter a single syllable, and at that very moment, the one calling the iqāmah begins by saying the first syllable of the iqāmah. I think you understand what I mean.
That is to say, he is about to say, “As-salāmu ʿalaykum,” just as the mu’adhdhin begins saying, “Allāhu Akbar, Allāhu Akbar.” According to Ibn Hazm’s approach, from the very first syllable uttered by the mu’adhdhin, that person’s prayer is invalidated because the iqāmah preceded him. This is intellectual rigidity.
You can move the example further back if you wish. Suppose he has just sat for the tashahhud, and at the moment he is about to utter the first syllable of “at-Tahiyyāt,” the mu’adhdhin says, “Allāhu Akbar.” In that case, there is still ample time remaining.
What I understand, after extensive study of the conflicting opinions of the scholars on this issue, is that the Prophet’s (ﷺ) statement: “When the iqāmah has been established for the prayer, there is no prayer except the prescribed (fard) prayer,” means that he intended for the one engaged in a voluntary prayer to free himself so that he may join the obligatory prayer behind the Imām from the very first takbīr. This is because catching the opening takbīr possesses a special virtue, as is understood from the Prophet’s (ﷺ) statement: “Whoever catches the first takbīr in congregational prayer for forty days will have two declarations of freedom written for him: freedom from hypocrisy and freedom from the Fire.”
This is therefore an emphatic encouragement of the highest degree that the Muslim should strive to catch the opening takbīr in every prayer. It is not that a person should calculate forty days, complete them, and then become negligent thereafter. Rather, the intent of the Hadīth is that it should become his constant habit always to join the congregational prayer from its very beginning.
Therefore, in order to facilitate this virtue for every person engaged in voluntary prayer, so that he does not lose a reward which, even if he were to offer many voluntary prayers, he would not attain even half of it, nor even a tenth of it. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “When the iqāmah has been established for the prayer, there is no prayer except the prescribed (fard) prayer.”
Accordingly, in my view, the ruling differs according to the time at which the iqāmah is heard. This is an important consideration. Did the person hear it at its beginning, in the middle, or near its conclusion? All of this must be weighed by the person. Furthermore, he should consider whether he is a regular worshipper at that mosque, or, even if he is not, whether he knows the customary practice of its Imām. If he knows that the Imām adheres to the Sunnah, then he knows that after the iqāmah, he will turn to the congregation and say:
سوُّوا صفوفَكم فإنَّ تسوية الصفوف من تمام الصلاة
“Straighten your rows, for straightening the rows is from the completion of the prayer,” and he will instruct them to align themselves. By the time the Imām has fulfilled this Sunnah, which the overwhelming majority of Imāms, here and elsewhere, unfortunately neglect, the person offering the voluntary prayer may well have completed his prayer.
Or perhaps he knows that the Imām follows the Hanafī madhhab and scarcely does the one calling the iqāmah reach the words, “Qad qāmatis-salāh,” except that the Imām has already pronounced, “Allāhu Akbar,” because that is his established practice.
Thus, all of these circumstances should be taken into consideration by the one offering the voluntary prayer. Based upon them, he should either discontinue his prayer or complete it. This is my view on the matter.
Questioner: How should he discontinue it, Shaykh?
Shaykh: He discontinues it without saying the taslīm. That is to say, it is automatically invalidated, as we mentioned earlier.
(Source: Miscellaneous Recordings, Tape no. 223, time at 11:46 from transcript).
Imām Al-Albānī of the Dhāhiriyyah (Part 2)
Questioner: Our noble father, may Allah preserve you, it is said that Shaykh al-Albānī agrees with Ibn Hazm in the principles of jurisprudence (usūl al-fiqh), and it is also said that he has his own distinct methodology in usūl. What is the truth regarding this? And do you intend to author a work on this subject? May Allah reward you with goodness.
Shaykh: As for the intention to write, then that is something far from being realised. As for the claim that I agree with Ibn Hazm, then this is among the furthest things from the truth. I frequently criticise his rigidity in dealing with certain texts. A proper understanding of them clearly demonstrates Ibn Hazm’s rigidity in some of his principles.
I then mention examples of some contemporary literalists (dhāhiris) who fall into the same rigidity as Ibn Hazm, despite claiming to be independent thinkers, claiming to be enlightened, and claiming that they seek a rational form of Islam. Their call has gone so far that they wish to make the rulings of the Sharīʿah acceptable to every intellect. Indeed, this has led them to reject authentic and well-known ahādīth.
During the controversy stirred up by the Ghazālī of the present age, and by those who refuted him because of his rejection of authentic narrations found in the Two Sahīhs and elsewhere, I found that these people exhibited a contradictory approach. On the one hand, they go to great lengths in rejecting certain ahādīth simply because they do not accord with their desires; and I do not say, their intellects. On the other hand, they fall into conclusions that contradict sound reason because of their rigid adherence to certain texts and their resemblance, in this respect, to the literalism of Ibn Hazm.
On many occasions, I have criticised Ibn Hazm for his rigidity. However, perhaps the reason for this question is that I sometimes say, “This is qiyās, and this qiyās is among the most invalid forms of analogy to be found.” At that point, I quote the statement of Ibn Hazm, who said: “All qiyās is false; and if any of it were true, then this example would be the very essence of falsehood.”
Some people employ strange, indeed, very strange analogies. So I cite this statement of Ibn Hazm, despite the fact that he went to an extreme by rejecting qiyās altogether, which itself reflects his rigidity. Nevertheless, on certain occasions, he rightly refutes those who rely upon analogy and personal opinion to establish rulings through forms of qiyās that are, in reality, among the most invalid analogies imaginable.
(Source: Silsilat Rihlat an-Nūr, Tape no. 55, Minute 39:17)
Shaikh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah on Ibn Hazm
Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله تعالى) said in Darʾ Taʿārud al-ʿAql wan-Naql (3/24): “Likewise, Abū Muhammad Ibn Hazm, despite his knowledge of Hadīth and his support for the methodology of Dāwūd Ibn ʿAli and others like him from among those who reject qiyās and adhere to the apparent wordings of the texts, went to an extreme in denying the Attributes and reducing them to mere knowledge. Yet he does not even affirm knowledge as an Attribute. Rather, he claims that the Names of Allah, such as al-ʿAlīm (the All-Knowing), al-Qadīr (the All-Powerful), and the like, do not indicate knowledge and power.
ʿAllāmah Sālih Ibn ‘Abdul-Azīz Āl ash-Shaikh on Ibn Hazm
The scholar, Sālih Ibn ‘Abdul-Azīz Āl ash-Shaikh, said in his explanation of al-ʿAqīdah at-Tahāwiyyah (2/111):
Question 12: Is Ibn Hazm from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamāʿah?
Answer: “No. Ibn Hazm is not a Sunnī. Rather, he has his own distinct methodology. Ibn ʿAbdil-Hādī and others regarded him as being from the Jahmiyyah, while another group considered him to be from the philosophers. In other words, he was a mixture. In matters of creed (ʿaqīdah), he was mixed up and inconsistent. He did not follow any one recognised theological school. He had elements of Jahmiyyah, elements of Ashʿariyyah, and elements of philosophy. In short, his creed was a mixture of these various influences.”
Arabic:
قال الشيخ صالح آل الشيخ في شرحه للطحاوية [2-111] :
س12/ هل ابن حزم من أهل السنة والجماعة؟
ج/ لا، ابن حزم ليس سنياً بل له مذهب خاص، ابن عبد الهادي وغيره يعتبرونه من الجهمية، طائفة تعتبره من الفلاسفة يعني خليط، هو في العقيدة مخلّط لا يتبع مذهب من المذاهب عنده تجهم، وعنده أشعريات، وعنده فلسفة يعني مختلط
Al-Hāfidh Ibn Katheer on Ibn Hazm
“It is most astonishing that, despite being a Dhāhirī in fiqh, branches (furūʿ), he still remained confused. He accepted no form of qiyās, neither the manifest nor any other type. This is what became well known about him among the scholars, and it led him into serious errors in his reasoning and legal methodology.
At the same time, he was among the most excessive of people in figurative interpretation (taʾwīl) concerning the fundamental matters of creed, particularly the verses and ahādīth relating to the Divine Attributes of Allah. This was because he had previously become deeply versed in the science of logic, which he learned from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Madhhijī al-Kinānī al-Qurtubī, as mentioned by Ibn Mākūlā and Ibn Khalikān. Consequently, his approach to the Divine Attributes became corrupted.
Arabic:
والعجب كل العجب منه أنه كان ظاهريا حائرا في الفروع ، لا يقول بشئ من القياس لا الجلي ولا غيره ، وهذا الذي وضعه عند العلماء ، وأدخل عليه خطأ كبيرا في نظره وتصرفه . وكان مع هذا من أشد الناس تأويلا في باب الأصول ، وآيات الصفات وأحاديث الصفات ؛ لأنه كان أولا قد تضلع من علم المنطق ، أخذه عن محمد بن الحسن المذحجي الكناني القرطبي ، ذكره ابن ماكولا وابن خلكان ، ففسد بذلك حاله في باب الصفات
(Source: al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah, 12/113.)
The Permanent Committee of Major Scholars on Ibn Hazm
Answer: “The ʿAlī whom you are asking about is the author himself: Abū Muḥammad ʿAlī ibn Ahmad ibn Saʿīd Ibn Hazm al-Andalusī, who died in 456 AH. He is counted among the distinguished scholars in usūl, furūʿ, and in the sciences of the Book and the Sunnah. However, he differed with the overwhelming majority of the scholars on many issues in which he failed to arrive at the correct position. This was due to his rigid adherence to the apparent wording (dhāhir) and his rejection of clear qiyās that fulfils its recognised conditions. More serious and graver than this were his errors in matters of creed, wherein he figuratively interpreted (made taʾwīl) the texts concerning the Names and Attributes of Allāh.
And with Allah lies success. May Allah send His prayers and peace upon our Prophet Muḥammad, his family, and his Companions.
The Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Fatwā.
Chairman: ʿAbdul-ʿAzīz ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn Bāz
Vice Chairman: ʿAbdur-Razzāq ʿAfīfī
Member: ʿAbdullāh ibn Quʿūd
Member: ʿAbdullāh ibn Ghudayyān
Arabic:
علي الذي تسأل عنه هو نفس المؤلف أبو محمد علي ابن أحمد بن سعيد بن حزم الأندلسي ، المتوفى عام 456 هـ، والمذكور من العلماء المبرزين في الأصول، والفروع، وفي علم الكتاب والسنة، إلا أنه خالف جمهور أهل العلم في مسائل كثيرة أخطأ فيها الصواب؛ لجموده على الظاهر، وعدم قوله بالقياس الجلي المستوفي للشروط المعتبرة، وخطأه في العقيدة بتأويل نصوص الأسماء والصفات أشد وأعظم.
وبالله التوفيق وصلى الله على نبينا محمد وآله وصحبه وسلم
(Source: Majmūʿ Fatāwā al-Lajnah al-Dāʾimah lil-Buhūth al-ʿIlmiyyah wa al-Iftāʾ, vol. 12, p. 223)
Abu Khadeejah Abdul-Wāhid.