Q & A: Someone asked, “Were the Salaf literalists?” Question: The Salafis argue that the Salaf were literalists. Were they? Answer: Dawuud Al-Thaahiri (201-270 AH/ 816-884 AD) is generally regarded as the first literalist, as he denied analogical reasoning, but he was not a mushabbih, for the Shafi`i scholars generally respect him. They know him best as he is considered to have been a student of Al-Shafiˆi or his direct students in the beginning. The most famous representative of his school is Ibn Hazm of Spain, who was extreme in his literalist views to the extent that he saw a difference between urinating in water and urinating in a vessel and then pouring it into the water. Yet his extreme literalism did not carry him to the extent of believing that Allah is physical. He said, “…verily what is in a place will not be other than a body or an incidental characteristic in a body. Nothing else can be true, and neither the mind nor one’s imagination accepts anything else at all. So if Allah is not a body or an incidental characteristic of one, then it holds that He is not in a place at all. (Al-Fisal Fil-Milal 2/98)” Author: Shaykh Abu Adam al Naruiji https://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/q-a-someone-asked-were-the-salaf-literalists/
Okay I understand now. Thanks. Regarding rejecting Qiyas entirely, I'm sure it could lead to Kufr but it in and of itself isn't Kufr. And yeah today's Wahhabis love to quote Ibn Hazm attacking Asharis. Even though he himself stated there was consensus on Allah existing without a place, without a body, shape, size etc. Glad to know that Ibn Hazm himself wasn't a kafir.
This aqaid is not reliably attributed to him. Allahu alam. I know of many refutations of him, but not takfeer. For me it suffices that ash-Shaykh al-Akbar Ibn 'Arabi regarded him as a believer. Why would that be kufr? That's not aqidah-related, that's an aberrant and wrong fiqh opinion. As for modern day "Zahiris", there are none. The madhhab is dead and those who ascribe themselves to the madhhab today are simply rebranded Wahhabis.
I seem to have confused him with his Andalusi grandfather: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr_Ibn_Sayyid_al-Nās
Right, I understand. I just wanted to check if any of his aqaid were kufriya or if any scholars did make takfir. As far as I know, from what I was taught, anyone who states that it is mentally possible for Allah to lie, or possible for Allah to create another God, is a kafir. That is why I wanted clarification regarding Ibn Hazm.
imam dhahabi, in spite of his admiration of ibn hazm's genius candidly acknowledged that they were repugnant and ugly.
Is it true that Ibn Hazm said "It is possible for Allah to have a son, if Allah couldn't have a son then he would be weak"? Did any ulama make takfir of him? I know he refutes anthropomorphism. But some of his views are extremely misguided, I have seen a few "Zahiris" today who insult Imam Abu Hanifah. Similarly, what is the opinion regarding Dawud Az Zahiri? This person rejected Qiyas completely. That seems like it is kufr to me. But I would like a learned person to answer these questions to be safe. Please do so when you have time. Thanks
as for ibn Hazm's milal wa'n niHal and his disparaging the ashayirah. and imam taj al-subki refuted him in his tabaqat. dhahabi himself lamented: siyar 18/202 "i like him for his passion for the authentic hadith and his knowledge of the same; and even though i do not agree with him in most of what he said about narrators and the bases (ilal) and repugnant, ugly opinions in usul and furu; and even though i am certain of his mistake in many issues, yet i do not do takfir of him, nor consider him a heretic, and i hope he will be forgiven, along with muslims. and i bow down to his brilliance, his intelligence and the breadth of his knowledge...." after many a pages, dhahabi is resigned: ibn hazm has said so many things; if one has to criticise him, his wayward/extremist opinions and his aberrations, it will take a long time (or: one would waste many years to do so).
dhahabi in his siyar quotes abu'l abbas ibn areef that he said: "the sword of Hajjaj and the tongue of ibn Hazm were siblings" [shaqiq = sibling born of the same father and mother]. even dhahabi who held ibn Hazm's knowledge in very high esteem, lamented his lack of adab concerning ulama. see siyar, vol.18 p.184 onwards.
i would like to know how was he became a follower of the 'zahiri' madh'hab. i checked a few books and some explicitly say that he was a shafiyi; al-safadi and others who were contemporaries did not say he was zahiri. tabaqat of subki, 9/268 tabaqat of ibn shuhbah 2/390 bidayah wa'l nihayah of ibn kathir 16/262 badr al-taliy of shawkani 2/249 husn al-muHadarah of suyuti 1/358 durar al-kaminah of ibn Hajar 4/208, #573 shadharat al-dhahab of ibn imad, 8/189 wafi bi'l wafyat, safadi 1/220 nujum al-zahirah, atabaki, 9/303 miftah al-sa'adah, tashkuprizadah, 2/327 dhuyul al-ibar, dhahabi, p99
Shaykh al-Akbar Ibn 'Arabi praised Ibn Hazm's knowledge of hadith multiple times in his works and even had a dream of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) embracing him. The earliest manuscript copy of al-Muhalla (Ibn Hazm's encyclopedia of comparative fiqh) is Ibn 'Arabi's personal copy, in his own hand. Ibn Hazm held *many* odd opinions, although certain positions ascribed to him, such as the claim that he considered it permissible to beat one's parents, are falsely ascribed to him. The Zahiri madhhab took an extremely literal approach to fiqh, even more literal than modern Salafis. He was overly harsh and insulting toward his rivals. That being said, he was a Muslim, and the Zahiris were not kuffar. Contrary to the modern Salafis who claim influence from the Zahiris, Ibn Hazm refuted anthropomorphism (although some of his positions go too far in the opposite direction, and were similar to those of the Mu'tazila), he praised al-Husayn (radiallahu anhu) and condemned Yazid paleed, and he said that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is alive. Out of the later Zahiris, Ibn Dihya al-Kalbi wrote in favor of the Mawlid, Ibn Sayyid an-Nas (author of the Light of Sight) compiled poetry in praise of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), and Abu Hayyan al-Gharnati refuted the anthropomorphism of Ibn Taymiyya.
The Dhahiri Madhab was a real Madhab and is within Ahlus Sunnah but did not survive like many others. Ibn Hazm is famous for some opinions which many of the other Scholars rebuked him for but in other ways there is no doubt he was a well known and very knowledgable Scholar. They are Muslim and Ahlus Sunnah to answer your question. Allahuma Alam
As salamu alaykum, Does anyone know what the Ulama stated regarding Ibn Hazm? I know he attacked Asharis and was considered a deviant. But apparently he is considered an authority in Hadith. The idiot Atabek called him an Ashari. And in general, are the Zahiris considered deviant or kuffar? Thank you
