Was Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) one of Ahl as-Sunnah?

Praise
be to Allah.

Abu Muhammad ‘Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Sa‘eed ibn Hazm  was of Persian origin; he
came from Qurtubah (Cordoba) in Andalusia. He was the author of numerous
books. 

No
one who has the least amount of knowledge and of scholars will have any
doubt that Ibn Hazm was very smart and was very quick-witted, and he had a
great deal of respect for the Sunnah and hadith. But perfection in all
aspects is something extremely rare, and there is no one (among the
scholars) but his opinion is subject to acceptance or rejection. 

Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said that he was a follower of the
salaf (early generations) in general, and that he was opposed to the people
of innovation (bid‘ah): 

“When we mention the scholars, we mean those who are known to be qualified
to issue fatwas among the Sahaabah, Taabi‘een and their followers, the
scholars of the regions, the leading scholars of hadith and those who
followed them – may Allah be pleased with all of them. We do not mean
Abu’l-Hudhayl, Ibn al-Asamm, Bishr ibn al-Mu‘tamir, Ibraaheem ibn Sayyaar,
Ja‘far ibn Harb, Ja‘far ibn Mubashshir, Thumaamah, Abu Ghaffaar,
ar-Raqqaashi, the Azaariqah, the Safariyyah, the ignorant Abaadiyyah or the
Raafidis. These people did not put any effort into examining the reports so
that they might know the sound reports from the weak ones, nor did they
examine and study the rulings mentioned in the Qur’an so that they might
know correct fatwas from incorrect ones on a sound basis. Rather they were
preoccupied with arguing about fundamental beliefs, and each group has its
own focus.” End quote.

Maraatib al-Ijmaa‘
(p. 12-15) 

Despite the fact that Ibn Hazm respected the Sunnah and its scholars, and
despite his great knowledge of hadith and its sciences, and his vast memory
and immense knowledge, he had views in which he differed from the Sunnah and
its scholars concerning some well-known issues of both fundamental and minor
matters. 

Adh-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his biography of him in
as-Siyar (18/186-187): 

He
grew up in luxury and ease, and was blessed with extreme intelligence and
quick-wittedness, and he owned many precious books. His father was one of
the prominent figures of Qurtubah, who served as a vizier in the ‘Aamiri
state, and Abu Muhammad was also a vizier of that state when he was young.
He initially became prominent in the fields of literature, history and
poetry, as well as mantiq (dialectics) and other branches of philosophy,
which left its mark on him and we wish that it had never had an impact on
him. I came across a book of his in which he encouraged study of mantiq
(dialectics) and give it precedence over other branches of knowledge, and I
felt sad for him, because he is prominent in the Islamic sciences, with a
great knowledge of hadith reports, and he has no equal, even though he is
rigid in his thinking and extremely literalist in minor issues, although not
in the fundamentals. 

It
was said that he studied the Shaafa‘i madhhab first, then his research led
him to adopt the view that using analogy (qiyaas) is invalid in all cases,
whether it is clear or implied, and that the apparent meaning of the text
and the general meaning of the Qur’an and hadith should be followed. He
wrote many books on that, and he debated with others to prove his point, and
he argued his point at length, both verbally and in writing. He did not show
respect to the imams (leading scholars) when debating; rather he used rough
words, impugning and slandering, and his recompense suited his action to the
extent that many leading scholars shunned his books and ignored them, and
warned others against them, and on one occasion they were burned. But other
scholars took an interest in his books, and they examined them, critiqued
them and benefited from them; they learned from them and criticised them,
and they saw in them precious pearls mixed with cheap beads. Sometimes they
would be excited and amazed, then they would mock some of his idiosyncratic
ideas. In general, perfection is something extremely rare and the view of
any individual is subject to acceptance or rejection, except the Messenger
of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). 

Ibn Hazm was well versed in many branches of knowledge, including hadith,
and he excelled in writing both poetry and prose. 

He
was sincerely devoted and there was much goodness in him; his aims were good
and his books are useful. He showed no interest in positions of leadership;
he stayed in his house, focusing on knowledge. Therefore we should not
exaggerate about him or undermine him or his status. Rather he was praised
by senior scholars before us. End quote. 

Adh-Dhahabi also wrote a comprehensive biography of him in as-Siyar
(18/184-212): 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

Even though with regard to issues of faith and the divine decree Abu
Muhammad Ibn Hazm was more sincere and had more knowledge of hadith and more
respect for hadith and the scholars of hadith than others, his views on
these issues were nevertheless influenced by the ideas of the philosophers
and Mu‘tazilah with regard to issues of the divine attributes, which led to
his view not being in harmony with the people of hadith with regard to these
issues. His wording was in agreement with Ahl al-hadith but the meanings
were in harmony with the other group. Similar criticisms were made by those
among the fuqaha’, ahl al-kalaam and scholars of hadith who criticised him
for being a literalist with no depth to what he said. He also denied the
wisdom behind what is enjoined and prohibited, and he denied the
extraordinary events and similar things which may be classified as acts of
the hearts. Moreover, he also criticised some prominent figures and went to
extremes in denying the wisdom behind rulings, and he claimed to follow the
apparent meanings. However he had faith, religious commitment and a great
deal of knowledge, that no one can deny except one who is stubborn, and the
content of his books highlights his deep knowledge of various views and
different circumstances, as well as his respect for the fundamentals of
Islam and for the Messenger, which is a combination that cannot be found
with anyone else. 

So
for example, if there is a discussion about a hadith, his view will clearly
be the more correct view, and his ability to distinguish between sound and
weak reports, and his knowledge of the views of the early generations, can
hardly be found with anyone else among the fuqaha’. End quote. 

Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa
(4/19-20). 

Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) also said: 

Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm was knowledgeable about hadith and he supported the
way of Dawood and others among the literalists who do not accept the
validity of analogy (qiyaas). However, he went to extremes in denying the
divine attributes and referred their meanings to the knowledge of Allah. He
also claimed that the names of Allah, such as al-‘Aleem (the All-Knowing)
and al-Qadeer (the All-Powerful) do not refer to knowledge and power; and he
attributed himself to Imam Ahmad and other similar leading scholars of the
Sunnah, and claimed that his view was the view of Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Hadith,
and he criticised al-Ash‘ari and his companions a great deal, and claimed
that they drifted away from the view of Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Hadith with
regard to the divine attributes. 

What is well established, and no one can deny, is that the view of al-Ash‘ari
and his companions concerning the divine attributes is closer to the view of
Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Hadith than the view of Ibn Hazm and his peers concerning
that issue. End quote. 

Dar’ Ta‘aarud al-‘Aql wa’n-Naql
(3/24) 

Shaykh al-Islam also said: 

Ibn Hazm claims that the beautiful names of Allah, may He be exalted, do not
refer to their meanings… And the reason for this mistaken notion is their
denial of the divine attributes and going to extremes in denying any
likening thereof (to human attributes), which is the view of the Jahamis and
those who agreed with them in denying the divine attributes. They said: if
we say that ‘Aleem (All-Knowing) refers to knowledge and Qadeer
(All-Powerful) refers to power, in that case affirming the names will lead
to affirming the attributes. 

This is the criticism against Ibn Hazm, because he is one of those who
denied the divine attributes even though he showed a great deal of respect
towards the hadith, the Sunnah and Imam Ahmad. He persisted in his claim
that what he said was the view of Ahmad and others, and his mistake is the
result of his having learned the views of the philosophers and Mu‘tazilah
from some of his shaykhs, and he did not come across anyone who could
explain to him where they had gone wrong. He also transmitted mantiq
(dialectics) through an isnaad from Matta at-Tarjumaan. End quote. 

Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah
(2/353) 

Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

He
used to criticise the scholars a great deal, verbally and in writing, which
led to the generation of resentment in the hearts of his contemporaries;
they kept trying until they made the people in authority hate him, and they
expelled him from his city, until he died in a village in Sha‘baan of that
year, when he had passed the age of ninety. 

What is amazing is that he was a confused literalist with regard to minor
issues, and he did not believe in analogy (qiyaas), whether it was clear or
otherwise. This caused the scholars to lose respect for him, and it caused
him to make serious mistakes in his views and conduct. Yet despite that he
was the one who tried to find interpretations other than the apparent
meaning when dealing with basic issues and the verses and hadiths that speak
of the divine attributes, because he first of all acquired deep knowledge of
dialectics (mantiq), which he learned from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Madhhaji
al-Kinaani al-Qurtubi, as was mentioned by Ibn Maakoolaa and Ibn Khallikaan.
That led to him in developing a wrong understanding of the divine
attributes. End quote.

 Al-Bidaayah
wa’n-Nihaayah (12/113).
See also: Tabaqaat ‘Ulama’ al-Hadeeth by Ibn ‘Abd al-Haadi (3/349) 

The scholars of the Standing Committee said: he was one of the prominent
scholars of both fundamentals and minor issues, and in knowledge of the
Qur’an and Sunnah, but he disagreed with the majority of scholars in many
issues, in which he was mistaken, because of his rigid adherence to the
apparent meaning and his refusal to accept clear analogy that fulfilled the
conditions. His mistakes with regard to beliefs, because of his
interpretation of the verses that speak of the divine names and attributes
in a manner other than the apparent meaning, were even more serious. End
quote. 

Fataawa al-Lajnah ad-Daa’imah
(12/223) 

To sum up: he (may Allah have mercy on him) differed from Ahl as-Sunnah with
regard to many important issues having to do with both fundamental and minor
matters, which made many of the scholars criticise him and highlight his
mistakes in beliefs, as explained above. 

Conclusion: 

Imam Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) is one of the
senior scholars and one of those who respected the Sunnah and its people,
and were keen to learn it and follow it. But some of the principles of the
philosophers and people of innovation were entrenched in his heart, which
led to him forming opinions in which he differed from Ahl as-Sunnah
wa’l-Hadith with regard to the divine names and attributes in particular, as
well as other fundamental and minor issues. Hence we cannot say of him that
he is one of Ahl as-Sunnah in an absolute sense, or with regard to issues of
the divine attributes in particular, although he did not step beyond the
bounds of the Sunnah and its people altogether, to such an extent that he
could be regarded as an innovator, because of his veneration for the Sunnah
and his encouragement to people to follow it and shun that which went
against it. However he was mistaken in some details. 

And Allah knows best.