In presence of these authentic and widely narrated traditional reports1 , what
scope remains for the independent judgment (Ijtehaad) of Abu Ghadiya?
And what scope remains for the justification of Ibne Hazm that he should
describe the act of Abu Ghadiya to be positive?
And what scope is there for his viewpoint regarding the independent
judgment (Ijtehaad) of Abu Ghadiya and his judgment that his act will get one
divine reward? While the fact is that according to clear declaration of the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.a.), he is in Hell fire?
Is any expression of hatred and enmity greater than killing?
And in the book of Al-Istiab,2 marginal notes of Isabah, it is mentioned:
“Abu Ghadiya was a supporter of Uthman and he was the killer of Ammaar
and whenever he sought permission to meet Muawiyah or someone else, he used
to say: ‘The killer of Ammaar is at the door.’ And whenever he was asked about
the Ammaar’s killing, he used to praise it, without any restraint.”
His story is astonishing to the people of knowledge, because he has himself
narrated from the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.): “You will not refrain from infidelity
after me (and some of you would strike the neck of others).” In spite of that he
slain Ammaar.
All this explains his aim in his precedence in killing Ammaar and his
awareness of the saying of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) regarding the killer of
Ammaar and his negligence to it and his absence of caution and fear from his
killing.
However, he was naturally a follower of the viewpoint of his imam,
Muawiyah, and he repeated his statements to the narrators of the tradition of
Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) that:
“You are a senile old man, who always narrates this tradition, while you
would wash yourself with your urine.”
You are a better judge than me to judge the depth of this statement and
extent of loyalty of its sayer to the Sunnah of Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) and
his following the reports issued from the source of divine revelation, and
foundation of independent judgment (Ijtehaad) of Abu Ghadiya in committing
this vile deed was also based on such statements of Muawiyah and his like.
Finally, the statement of Ibne Hazm regarding the killers of Uthman that:
“Their independent judgment (Ijtehaad), as opposed to this text (Nass) that:
It is not lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim, who testifies to the oneness of
Allah and my prophethood, except in three cases: a married fornicator woman, one who commits murder and one, who goes beyond the circle of faith.”3
But, he does not say this regarding the killer of Imam Ali (a.s.), those, who
fought against him and the killer of Ammaar. Whereas you know that the
situation of those, who fought against Ali (a.s.) and those, who slain him and
Ammaar is same as that of the killers of Uthman.
Furthermore, according to his principle, they also committed mistake in their
independent judgment (Ijtehaad); then why, like Abdur Rahman Ibne Muljim and
his like, they should not be rewarded?
Yes, he can offer the excuse that he is the killer of Ali, but those are killers Uthman!
What we can conclude is that there is negation of discretion of independent judgment (Ijtehaad) for killers of Uthman in view of Ibne Hazm.
In addition to this, he is not pleased with those, who curse the companions as he says:
“They are transgressors and accursed people,” while the fact is that majority
of his co-religionists regard as apostates or transgressors those, who curse
companions and majority of the imams of sects regard cursing the companions as
punishable, no matter who the curser may be and to whichever sect he may
belong, without any exception, and this is the consensus of Ahle Sunnat on
justice of companions.4
He himself says in Al-Fisal:5
“If someone talks ill of companions, may Allah be pleased with them, and is
ignorant, he is excused. But if proof was established on him and he again
disobeys and does not eschew talking ill of the companions, he is a transgressor,
although subject to the condition that he should not bear malice, like one, who
commits adultery or theft and if he is inimical to Allah and His Messenger
(s.a.w.a.), he is an infidel.
It is narrated that Umar said in the presence of the Messenger of Allah
(s.a.w.a.), regarding Hatib, who was a emigrant (Muhajir) and a fighter of Badr:
O Messenger of Allah, allow me to strike off the neck of this hypocrite.
Now, Umar did not become an infidel due to his attribution of infidelity to
Hatib; on the contrary he committed a mistake in his independent judgment
(Ijtehaad), thus he was a jurist (Mujtahid), who committed mistake and not
obstinate. And the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) said: ‘The sign of hypocrisy is
malice to Ansar.’ And he said to Ali (a.s.): ‘Except for a hypocrite, no one bears
enmity to you.’”
In view of Ibne Hazm, jurists (Mujtahid) like Abdur Rahman Ibne Muljim and Abu Ghadiya are not few, who are excused for their mistakes, as he says6 in his book of Fisal:
“We are sure that Muawiyah and his supporters were jurists and they committed mistake in their independent judgment (Ijtehaad) and they are entitled to one reward.”
He regards Muawiyah and Amr Aas jurists (Mujtahid) and says7
“They are like jurists (Mujtahid), who form independent judgment (Ijtehaad)
regarding problems of capital punishment. Among the jurists (Mujtahid) some
apply capital punishment for the sorcerer and some do not. Some regard killing of
a free person same as killing of a slave and some do not. Some regard killing of a
Muslim equal to killing of a disbeliever and some do not.
Now it should be asked: If the basis of ignorance, blind-heartedness and
error had not been present in between, what is the difference between
independent judgment (Ijtehaad), who deliver verdicts and the independent
judgment (Ijtehaad) of Muawiyah and Amr bin Aas and others?”