There is a lot of difference between them and Islamic jurisprudents; because
the Islamic jurisprudents are those from whom the proof was unclear, or the
evidence of some texts was stronger than other proofs so they deliver the verdict
according to that evidence.
As opposed to this Islamic jurist, there is another jurist, who strengthens
another evidence and delivers a verdict opposed to the verdict of previous jurist;
on the basis of this, both these jurists have delivered verdicts according to their
individual interpretation of Quran and traditions.
Now, there is a great difference between jurists and those, who fight against
Ali (a.s.). Their verdict is based on Quran and Sunnah and this is their personal
view as opposed to Quran and Sunnah; but was the Book of Allah, the Mighty
and the High not present in the Islamic society and before the eyes of people?
The book containing the verse of Purification declaring the infallibility of
Prophet, and his successor, Ali (a.s.), his prominent daughter, and her two sons.
And in that is the verse of Mubahila, revealed in their honor and which
mentions Ali (a.s.) as the self of the Prophet, and other verses, which are almost
number 300,1 which were revealed about Imam Ali (a.s.).
Is it possible in your view that Allah, the Mighty and the High should announce from the tongue of His Prophet that obedience to Ali (a.s.) is His
obedience and disobedience of Ali is His disobedience2, and at the same time the
field should be open for independent judgment (Ijtehaad) so taking refuge in that
battle can be fought against him, or he can be killed or exiled or in view of
general public, he should be abused, or cursed from pulpits or open propaganda
against him should be unleashed?
Will your independent view permit you to adjudge that jurisprudence
regarding this is like the jurisprudence and difference of Islamic jurisprudents
regarding the execution of the sorcerer?
Ibne Hazm himself says in the book of Al-Fisal3:
“If a Muslim holds a view and he commits a mistake in that, since there was
no proof against that and the truth was also not clear for him, he is excused and
he will get a single reward; because he was in pursuit of truth and his mistake
also, since it was not intentional according to the statement of the Almighty
Allah:
وَلَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ فِيمَا أَخْطَأْتُمْ بِهِ وَلَكِنْ مَا تَعَمَّدَتْ قُلُوبُكُمْ
“And there is no blame on you concerning that in which you made a mistake, but (concerning) that which your hearts do purposely (blame may rest on you).”4
He would be given a single reward. And if his view is proved correct and
valid, he would get two rewards: one for the correctness of his verdict and one for
the efforts he exerted in it. And since the proof was evident for him, but without
enmity and malice to God and His Messenger (s.a.w.a.), he had opposed the
truth, such a person is a transgressor; he persisted on an unlawful act and
committed audacity against God. And if it was due to enmity and malice to God
and His Messenger (s.a.w.a.) he opposed truth, such a person is a disbeliever and
an apostate; his life and property are lawful (he can be killed and his property
seized) and in this rule, there is no difference between mistakes regarding issues
of belief in every matter of the Shariah and jurisprudential mistakes.
Is it possible to deny the evidence of Quran or to deny the verses mentioned
in it? Or there is possibility that all these definite evidences remained concealed
on those mistaken jurists and the truth did not become clear on them and
evidence was not established on them? Or independent judgment (Ijtehaad) and
interpretation have permeated these clear textual declarations also?
In addition to this, there exist clear and absolute traditional reports from the
Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) regarding fighting and peace with Ameerul
Momineen (a.s.); some of them are as follows:
In Mustadrak5, Hakeem has narrated from Zaid bin Arqam from Messenger
of Allah (s.a.w.a.) that he said to Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain (a.s.):
“I am at war with those, who are at war with you and I am at peace with those, who are at peace with you.”
Mohibuddin Tabari in Riyaz6 , has narrated from Abu Bakr Siddiq that he
said: “I saw the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) having pitched a tent and leaning
on an Arabian arch; and in tent were Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain. He said: O
Muslims, I am at peace with one, who is at peace with the occupants of the tent
and I am at war with one, who is at war with them. I am a friend of one, who
befriends them and I do not love those, who do not love them; and none loves
them, except one, who is fortunate and of legitimate birth; and no one is inimical
to them, except one, who wretched and of illegitimate birth.”
Also, Hakeem, in Mustadrak7 has narrated from Jabir bin Abdullah that I
heard the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) say while holding the arm of Ali Ibne Abi
Talib (a.s.): “He is the chief of the righteous and the killer of the transgressors;
one, who supports him, would be successful and one, who deserts him, shall be
degraded.”
In addition to these, the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) advised regarding the
same battle to his companions and Imam Ali (a.s.), about which Ibne Hazm
thinks that Muawiyah, Amr Aas and their followers fought due to their mistaken
independent judgment (Ijtehaad).
And naturally none of these advices were concealed from any of the
companions; and the following are some examples of generals call of the
Prophet:
Hakeem, in Mustadrak8 and Dhahabi in Talkhis, has narrated from Abu
Ayyub Ansari that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) ordered Ali Ibne Abi Talib
(a.s.) to fight the Qasiteen, the Mariqeen and the Nakiseen.
And without any doubt when you gain access to truth, you would have
accepted it. And soon in the life history of Amr Aas and discussion with
Muawiyah, you will become aware of points, which distinguish truth from
falsehood.
This was a miniscule sample of the statements regarding the views,
deviations, illogical and baseless statements of Ibne Hazm. And if ignorance,
blind heartedness and exaggeration is not used, you will find that most statements
declaring his deviation are justified.
Ibne Khallikan writes in his Tarikh:9
“He has severely attacked the past scholars, in such a way that no one is safe from the slash of his tongue.
Ibne Areef says: “The tongue of Ibne Hazm and the sword of Hajjaj are twins.”
أَفَمَنْ حَقَّ عَلَيْهِ كَلِمَةُ الْعَذَابِ أَفَأَنْتَ تُنْقِذُ مَنْ فِي النَّارِ
“What! as for him then against whom the sentence of chastisement is due: What! can you save him who is in the fire?”10