Inquiries on the Science of the Objectives of Sharia (Part 14)
The Arguments of ibn Hazm:
The most significant textual evidence cited by those who deny divine reasoning, particularly emphasized by Ibn Hazm, is verse 23 of Surah Al-Anbiya, which states, «لَا يُسْأَلُ عَمَّا يَفْعَلُ وَهُمْ يُسْأَلُونَ», meaning, “No one can question what He does, but they will be questioned about what they do.” Ibn Hazm, relying on this verse, argues: “Allah, in describing Himself, has stated that no one can question His actions. This phrase makes it clear that there is a fundamental difference between us and Allah, and that questioning Allah’s actions is inappropriate.”
Thus, the issue of causation and reasoning in Allah’s actions is invalid, except in cases where Allah Himself explicitly states that a certain action was performed for a specific reason. He further adds: “Even in cases where Allah explicitly mentions the reasoning, it is not permissible to question why a specific ruling was established for a particular reason, as such questioning amounts to disobedience to Allah. It is considered heresy in religion and contradicts Allah’s statement: «لَا يُسْأَلُ عَمَّا يَفْعَلُ». Therefore, reasoning behind divine actions and laws is inherently invalid, and those who question them are sinful.”
Critique and Analysis:
Ibn Hazm’s argument is flawed and based on fallacious reasoning. He misinterprets the meaning of the aforementioned verse and similar ones, conflating questions aimed at understanding the wisdom and reasoning behind divine rulings with questions posed in objection, denial, mockery, or ridicule. This is akin to the objection described in verse 31 of Surah Al-Muddasir: «مَاذَا أَرَادَ اللهُ بِهَذَا مَثَلًا», which states, “What does Allah mean by this example?” However, there is a clear distinction between these two types of questions.
If the question arises from complete faith in Allah, His perfect attributes, justice, and especially His wisdom, and if the purpose of the question is to gain understanding, learn, and achieve greater insight into Allah’s wisdom in creation, legislation, and management, then such questioning is legitimate and poses no issue.
Questions of this nature have been asked by prophets, righteous ancestors, and Allah’s chosen ones, and there are numerous examples of this in the Quran. Regarding Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him), the Quran states: «رَبِّ أَرِنِي كَيْفَ تُحْيِ الْمَوْتَى», meaning, “My Lord! Show me how You give life to the dead.” Ibrahim justifies his question by saying: «وَلَكِنْ لِيَطْمَئِنَّ قَلْبِي», meaning, “But just to reassure my heart.” Regarding Prophet Zakariya (peace be upon him), the Quran says: «رَبِّ أَنَّى يَكُونُ لِي غُلَامٌ وَقَدْ بَلَغَنِيَ الْكِبَرُ وَامْرَأَتِي عَاقِرٌ», meaning, “(He said) My Lord, how can I have a son when old age has overtaken me and my wife is barren?” Similarly, about Maryam (peace be upon her), it says: «رَبِّ أَنَّى يَكُونُ لِي وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِي بَشَرٌ», meaning, “My Lord! How can I have a child when no man has touched me?”
It is evident that such questions are not objections to Allah’s actions but are asked to understand the wisdom behind them.
Therefore, what is condemned and impermissible is questioning in the form of objection, denial, or ridicule. The verse «لَا يُسْأَلُ عَمَّا يَفْعَلُ وَهُمْ يُسْأَلُونَ» addresses such questioning. Moreover, the context of the verse indicates the rejection of false Allahs, who have no right to question Allah Almighty.
Criticism of Ibn Hazm’s Views:
1. Ibn Hazm agrees with the majority in affirming explicitly stated purposes in divine rulings, as he states, “We do not deny the affirmation of explicitly stated purposes. However, we reject applying them to unstated rulings or reasons that Allah has not permitted.”
2. As their name suggests, the “Literalists” rely on the literal meaning of texts without delving into the depths of the issues or the reasoning behind them. They do not even allow the expression of wisdom as a cause or reason, as they argue that a cause is obligatory and inseparable from its effect—just as burning is an inseparable characteristic of fire. Therefore, they reject analogical reasoning (qiyas) for this reason.
3. The cited verse cannot serve as valid evidence for Ibn Hazm’s claim, and his interpretation of the verse is incorrect.
By admin2
