Ibn Ḥazm’s Attempt to Deny the Precedence of Imām ʿAlī (as) in Islam

Important: the Arabic here says fifteen or sixteen, not ten.

Wasi Allah Muhammad ‘Abbas, the editor of Fada’il al-Sahaba Vol. 2, pg. 712 – 713, Hadith # 1220.
Al-Haythami certified the narrators in his Majma’ al-Zawa’id, Vol. 8, pg. 381 – 382, Hadith # 14109.

Aḥmad preserves bayʿah, brother and companion;
al-Nasāʾī preserves brother, companion and inheritor;
the fuller recension preserves brother, waṣī and khalīfah, together with an instruction to hear and obey.

Ibn Ḥazm’s Attempt to Deny the Precedence of Imām ʿAlī (as) in Islam

Ibn Hazm’s Stance

One argument advanced to diminish the significance of the early Islam of Imām ʿAlī (as) is that he was still young when he accepted the Messenger of Allah (s), and therefore was not yet legally accountable.

Moreover, if the opinion is adopted that ʿAlī died at the age of fifty-eight, then he would have been only five years old when the Prophet ﷺ was commissioned.

By contrast, Abū Bakr accepted Islam at the age of thirty-eight, and this was the Islam commanded by Allah for those who are legally accountable. As for one who has not yet reached puberty, he is neither legally accountable nor addressed by the obligations of the Sharīʿah.

Therefore, the precedence of Abū Bakr and ʿUmar in Islam is, without doubt, prior to the precedence of ʿAlī.

As for ʿUmar, he embraced Islam six years after the Prophet’s commission. Nevertheless, despite entering Islam later, his contribution and benefit were greater than those of many who had accepted Islam before him.

As for ʿAlī, he did not even reach the age of legal responsibility until several years after the Prophet ﷺ had been commissioned, by which time many male and female Companions had already embraced Islam, endured severe persecution for the sake of Allah, and suffered various hardships.

Source: al-Fiṣal fī al-Milal wa al-Ahwāʾ wa al-Niḥal, vol. 4, p. 112.

Ibn Ḥazm’s argument therefore attempts to move from ʿAlī (as)’s lack of adult legal responsibility to the conclusion that his earlier acceptance of Islam carried no meaningful precedence.

As we shall demonstrate, this conflates three separate matters: legal accountability, religious merit and chronological precedence.

Reply One: Ibn Ḥazm Confuses Legal Accountability with Religious Merit

Let us concede Ibn Ḥazm’s basic legal premise.

A child who has not attained legal maturity does not bear precisely the same religious obligations as an adult.

But this proves only that such a person is not subject to the same liability for refusing an obligation.

It does not prove the absence of merit in voluntarily accepting and acting upon the truth.

These are entirely separate propositions.

Ibn Ḥazm proceeds from:

“ʿAlī would not have been sinful had he refused”

to:

“Therefore there was no significant merit in his acceptance.”

The second proposition does not logically follow from the first.

The principle may be expressed succinctly:

عدم وجوب الفعل لا يعني عدم فضيلة الفعل

“The fact that an act is not obligatory does not mean that performing it possesses no virtue.”

عدم الإثم عند الترك لا يستلزم عدم الأجر عند الفعل

“Absence of sin for omission does not entail absence of reward for performance.”

At most, Ibn Ḥazm establishes that the young ʿAlī (as) would not have borne the same legal liability as a mature adult had he refused.

That does not establish that ʿAlī (as) was incapable of understanding, believing, choosing or acquiring merit through voluntary obedience.

Reply Two: Sunni Jurisprudence Recognises Genuine Religious Acts Performed by Children

The distinction is demonstrated clearly in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.

A woman lifted a child before the Messenger of Allah (s) and asked:

أَلِهَذَا حَجٌّ؟

“Does this child have a Ḥajj?”

The Prophet (s) replied:

نَعَمْ وَلَكِ أَجْرٌ

“Yes, and you will have a reward.”

Reference: Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Kitāb al-Ḥajj, no. 1336; ed. Muḥammad Fuʾād ʿAbd al-Bāqī, vol. 2, p. 974.

Online source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1336

The child was plainly not legally obliged to perform the obligatory Ḥajj of an adult.

Yet his religious act was not dismissed as meaningless.

Imām al-Nawawī comments:

فيه حجة للشافعي ومالك وأحمد وجماهير العلماء أن حج الصبي منعقد صحيح يثاب عليه وإن كان لا يجزيه عن حجة الإسلام بل يقع تطوعاً

“This contains evidence for al-Shāfiʿī, Mālik, Aḥmad and the majority of scholars that the Ḥajj of a child is validly constituted and correct, and that he is rewarded for it, although it does not discharge the obligatory Ḥajj of Islam; rather, it counts as a voluntary act.”

Reference: al-Nawawī, al-Minhāj Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, vol. 9, commentary upon Muslim no. 1336.

Al-Nawawī then records an opposing explanation that the child’s participation amounted merely to:

تمريناً له

“training for him,”

and responds:

وهذا الحديث يرد عليهم

“This ḥadīth refutes them.”

Reference: al-Nawawī, al-Minhāj Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, vol. 9, commentary upon Muslim no. 1336.

Exact online Arabic text: al-Nawawī’s commentary on Muslim 1336

Scanned volume: Original photographed edition of al-Nawawī’s Sharḥ Muslim

Al-Nawawī was discussing a child’s Ḥajj, not the acceptance of Islam by ʿAlī (as). We make no suggestion otherwise.

The relevance is the underlying principle.

Ibn Ḥazm reduces ʿAlī (as)’s Islam to:

تدريب المرء ولده الصغير على الدين

“a man training his little child upon religion.”

Yet Sunni jurisprudence itself establishes that lack of adult taklīf does not require every religious act performed by a child to be reduced to mere training devoid of validity and reward.

Reply Three: Precedence Means Coming First — Age Cannot Rewrite Chronology

There is an even simpler problem with Ibn Ḥazm’s reasoning.

Imagine a teacher presents a difficult question to students of different ages.

The youngest pupil answers correctly first.

An older pupil answers later.

The older pupil may subsequently obtain more qualifications, win more prizes or make a greater contribution to the school.

Those subsequent accomplishments may legitimately be praised.

But they cannot change one historical fact: the younger pupil answered first.

“Because the younger pupil carried fewer academic obligations, the older pupil who answered later should therefore be regarded as having answered first.”

That reasoning would plainly make no sense. Age may affect responsibility. It does not alter chronology.

Legal maturity may affect responsibility. It does not rewrite chronology.

If ʿAlī (as) accepted Islam before another individual, his youth may be relevant when discussing the legal obligations resting upon him.

It cannot make another person’s later conversion chronologically earlier.

Ibn Ḥazm’s own treatment of ʿUmar demonstrates the problem.

He concedes that ʿUmar accepted Islam:

بعد البعث بستة أعوام

“six years after the beginning of the mission.”

He then praises ʿUmar’s contribution above many:

من أسلم قبله

“who accepted Islam before him.”