KR

من الأسباب التي تجعلني ألبس كملابس عامة الناس في مصر، غير أن هذا هو الأصل والعقل والدين أن يلبس المرء لباس قومه: أني لا أريد أن أعرف بأني (شيخ)، ولا أن يعاملني أحد معاملة الشيوخ، ولا أن أُحسب عليهم!
ويلوم الجهال علي في ذلك، ولا أبالي بلومهم.
فقد تركنا لهم المشيخة ولباسها والتشدق والتفيهق.
وأحب مجالسة الناس بعيدا عن مجتمع (الملتزمين وطلاب العلم)، هؤلاء الذين لا ينافقون ولا يتجملون ولا يضيفون إلى عيوب التربية والنشأة ومعاصي الظاهر: عيوب الفهم السقيم للدين والرياء والنفاق والتكلف والثقل ومعاصي الباطن من الكبر وغيره، بل إنهم قد يلبسون عيوبهم لباس الدين!
أما هؤلاء: فهم ناس (عاديون) يعرفون تقصيرهم ويعذر بعضهم بعضا ويتعايشون مع نقصهم وتقصيرهم وقد يحاول الواحد منهم إصلاح نفسه دون تعال وشعارات.
وكنت قد كتبت قديما مقالا طويلا عن تصنيف الناس إلى ملتزم وغيره، ونقدت هذا الأمر بشدة.
لذلك كنت أغشى بعض الأماكن التي يرى (الملتزمون) أنفسهم فوق حضورها أو لا يصلح لهم حضورها، وأتجنب حضور مجالس هؤلاء الثقلاء والمرضى.
ينظر إلي الناس أني مثلهم، وأنا كذلك بل أنا أقلهم.
فإن حضر ثقيل متماوت تركت المجلس وقمت عنه.
ويوم يُعرف في المكان أني شيخ بسبب السوشيال ميديا: لا أحضر فيه غالبا مرة أخرى.
بل لما ذهبت أفصل ملابس الأزهر لضرورة مناقشة الدكتوراه قلت للرجل العامل هناك: أنا كابتن ولست شيخا، وظنني هكذا مدة حتى عرفني لاحقا!
وقد فاجأني بعض الناس في (الجيم) أنه يتابعني، ويعرف أني شيخ، فحزنتُ لذلك وتكدرت!
وفاجأني المدرب مرة أنه عرفني!
ولسان حالي:
أيها السائل عنهم وعني *** لست من قيس ولا قيس مني

http://t.me/Rwaq_manhaji

Translation: In al-Tali' al-Sa'id, Udfuwi reports in his entry on Taqi 'l-Din Ibn Daqiq 'l-Id:

He was a man of honour. When Sharaf 'l-Din al-Mursi reached Qus, they (the students and scholars there) read some grammar to him. He asked them a question; they went quiet. He remarked, "I think I am speaking to a bunch of donkeys."

Taqi 'l-Din did not go back to him after that.

PS:
1. Qus is in Egypt.
2. Mursi refers to Murcia, in Spain.
3. Sharaf 'l-Din al-Mursi was actually blind.

جاء في كتاب (الطالع السعيد الجامع أسماء نجباء الصعيد) للأدفوي، في ترجمة الإمام تقي الدين ابن دقيق العيد: وكان عزيز النفس؛ لما وصل الشيخ شرف الدين المرسي إلى قوص قرؤوا عليه شيئا من النحو، فسألهم عن سؤال فسكتوا، فقال: أراني أتكلم مع حمير؟! فلم يعُدِ الشيخ تقي الدين إليه بعدها

الطالع السعيد | (ص:582)

لا ينال عهدي الظالمين

https://www.facebook.com/share/12HqYwCeBGW/

We left the theology of our Akabirin to receive schooling from you. We invited you into our hearts and minds. And this is how you betray us!?

(We’ll still buy your books and consume your lectures in secret though. You are too irresistible.)

- Message From The Ikhtilat Police, Deobandom

Children playing and making noise during Sama' of Ḥadīth!

Amr Basyouni on الترجيح بالكثرة

https://www.facebook.com/share/1BTUWZdNo4/

الشيخ الشريف حاتم العوني رجل نبيل.
قابلته مرتين في حياتي: هذه المرة حين شرفنا في مصر، ومن سنتين حين شرفني بالدعوة إلى زيارته في مكة المكرمة.
وفي المرتين كان هذا انطباعي عنه: رجل نبيل.
ولا يطول الوقت بالمرء إن هو جالسه ليدرك بوضوح أثر شرف النسب في وجه هذا الرجل وأخلاقه وتواضعه غير المتكلف، فهو تربية أشراف حقا.
هذا رجل جمع الله له شرف النسب إلى زكاء النفس وذكاء العقل وسعة الاطلاع.
فرضي الله عنه وزاده من فضله وحفظه ونفعنا بحبه وحب آل البيت عليهم السلام، وكفاه الله شر غلمان السوء والمتعالمين وشر كل ذي شر.
ومعلوم بالتجربة والعادة التي لا تتخلف: أنه متى اشتدت حملتهم على شخص منتسب إلى العلم والدين فاعلم أنه على خير عظيم وتمسك بالسنة وبأس شديد على أهل البدعة وإيجاع لهم.

http://t.me/Rwaq_manhaji

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TbArDY2iWSw

Q. Is it the position of the Hanafi School that Isha consists of 17 rak’ahs?

A. Not exactly.

The position of the early Imams of the school can be constructed as follows:

1. The four fard - there is no dispute over this.

2. The two sunnah after Isha - there is no dispute over this.

3. The three Witr after the sunnah - there is no dispute in the school over the number of units here, though there is a dispute over whether it is wajib (Abu Hanifah) or sunnah (Abu Yusuf and Muhammad).

(cont.)

5a. The two "nafl" sandwiched between the two sunnah and the Witr

This is actually sunnah ghayr mu'akkadah, even though it is not widely acknowledged as such. The hadith is in Sahih 'l-Bukhari and other places, in the story of Ibn Abbas staying over at his aunt's house, Maymunah, where the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم observed four units upon returning home from Isha – the first two of which are obviously the sunnah mu'akkadah – before retiring for a rest. Out of respect to this prophetic practice, this prayer should not be referred to as a generic nafl. Scholars state that four units can be observed – either in a 2+2 format, or as a complete 4 with a single salam.

5b. There is also a mawquf narration from Ibn Umar recorded by all three Imams of the schools (in Musnad Abi Hanifah; al-Athar by Abu Yusuf; and al-Athar and al-Asl by Muhammad) that he mentioned that four units after Isha is equal to Laylat 'l-Qadr. This makes four units after Isha canonical to the Hanafi School. It should be highlighted that some versions of those narrations state – unlike the aforementioned one in Bukhari – that it should be observed before leaving the mosque, and that it – as per a marfu' version of the same narration – should be observed consecutively as a whole four-unit prayer with the recitation of al-Sajdah in the first unit, al-Dukhan in the second, and al-Mulk in the third. The fourth unit is left unspecified. The narration by the Imams of the school is supported by corroborating traditions that can be found in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, with reports from Ibn Amr, A'ishah, and Ibn Mas'ud.

Personally, I am inclined two treating these two sets of four units as separate sunnah prayers: four in the mosque, and four at home before sleeping. So, in total, that would be eight units of sunnah in the post-Isha, pre-Tahajjud period. Of these eight, two are sunnah mu'akkadah, as per the famous hadith of Abdullah ibn Shaqiq from A’ishah.

(cont.)

6. The two "nafl" after Witr

Even though the term "nafl" invokes generic prayer, but as a matter of canon, the position of the Hanafi Imams is against this. Muhammad said in al-Asl:

قلت: أرأيت الوتر متى وقته؟ قال: من حين يصلي العشاء إلى طلوع الفجر. قلت: فأي ذلك أفضل عندك؟ قال: أفضل ذلك عندي أن يوتر في آخر الليل قبل طلوع الفجر.

This is also supported by the hadith "Make Witr your final prayer by night", which is reported by Bukhari and others. The implication of both is that both the Sunnah Nabawiyyah and the Canonical Hanafi School is that Witr is the final prayer of the night, especially for those who are awake at that time. In other words, performing prayer after Witr is not the recommendation.

Still, if someone performs Witr earlier and wants to observe further prayer afterwards, then that is permitted according to the overwhelming majority of scholars across all schools (a minority view states that reading nafl after Witr breaks the Witr and it must be repeated as the final prayer of the night - a discussion known as مسألة نقض الوتر).

Imam Ahmad stated that further prayer is something he does not prohibit others from doing so long as a person observes it while sitting, though he personally did not engage in such prayer; in one narration, he said that there should be a disconnecting gap between Witr and performing further prayers, like sleeping, eating, lying down, or drinking. Malikis like Ibn 'l-Hajib stated that he should wait before observing nafl again, and that he should not have had the intention of reading further nafl at the time of performing the Witr; if he does have that intention, he should perform those first before Witr. Ibn 'l-Hajj said it is better not to perform nafl after Witr, unless one goes to sleep then wakes up. But even if somebody wants to perform Witr early in the night, they should try to perform all prayers – including Tahajjud – before the Witr. One should not set out to observe optional prayer after Witr unless the circumstances dictate it, like when Witr is performed congregationally in Ramadan in Witr during an earlier part of the night, or one observes Witr early before sleeping lest he does not wake up for Tahajjud, but he still strives to wake up for Tahajjud anyway; this was the practice of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq.

Therefore, though not unlawful, the practice of some who habitually observe two units immediately after Witr – whether sitting or standing – is not a recommended one.

For honesty, it should be mentioned that this practice is a sunnah in one narration of the Hanbali School – Ibn Muflih said in al-Furu': وَلَا يُكْرَهُ بَعْدَ الْوِتْرِ رَكْعَتَيْنِ جَالِسًا "م" وَقِيلَ سُنَّةٌ "خ"). Amidi of the Hanbalis (not the Shafi'i one) went a step further and said this is a ratibah (i.e., sunnah mu'akkadah) – a position nobody else held. Similar to him were Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn 'l-Qayyim, who said that the two units after Witr is a sunnah tantamount to the two units after Maghrib. Ibn Hajar in his Kashf 'l-Sitr said this is a highly odd position.

(cont.)

(6 cont.)

In response to the hadith that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم observed two units sitting after Witr, scholars have given a variety of answers. The answer of some scholars was to reject this hadith outright, as it conflicts with the famous hadith of making Witr the final prayer of the night. Bayhaqi indicated that the two units was a previous practice when the Prophet used to perform Witr earlier on in the night; it later became abrogated when he started to perform Witr at the end of the night. Some other scholars said that the two units were specific to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Although these three answers are not generally accepted, they do at the very least suggest how weighty the evidence in favour of ensuring Witr as the final prayer of the night is. Nawawi's answer to the hadith is that the Prophet did this to explain permissibility – i.e., that Witr will not have to be repeated – adding that he only did this on a few occasions. Kashmiri's answer was similar, except that he added that the Prophet performed this sitting to ensure the semblance of "Qiyam" (standing) was no longer observed after Witr. Ibn Hajar recorded another answer: that this was the Prophet actually observing the Sunnah of Fajr, and that although he would sit during recitation, he would stand up before going into Ruku'. Ibn Hajar recorded a few other answers in كشف الستر, but he was not firmly set on any of them and did not offer a preference.

Interestingly, in al-Sunan, Daraqutni recorded from his teacher Ibn Abi Dawud that this sunnah (i.e., hadith) was first reported by the Basrans alone, which eventually culminated in the Syrians carrying it further down. In other words, this hadith was unheard of outside of Basrah in the initial stages, which further suggests that this, as a practice, was most probably not in the consideration of the Imams of the Hanafi School – or any Kufan scholar for that matter. Even those who did observe it, however justified, did so on the basis that this was a continuation of the Tahajjud, not that these two units (or however many more) are in the orbit of Isha. In fact, even though it is observed during the time of Isha, there is a discussion on whether Witr is in the orbit of Isha like the rawatib are. Based on the evidence, there is a very strong case that Witr is actually, by its very nature and essence, a part of Tahajjud - and the most emphasised part of it, even according to the overwhelming majority that argue it is sunnah and not wajib.

(cont.)

Then there is the following that require some detail:

4. The four "sunnah" before Isha

This is not from the Imams. As a view, this was introduced into the school at least 200 years after Imam Abu Hanifah, based on unverified and highly contestable hadith according to critical Ahl 'l-Hadith standards. As it was not strong evidence, some Hanafis justified this practice by way of analogy on Zuhr. This too is problematic as an act of Sunnah cannot be established through analogy, as should be obvious. Some other Hanafis said this prayer is nafl only, not sunnah, though a nafl prayer by nature is detached, generic, and unassigned to any fard prayer as opposed to a sunnah. Some argued it is sunnah based on Imam Abu Hanifah's position that the preferred form of non-obligatory prayer is four units, as opposed to two. However, this was his view across all generic optional prayer, whether by day and night, not specific to the period before Isha. And of course, the majority position is that two units – especially by night – is the preferred model of optional prayer. Either way, there is no specificity to Isha in this argument.

Whatever the case, the legitimacy of praying before Isha as an optional salah – whether, two, four, six etc. – is known and established, as per the hadith of Bukhari: "There is a prayer between every pair of adhans (i.e., adhan and iqamah)." Based on this prophetic hadith, it would be sunnah (ghayr mu'akkadah) to observe prayer between the adhan and iqamah of Isha, without numerical specification. Scholars have argued what the default number of units in "prayer" means, but that is a superfluous discussion for the purposes of this topic. It should be noted that, in the discussion on supererogatory prayers, Muhammad did not make mention of this in al-Asl; he did for other prayers such as the one after Isha and the one before Asr. As a specific prayer with a fixed number of units at four before Isha, such a prayer is virtually unrecognised by the non-Hanafi schools. In fact, it is so removed from the canon of the Hanafi School that it is not even tackled or refuted by the other schools.

(cont.)

Concluding, the time of Isha comprises of the following prayers:

i. Pre-Isha, post-adhan
Units: Unspecified, as per the hadith; not touched upon in the Hanafi canon; first mention is in the 4th century, at least 200 years after Imam Abu Hanifah. Four units then go and become the normative position of the school, but scholars stumble over providing the exact rationale for it for the very reason that it is an interpolated position that is detached from the canon.

ii. Fard
Units: 4 (for a non-traveller); a point of consensus.

iii. Non-Tahajjud sunnah in the mosque
Units: 4; acknowledged in Hanafi canon.

iv. Non-Tahajjud sunnah at home
Units: 4; authentic hadith backing this, though not explicitly touched upon in the Hanafi canon.

Total of non-Tahajjud sunnah units = 8, of which two are sunnah mu’akkadah; the rest are sunnah ghayr mu’akkadah of a less prominent form, but they should not be construed as a generic nafl.

v. Tahajjud
Units: Unspecified - could be 8, 10, 12, 20 (Ramadan Tarawih format), 24, 36, etc.

vi. Witr
Units: 3; this should be attempted as the final prayer of the night, as close to Fajr as possible; no post-Witr prayer should be intended at the time of performing Witr unless: a) Witr is observed early due to attending congregational in Ramadan, or b) one is performing Witr before sleeping, due to caution (the practice of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq)

vii. Post-Witr
Units: Unspecified. There is no limitation of this prayer at 2 units. However, this prayer should be generally avoided if one has a chance to perform Witr right before Fajr. Also, if one is observing Witr in the middle or beginning of the night and does not intend to wake up at the end, he should perform all non-Witr prayer first, before Witr. If either of the two aforementioned situations arises, he should still maintain an interruptive gap between Witr and any further prayer. Prayer after Witr also falls under the umbrella of Tahajjud.

وبالله التوفيق

https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1881007843710476431

https://courses.irshad.org.uk/product/sharh-uqud-rasm-al-mufti/

State of the Union Salafis

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/12DMw1GZGhX/

Because it’s the Telegraph

https://telegraph.co.uk/gift/c5b19f5a49408bce

شيء من الجهالات والتناقضات في كتاب نقض مفهوم شرك العبادة للفهيد :
https://x.com/simbai07/status/1877773309045051639

MAW:
"And this shirk I speak of today has covered the Earth from East to West except for 'the strangers' who were mentioned in the hadith, and how few they are."
وهذا الشرك الذي أذكره اليوم، قد طبق مشارق الأرض ومغاربها، إلا الغرباء المذكورين في الحديث، وقليل ما هم.
https://shamela.ws/book/7629/122#p2

Shaykh Hatim al-Awni has merged تكفير أهل الشهادتين and مفهوم شرك العبادة into a single book.

مقدمة الطبعة الجديدة لكتاب تكفير أهل الشهادتين

Free download option

https://imamghazali.co.uk/products/maghazi-ebook?fbclid=IwY2xjawHwn6JleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHaxf1jDeydsPvx_lzn9p0IZP6PLHrpeHD0mtE-2xn6cAlmURacLM6Pg4iw_aem_OWZXyxaRxdggQCxzVb-DCw&shpxid=1c8b2c17-3cd8-4e47-b2ef-f650ab83c494

Keep talking, numbskulls.

(Clarification for all dunces:

Numbskulls = anti-Ikhtilat extremists, not Arshad Madani or Taqi Usmani in the photo)

https://x.com/MrIAS3/status/1877741132102189294?s=19

This is an old statement by Mufti Taqi. It is nothing to do with the paper by MZ and ZC. And it certainly does not address the specific of Mufti Taqi’s own attendance in mixed gatherings or his own interview with a Russian Muslim sister or sitting next to her in a panel.

I’m sure these guys don’t think Mufti Taqi is doing Tafsiq on himself. So I wonder what rabbit of a ta’wil they’ll pull out of their topis and pagris on this occasion. Similar to the case of Awwamah, I’m certain they are too cowardly to ask Mufti Taqi directly when he participates in mixed gatherings or willingly sits next to women outside Pakistan.

But these Deobandi idiots running around with these snippets, scans, and clips are behaving like Salafis and particularly the Madakhilah. Mufti Taqi is NOT addressing the paper written by ZC and MZ, but the comments portray that he was asked specifically about the paper and that he was refuting or responding to it. This is classic low-tier contemporary Salafi behaviour that these Deobandi Madakhilah have imbibed.

Oh Mufti Taqi refuted you…in the 1980s when you weren’t even born.

Grow up.

Oh I didn’t know there were women.

Oh I saw the maslahah so I allowed it just for this occasion.

Oh nobody told me in advance there would be women.

Oh I didn’t want to cause fitnah and walk out.

Oh I’m blind in my right eye - and the women were sitting to my right.

Oh how dare you criticise me.

Oh I was just a guest.

Oh I don’t do this in my own mosque and seminary.

These have been the weak and feeble responses by the anti-Ikhtilat extremists thus far, when their own have been caught with women. Have I missed any of their bogus ta’wils?

Maybe they can now be humble enough and just stick to the one answer that makes sense:

Oh I am so out of my depth and should finally and permanently shut up.

The above is somewhat of a charitable take on this quite absurd situation.

Frankly, is easier to shift mountains compared to getting into the anti-Ikhtilat extremists’ thick skulls that Awwamah’s ill-advised and hastily written ‘letter’ - probably written in the back of leading and loaded questions put to him - poses more problems to their extreme position than solutions.

They are so bereft of any analytical capability that instead of critically assessing how that letter affects them and Awwamah himself, some of them proceeded to translate it and spread it across the internet and social media platforms.

The fact that they have nothing to say about Awwamah’s mixed gathering settings speaks volumes. In fact, the first question these guys should have been asking themselves and Awwamah is what exactly are the parameters of prohibited Ikhtilat, given that Awwamah himself knowingly and willingly engaged in Ikhtilat on multiple occasions. But they didn’t do that. Note they have landed themselves in yet another quagmire of their own doing.

Knowing the temperament of both Awwamah and the fickleness of the anti-Ikhtilat extremists, I severely doubt they’ll ever be able to extract out of him any coherent position on the parameters of prohibited Ikhtilat that doesn’t run roughshod over Awwamah’s own credibility.

They can all moan, complain, and flail their arms and legs all they want about why these serious questions are being asked of their faulty position. The fact is there is no way they can square this circle - or any circle for that matter. To this day, many of those ‘signatories’ caught in mixed settings have been hiding in radio silence. I cannot even begin to imagine the cognitive dissonance under which the anti-Ikhtilat extremists are labouring.

The anti-Ikhtilat extremists are hellbent on Tafsiq. There are parallels with Takfiris and Tabdi’is here. But they come unstuck when they prove themselves to be demonstrably inconsistent in applying said Tafsiq, especially when it affects their own. They just want to be selective and apply Tafsiq to the scholars and educational institutions with whom they have an axe to grind.

Those Tafsiqi nutjobs can take their Tafsiq and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine. And I don’t mean the Faroe Islands.

Fw:

Shaykh Awwama (hafizahullāh) and the Recent Fatwa

The topic of ikhtilāṭ has been a hotly debated issue in certain circles over the past few months.

Personally, I refrained from engaging in the discussion, as I did not see how I could contribute meaningfully. However, I recently came across a fatwa by Shaykh Muḥammad Awwama that has been circulated by some individuals to assert that Shaykh Awwama’s position is against ikhtilāṭ and that his name is being misused by others.

Regardless of one’s stance on the debate, it is clear that for many of those sharing the fatwa, ikhtilāṭ is defined as any gathering where men and women are present without a physical barrier. Their assumption is that this fatwa unequivocally condemns such gatherings. However, rather than strengthening their argument, this creates more issues than it resolves.

I was personally present at a gathering where Shaykh Awwama attended, and men and women were present without a barrier. Other senior scholars, including Shaykh Rātib Nabulsī (hafizahullāh) were also in attendance. The scholars had a clear view of the audience, and I have included a picture from that event as evidence to substantiate my claim. I had seen UK students of knowledge also present, this can be easily confirmed. While additional pictures and videos exist showing similar gatherings and other senior scholars repeatedly in attendance, I am only referencing one I witnessed firsthand.

Given these facts, those circulating the fatwa are left with two possible interpretations:

1. Shaykh Awwama was aware of the setup but is being deceptive by claiming he did not know about the presence of women. This would imply deliberate dishonesty and engaging in sin (according to the understanding of some), which would amount to fisq (open sinfulness)—a suggestion from which we seek Allah’s refuge.

2. Shaykh Awwama does not consider the absence of a barrier to constitute ikhtilāṭ. Instead, he was informed that some individuals were using some pictures and videos to justify ikhtilāṭ in an impermissible context, which he condemns.

Those seeking clarification from Shaykh Awwama on this issue should present the available pictures, videos, and testimonies and ask whether such gatherings, as depicted, are considered ḥarām. If they are deemed ḥarām, then Shaykh Awwama and the host of other scholars who attend such gatherings, including his students, should be requested to repent.

This approach would provide clarity on his stance and resolve the ambiguities being circulated under the guise of the fatwa.

And the evidence keeps on piling up

Yet another mixed gathering lecture by Awwamah:

https://youtu.be/nqdKzRqRypE

أنا أبين لكم وجه نقض تقرير العميري في مفهوم شرك العبادة بطريقة موجزة سهلة، إلا أنها كافية لمن يفهم:

• من شهد الشهادتين فقد ثبت له حكم الإسلام قطعا.

•«من دخل الإسلام بيقين لا يُخرج منه إلا بيقين» وهذا عليه إجماع قطعي، وقد أورد الشيخ حاتم لهذه القاعدة ثلاثين دليلا، بل أكثر، في الطبعة الجديدة من كتابه «تكفير أهل الشهادتين» وهي مفيدة للقطع بوضوح تام بحيث لا يسع أحدا أن يشكك في هذه القاعدة.

• من صرف شيئا من خصائص الربوبية لغير الله، فقد وقع في الشرك المخرج من الملة قطعا، ومن يدعي أن هناك نوعا من الشرك المخرج من الملة خارجا عن ذلك، فعليه إثبات ذلك بالدليل القطعي.

• الأستاذ العميري في «تحقيق الإفادة» (ص 28) بين طريقته في الاستدلال على عدم اشتراط الربوبية، وهي طريقة تتضمن الاعتماد على الأدلة المحتملة بدعوى أن كل نص منها مناط مستقل، ولو لم تكن كذلك لأدى إلى (إهدار دلالات النصوص)، وهو اعتراف ضمني بأنه يستدل بأدلة محتملة لا يفيد شيء منها القطع، لكنه لبّس ذلك لبوس العلم باستخدام مصطلحات مثل :(إهدار دلالات النصوص المباشرة) و(مسالك العلماء في الاستدلال بالأدلة التي جاءت في الأفعال الجزئية التي وقعت من المشركين) إلى غير ذلك من العبارات المنفوخة التي ليس وراءها تحقيق علمي.

والذي دعاه إلى هذا المنهج في الاستدلال عِلمُه أنه ما من نص يستدل به إلا وذلك النص يمكن أن يفسر بأكثر من تفسير، ويكفي في ذلك أنه يحتمل في كل واحد من تلك النصوص أن لا يكون المراد به بيان مناط الحكم بالشرك، فمناط الحكم بالشرك قد بين في القرآن بنصوص واضحة تربط الشرك بمعاني الربوبية، فينبغي أن تحمل هذه النصوص المتشابهة على تلك النصوص المحكمة، وهذا الجواب المجمل كافٍ لإثبات ظنية الدلالة في كل النصوص التي يستدل بها الأستاذ العميري.

• فلا يتم له الاستدلال بهذه الطريقة التي بين سيره عليها في كتابه، إلا بأن يقوم بنقض القاعدة اليقينية المجمع عليها «من دخل الإسلام بيقين لا يُخرج منه إلا بيقين» وأنى له ذلك؟!

• لا بد أن أنبه هنا أن طريقة الاستدلال التي أصَّل لها الأستاذ العميري، هي في الحقيقة عين طريقة الخوارج في التكفير، حيث يعتمدون على نصوص محتملة ظنية الدلالة، ولذلك وصفوا بأنهم «انطلقوا إلى آيات نزلت في الكفار فجعلوها على المؤمنين»، وهذه الطريقة في اعتماد المتشابه وتفسيره بمعزل عن المحكم هي طريقة أهل الزيغ التي حذر الله منها في كتابه وعلى لسان رسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وكأني بنافع بن الأزرق أو نجدة الحروري وهو يقول لأصحابه بعبارات منمقة يلوكها بلسانه: «كيف يزعم خصمكم أن قتال المسلم ليس بكفر مخرج من الملة؟! ألا ترون ما في هذا القول من إهدار دلالات النصوص على مناطات مستقلة في التكفير!!»

بل الواقع أن النصوص التي استدل بها الخوارج كثير منها أقوى في الدلالة على المطلوب من النصوص التي استدل بها العميري!

وأما ما يسميه العميري بإهدار دلالات النصوص فجمع النصوص بعضها إلى بعض ليس فيه إهدار لآحادها، بل هو طريقة الراسخين في العلم الذين امتدحهم الله في كتابه، بل عدم إعمال الجمع بين النصوص إهدار لهذا الأصل الكلي القرآني المقطوع به.

هذا كتاب (مفهوم شرك العبادة) والطبعة الثانية لكتاب (تكفير أهل الشهادتين) لمن يريد الاطلاع عليهما، علما أن الطبعة الجديدة لكتاب (تكفير أهل الشهادتين) سيتضمن زيادات مهمة وكثيرة على الطبعة السابقة من كتاب (تكفير أهل الشهادتين) وكذلك كتاب (مفهوم شرك العبادة)

Imam Abd ‘l-Hayy Al-Laknawi (or Maulana Abdul Hayy of Lucknow) would refuse to offer his Isnad to his own students he felt were not competent enough.

They would beg him but he would not budge, until they would give up.

Compare him to some teachers now. Register online and you’ll get your Ijazah before xyz Mickey Mouse course even starts!

I can't believe how Barelwis spin this story as some sort of praise for Alahazrat. It is the ultimate gustakhi. Also, the idea that Alahazrat as a child had one long cloak on and no underwear seems to be far-fetched.

I would charge every last one of them with gustakhi for propagating this fabrication against Alahazrat.

كرامات الأولياء حق… وضلالات الأغبياء حتم

Self-diagnosis and self-medication are fine, but you alone are liable for your actions. You cannot blame a medical professional for any harm that ensues, even though that physician may have said the same thing in another context.

Likewise, all what pro se ifta - self-administering fatwa - means is that you are removing the mufti from the equation and taking full responsibility for your practice in the eyes of Allah.

An over reliance on analogy and broad principles might land you in error. Similarly, online fatwa websites might offer a fatwa that might be unsuitable or incorrect for your circumstances. This is a problem that most online fatwa websites seldom acknowledge or highlight.

Also, a mufti (a proper one, not a parrot) might be able to offer you an easy opinion that you might not be aware of. In fact, if you are lucky, a mufti might be able to assume the responsibility for issuing you a dispensation fatwa that others might not. This is also why it is recommended for Joe Bloggs Al-Fulani to built a rapport with his local scholar, who would then be more open to finding a better solution for him, rather than going in cold and him not knowing whether you will abuse his fatwa or not.

This is why there are countless warnings against ifta, not because it is wrong per se - in fact it is a communal obligation - but because it is a highway to Hell if misused or abused.

This is also why parrot ifta is extremely dangerous. The religious mandate in ifta is Shariah-wide, Madhhab-agnostic. Ifta in the understanding of the Quran and Sunnah was naturally not confined to a particular process or school. It is about the end result, i.e., the fatwa that the questioner takes home. Ifta is a synthesis between evidence and scholarly precedent. A parrot mufti thinks he is on the Haqq when constricting himself to a school and passes fatwa accordingly, not realising that his first and foremost duty and loyalty is to the Shariah by finding an answer that is suitable and digestible for the questioner, not the internal machinations of his Madhhab. A mufti is in a position of responsibility and care that cannot be fobbed off just because he is trained in one school only. Half knowledge is the most dangerous form of knowledge.

Highlighting the importance of precedence, Banuri (d. 1397 AH) was of the view that if an opinion of found in another school, then that is to be given preference over a new rule derived from the analogies of your own school.

Coming back to the issue of the mufti understanding both his responsibility to a questioner and his duty to being aware of various religious views across the spectrum, the discussion between Ibn ‘l-Qasim (d. 191 AH) and his son - when they had moved from Madinah to Egypt after his lengthy tutelage under Imam Malik (d. 179 AH) - sheds some light:

أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَارِثِ بْنُ سُفْيَانَ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عِيسَى قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْأَصْبَغِ يُعْرَفُ بِابْنِ مَلِيحٍ قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا مِقْدَامُ بْنُ دَاوُدَ عَنْ عَمِّهِ سَعِيدِ بْنِ تَلِيدٍ أَنَّ عَبْدَ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنَ الْقَاسِمَ أَفْتَى ابْنَهُ عَبْدَ الصَمَدِ - وَكَانَ حَلَفَ بِالْمَشْيِ إِلَى مَكَّةَ فَحَنِثَ - بِكَفَّارَةِ يَمِينٍ. قَالَ: وَحَلَفَ مَرَّةً أُخْرَى بِصَدَقَةِ مَا يَمْلِكُ وَحَنِثَ فَأَفْتَاهُ بِكَفَّارَةِ يَمِينٍ، وَقَالَ لَهُ: إِنِّي قَدْ أَفْتَيْتُكَ بِقَوْلِ اللَّيْثِ، فَإِنْ عُدْتَ فَلَا أُفْتِكَ إِلَّا بِقَوْلِ مَالِكٍ

-الاستذكار لابن عبد البر

Note how he is prepared to pass fatwa according to different views on different occasions to the same questioner, and that his initial answer is ostensibly not even his own. Note also how the questioner - his son - does not self-administer the fatwa of Layth to himself, but rather he relies on the fatwa of his father and throws the burden of responsibility on him. That is what both sensible muftis and mustaftis do.

From Akhbaar abi hanifa… the faqeeh finds ways to keep the family together… الفقيه لا يخرب البيوت

I have personally witnessed some deo molvis destroy families because of their unwillingness to give fatwas outside of the madhab…

I could point to numerous other factors why the Hanafi School should not be adopted by prospective students, but I will make the above the final one. Concluding, I hope this here is sufficient for a prospective student of Fiqh to mull over. For a seasoned Hanafi who might disagree with the above – which I am sure there might be some; they are entitled to their opinion, though the facts speak for themselves – I believe there is enough for us to be humble – and proud – about our school. وما علينا إلا البلاغ

Disclaimer 1: The Hanafi School will nonetheless work very well for some student profiles. And some may not have a choice. The remarks above are not applicable to them. Still, any student would do well by doing his/her best to mitigate the aforementioned factors.

Disclaimer 2: Some reasons highlighted are not exclusive to the Hanafi School. The focus in this thread however – which was an answer to a question – is on the Hanafi School. I'll leave graduates of other schools to wade in on their own respective schools at their discretion.

Disclaimer 3: I acknowledge the specific unique rulings of ease the Hanafi School possesses, which all other schools adopt, as well as the weak opinion in other schools. But the question here was about the base school of training in Fiqh for prospective students.

Disclaimer 4: Prospective students are advised to sought an array of views that will best inform them which school to select before they embark on their study. Both the pros and cons of each school are necessary. Certainly no school will be harmed if it is not chosen by a student. Nobody is giving a student a stipend for choosing a school, which was the case in the Mamluk Era with the school-based Awqaf, so the decision does not have to be tainted or compromised by monetary considerations like was the case for many back then. Consider the advice here akin to advice offered to a prospective spouse looking at marrying someone: people should be as honest as possible about the challenges and potential cons faced by students of a school. It is with that spirit that this has been written. Plenty has been written in favour of adopting the Hanafi School, both classically and in modern times, in books and online. Much of it is a miss. Certainly, the virtues of Imam Abu Hanifah are great, but will do little in terms of compatibility between prospective student and the inevitable ‘later Hanafi School’ programme they will go through. I thought this thoughts might help some make a more informed and balanced decision. Alternative perspectives on the suitability of the Hanafi School for a neutral student, and/or additional points of benefit/challenges when studying the school are always welcome. (End)

(11) Related to the previous point touching on formalities, the Ifta model as is set out in the Rasm ‘l-Mufti of the school, is not only outdated harking back to a Muslim Hanafi state’s civil code, it favours procedure in jurisconsultancy over legal flexibility and Maqasid-based Ijtihad, which is vital for a student in this era. Instead of that, Ifta has been training in parroting precedent, which is detrimental to the development of Muftis who, on occasions, come up with the most ludicrous of verdicts and post them online for the entire world to see. The issue of alternative modes of Ifta has been addressed elsewhere so I will not repeat here.

(12) Not renowned for extensive implementation of the principle at its inception, the later Hanafi School has been wreaking havoc with itself when it comes to the application of Sadd ‘l-Dhari’ah, with no defined standards or parameters in place. What is worse is that once applied and agreed upon by a group of scholars within the school, reversing Sadd ‘l-Dhari’ah based on new data or compelling alternative data is seldom considered. This has adversely affected the relevance and quality of the school in later centuries, especially in the modern era. This has been addressed elsewhere so I will not repeat that here.

(13) Hanafi Usul, known as the method of the Fuqaha, is inductive and inward looking, for the large part. Its Usul are geared for the defence of the school as its primary objective, not for deduction from the Quran and Sunnah, which is how the other school’s Usul is set up. As a result, the study of Hanafi Usul – or Rasm ‘l-Mufti for that matter – does not offer a pathway to Ijtihad. Any expertise in Ijtihad that is developed is through routes that fall outside these models of study. Yes they do help to an extent, but a Hanafi student is still in need of studying the Usul in accordance with the method of the Mutakallimun. This is why it is some later Hanafis who took the initiative to combine the two methods of Usul writing, like Ibn ‘l-Sa’ati and Ibn ‘l-Humam, to address this. deficiency. As a result of being the most self-indulgent of all the schools, and because the later school owned its defensive approach, it exercises an extremely hostile attitude to others, especially the Shafi’i School. This has led to strawmanning and misrepresentation of the other schools, through which the later Hanafi School writings come out quite poorly. Not only that, but the chances are that if there are four equal students, each studying their own respective school’s programme to a decent degree of proficiency, the Hanafi student will be the least acquainted with the true nature of the other schools. (End of the 13 points)

(9) This is related to the eighth point. The influence of Central Asians on the school’s development between 450 and 800 AH is far more pronounced than that of the Iraqis, Syrians, and Egyptians. This is evident in the pedagogy and the outlook of the school. The rigidity inherent in that strand has also permeated the school, sometimes to the detriment of the intellectual well-being of Hanafis who continue to take their positions as universal when in fact they could be contextualised – like their views on stubbornly sticking to a school. Their unique positions are taken as normative; any other approaches are taken as heterodox at worst, and ‘non-conforming with the normative’ at best. Rigidity – or adherence to the so-called Mu’tamad, or “Mufta Bihi” as per parlance – has been favoured over plurality. This rigidity extends to even the Hanafi Imams, whose have been subjected to the whims of later Hanafis appointed themselves as judge and jury over which opinions of the Imams should be taken as most authoritative, and in some instances the other view(s) is rejected. Prospective students who want to embrace the plurality of the school might be disappointed if they do not get the right teachers.

(10) According to some, like Thanwi, the Hanafi School is the superior school because it has been tried and tested as the language of empire, spanning the Abbasid, Mughal (and its predecessor the Delhi Sultanate), Seljuks, Timurids, and Ottoman Empires among other relatively lower profile ones like the various Khanates, the Ghurids, the Emirate of Afghanistan of the 19th century, the Golden Horde, Kashgaria, et al. This is false. Most states were quite pragmatic, conveniently adopting views from other schools wherever and whenever required, especially those rulers who presided over Muslim populations from other schools. For example, the Abbasids preferred the views of Ibn Abbas over Abu Hanifah. the Ottomans themselves went through an evolution: they initially forced the top scholars of other schools to become Hanafis; when that did not work, what emerged was a healthy industry of multi-Madhhab institutions, though the judiciary was largely based on the Hanafi model. As time went by, the vicissitudes of time meant the Ottoman Hanafis were forced into reform, which is represented in the Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliye that incorporates a significant number of non-Hanafi views, or non-mainstream Hanafi views. But that legal reform had come too late, when the European powers had eclipsed the Ottomans. (The Hanafi School is like a corporation that imbibed all the characteristics of formality and structure. One might even say it is like tanker that takes an age to change course – sometimes to disastrous consequences, like in the Fatawa pertaining of Musaharah and divorce, changing track only when Muslims start falling into apostacy or – worse still – become Salafi. ) The same is the case – perhaps to an even worse extent – for the Mughal Empire – whose Fatawa Alamgiri compilation was somewhat of a disaster (that is another point) – where a ruling by scholars could be overruled by a Farman by the Mughal Emperor. This strange compensatory superiority complex (in relation to the aforementioned inferiority complex) gives rise to a psychological paradox in the school that has centuries old, and it is something that will probably never be resolved. I can say with some confidence that this is not a problem faced by other schools.

(7) This is related to the sixth point. Hanafi pedagogy is very light on acknowledging the distinction between the different geographical and cultural strands of the school. Also, Hanafi students are not exposed to the very real differences in legal approaches between the Iraqi and Central Asian strands of the school. Within the Central Asians, there are further sub-strands: the Bukharan, the Samarqandi, and the Balkhi strands, among others. Furthermore, the later Hanafi School also has rich regional traditions that developed in the Sub-Continent, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt. But regions such as Russia and China are largely ignored, or have fallen by the wayside, oftentimes brought to the fore by Orientalists – who ironically serve as a bridge between these ‘Hanafi regions’ – before any Muslim Hanafi scholar. The notion of the Hanafi School being the largest in terms of its followership rings hollow when most Hanafi students and scholars cannot even access the other. Even as the immigrant populations from the Sub-Continent lose touch with the native language of the Sub-Continent, there will be a detachment that ensues, with Urdu-only speakers and English-only speakers within the school having no access to one another’s works. This is on top of how detached many Hanafis have become from the Persian works of the. . . school. There is no school that is more compartmentalised and mutually detached within itself than the Hanafi School. In this regard, the Hanafi School is extremely tough to gain mastery in.

(8) This is related to the seventh point. Most Usuli positions discussed in later Hanafi Usul texts hail from the Iraqi Mu’tazilites, as highlighted by Dr Haytham Khaznah. On the other hand, most Fatawa in Fiqh hail from Central Asia. The two regions were not aligned until at least 500 AH, and then the process of amalgamation started, but that too took around a couple of centuries in order for scholarship to be fully shared with each other. The later Hanafi School, post-amalgamation, is a Talfiq of epic proportions. It should be noted that both the Iraqi and the Central Asian sub-schools are fully fledged schools of law in their own right. They ought to be studied separately across the Fiqh and Usul subjects. But somehow, they are presented as one and united. Although the overall Hanafi affiliation in both is the same, the differences between the two are slightly more than, let’s say, the difference between rugby union and rugby league. That should be acknowledged and the two both deserve their own streams of study and progression.

(5) This is related to the fourth point. Due to the excessive anti-Ahl ‘l-Hadith sentiment in the period immediately after the Imams of the school, later Hanafi attempts to rehabilitate themselves as defenders of the science of Hadith have largely fallen flat. Beyond offering commentaries on hadith, the school has an unsavoury tendency of remoulding hadiths in the defence of the school, a problem acknowledged by Muhammad Shafi Usmani (though most among contemporary Hanafis have paid no heed to his advice). After the formulative period, only a few Hanafis truly married Fiqh with Hadith as how it was actualised by the Ahl ‘l-Hadith, such as Tahawi, Zayla’i, Mughlatay, and to an extent Ibn ‘l-Humam, Ayni, and Kashmiri. The faux importance to Hadith given by many later Hanafis is not to serve Hadith, but to selfishly serve its own Fiqh. This can also be gleaned by how Hanafis generally teach Hadith: much of it is geared to the defence of the school, rather than an actual study of the science of Hadith, or Sina’ah Hadithiyyah as they say. It can also be gleaned from the fact that many, many Hanafi authors in Fiqh and Usul were paupers in Hadith, carelessly citing narrations that are weak, extremely weak, and even outright baseless fabrications. This pedagogical problem is recognised by a number of contemporary authors. Prospective students of the Hanafi School should proceed with caution.

(6) This is related to the fifth point. Because the school’s later writings are largely geared to the school’s defence, they are defensive in nature. This is a point nobody can deny. This has also bred a huge inferiority complex in the school in relation to other schools. It is now part of the psychological DNA of the school and is very hard to snap out – unless one ties himself to the Hadith experts within the school according to the Manhaj of the Ahl ‘l-Hadith – who are few and far between – or directly ties himself with the Mutaqaddimun of the school, i. e. , the Imams and the early Kufan school. Part of that inferiority complex is to use the Shafi’i or Hanbali Schools, or indeed any ancient Ahl ‘l-Hadith scholar for that matter, in support of the school’s position. It is also for the same reason why certain Hanafi positions in Usul are buttressed by statements from Ahl ‘l-Hadith scholars. An example that comes to mind is how both Ibn Hazm and Ibn ‘l-Qayyim’s praising assessments of the Hanafi School are used by later Hanafis to justify the school’s (alleged) position on preferring weak hadith of analogy, or how Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement is used to verify a Hanafi position by Ibn Abidin, or how some authors appeal to the likes of Bukhari or even Albani. The appeal to non-Hanafis is a common feature in the late Hanafi School, which for argumentation and debate might be fine but the constant nature seeking validation from outside the school can come across as off-putting to some.

Replicating here for readability:

Thread on choosing a Madhhab, and some information on the Hanafi School.

This is in response to a question on my remark regarding which school a prospective student embarking on higher Islamic legal studies should choose, the potential pitfalls in selecting the Hanafi School, and why a prospective student should instead look at other schools as the basis of Fiqh learning. Disclaimers are at the end, though on this issue, I feel that the disclaimers are for dense simpletons who have been raised on cocktails of how great the Hanafi School is and how other schools are supposedly in its orbit and are supposedly in its debt. Thirteen reasons are offered:

(1) For over a millennium, the Hanafi School has been an accumulation of scholarship, with many views, proofs, and arguments added to the school that were not present in the original school. On occasions, this is a good thing. But many a time, when these interpolations are afforded canonical status, then it can be a problem. Whereas one might firmly subscribe to the school's position, that doesn't mean one must also defend the evidence used by a later scholar in favour of that opinion. Most books conflate the evidence of the Imams with the evidence of later scholars. Most books also conflate the Fatawa of the Imam with the Takhrijat of later Mashayikh. It is a particular problem that Shah Waliyyullah highlighted. Additionally, many of the logical proofs, or analogies, that were used to buttress the position of the Imams simply fall flat. In fact, many a time, the actual evidence used by the Imams rarely gets a look in and is never employed or discussed. Discerning students with their wits about them will end up spending years on end attempting to sieve out these various elements, especially if they are brought up with the standard texts of the school. Most are not discerning and never end up doing so.

(2) This is related to the first point. Most of the key Usul discussed in the books of Usul of the Hanafis are highly questionable in their ascription to the Imams. Almost all Usul are derived from the legal opinions of the Imams. The reality is almost all of the legwork for Hanafi Usul was done by Jassas. Everything is seen through the lens of Jassas. Any deviance from the understanding of Jassas is pretty much the exception that proves the rule. All Usul are built on Jassas. The question then becomes whether Jassas' understanding of Hanafi Usul should be afforded the status as something definitively espoused by the earliest Imams of the school. When signing up to the school, the question a student should ask is whether he/she is also prepared to have a later scholar like Jassas – or Dabusi, Sarakhsi, Quduri, etc. , who are centuries removed from the inception of the school – as absolute authorities of the jurisprudence of the school. Some views ascribed to the Imam Abu Hanifah can only be found with Sarakhsi, who was three centuries removed. Prospective students should be willing to reconcile themselves with such anomalies.

(3) This is related to the second point. Jassas was a bona fide Mu'tazili (and not merely influenced by I’tizal, as some would claim). His teacher Abu ‘l-Hasan al-Karkhi, a Hanafi authority in both Fiqh and Usul, was a Mu'tazili. Jassas’ main Usul authority was Isa ibn Aban, was also a Mu'tazili. Hanafi judges in and around the era of Ma’mun, Mu’tazim, and Wathiq rubberstamped Mu'tazilite theology, which temporarily became state policy – the same policy that led to Ahmad ibn Hanbal being lashed in prison, Ahmad ibn Nasr al-Khuza'i's murder and headless body being crucified in central square of Samarra for years while his head was paraded miles away in all corners of Baghdad, Nu’aym ibn Hammad being thrown into a ditch without any shrouding, and Buwayti dying in prison with his hands and feet in iron chains. All of the aforementioned Hanafi Mu’tazili scholars and others, notwithstanding their piety, looked at those Hanafis who were responsible perpetrated these terrible things to the Ahl ‘l-Hadith in the Caliph’s Court – like Ahmad ibn Abi Du’ad, Bishr al-Marisi, both Hanafis – with either reverence or ambivalence (I am aware Ibn Aban wrote a refutation on Marisi; Shafi’i and Abu Yusuf also wrote refutations on Muhammad and Awza’i, respectively, so that objection is redundant one to me). It was only the political power of Abbasid caliph al-Qadir Billah in the early 5th century that really clamped down on I’tizal, and curtailed the Mu’tazili Hanafis in Iraq. There was certainly nothing organic to the Hanafi School that can be identified as being responsible for the removal of these Mu’tazilites and its embedded anti-Ahl ‘l-Hadith sentiments. Therefore, it is fact that the anti-Ahl ‘l-Hadith sentiment permeated Hanafi Usul from its very inception. One only needs to look at how Jassas himself treated Shafi’i and Malik in his al-Fusul; as for Ahmad, he rarely ever even mentions him in any of his works unless as a narrator in a chain of hadith when presenting an argument. None of this would not have been a significant issue if the later school was open about the profiles of its first Usulis’ origins, but these events and developments were brushed away under the carpet and were never properly addressed in terms of these scholars’ theological impact on the development of the school’s Usul. Prospective students of Fiqh ought to be aware of the I’tizal influence on the school and its unflattering history with the Ahl ‘l-Hadith.

(4) This is related to the third point. The anti-Ahl ‘l-Hadith sentiment manifested in a number of ways, whether by nefarious intentions or outright error, the legacies of which permeated the Hanafi School and lingered on for centuries, even though later efforts to extricate the school from this are notable. One of these is the early Hanafi Usulis’ terrible position on Abu Hurayrah, inspired no doubt from the erroneous view of Ibrahim al-Nakha’i but rendered into an infamous principle, which erroneously spoke to the Ijtihadi workings of Abu Hanifah et al. Attempts to rehabilitate the image of the school on this issue are evident across many Hanafi works. Another is its horrendous position on the status of Mursal, and weak hadiths in general. This point has been a wedge against having a single platform for debate and discussion between Hanafis and non-Hanafis in later centuries, and has also been a catalyst for the pseudo-science that is Hanafi Usul of Hadith, the dangerous nature of which has been addressed elsewhere. Those looking to choose a school should be cognizant of fact such as this, whereby they would inevitably have to countenance between juggling between two sets of Usul in Hadith and be intellectually fatigued by the one concocted by the Hanafis, ostensibly all in defence of their own school and not because the science of Hadith demanded it.

https://x.com/ismailibrahimms/status/1850007983461196026

S. Hatim's book, previously reviewed by Dr. ZC

The book in question

سئل شيخنا المحدّث الشريف حاتم العوني عن الكتاب المرفق فأجاب بما يلي :

وقفت على كتاب د/ فهد الفهيد الذي يرد فيه على كتيبي (مفهوم شرك العبادة) والذي سماه بـ(نقض كتاب مفهوم شرك العبادة)، وهو في أكثر من ٨٠٠ صفحة .
وكما كنت أتوقع : عجز عن الإتيان بتعريف للعبادة يفرق بين العبادة التوحيدية والعبادة الشركية ، واستكثر من النقل بلا فقه ، وحاد عن عامة ما ذكرته في كتابي بأمور لا علاقة لها بالإشكال العلمي ، ووقع في تناقضات عجيبة لا تقع من طالب علم .
وأما تقديم سماحة المفتي وفقه الله وتقديم معالي الوزير الشيخ صالح آل الشيخ (وفقه الله)، فما زاد إلا تأكيدا على أنني أخالفهما علميا في هذه المسألة ، وهو أمر يعرفه عني القاصي والداني ، فما كان يُنتظر إلا أن يقدما له .
ومسائل العلم يُعرف صوابها من دليلها ، والحمد لله أن كتابي على صغر حجمه قد حوى من الاستدلال بالآيات والأحاديث الصحيحة وفق فهم أئمة الإسلام ما يبين الصواب من الغلط ، وهو على صغر حجمه احتاج لأكثر من ٨٠٠ صفحة من الرد البعيد عن حقيقة الرد ، وسيبقى الحق منصورا ببراهينه ، لا بغير ذلك من كل أمر أجنبي عنها !

https://x.com/HaroonSidat/status/1848452062897705423

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5SfTwRj5rZg

Live access only for non-subscribers:
https://legacy.institute/product/advanced-hanafi-usul-al-jassas/

Topic: TLI - Advanced Hanafi Usul: Al Jassas : Lesson 39 : Sunnah 6/8 : Mursal

Sunday 20 Oct 2024 10:00am London

The Legacy Institute is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87340704154?pwd=9X6eqbB0C4WTNMP5pfd1KGqtBMsOQb.1

Meeting ID: 873 4070 4154
Passcode: 624440

The book الفصول في الأصول by Abu Bakr al-Razi al-Jassas, edited by Ajil Jasim al-Nashmi (عجيل جاسم النشمي), is an objectively terrible edit. It should be studied solely for how terrible it is.

When offering biographies in the notes, the editor repeatedly gets the names of people referred to in the text wrong. The book is filled with hundreds (not just a few dozen) typos and punctuation errors. There are places where it is obvious that lines have been rendered missing. His hadith referencing is totally off as well.

I have the physical copy of the second edition from 1994, from the Kuwaiti Awqaf. Looking at a PDF of the third edition in 2007, it has the same errors. The first edition probably had the same errors. No effort has been put in to rectify the errors.

Then there is a DKI Beirut print edited by one Muhammad Muhammad Tamir, which seems to be stolen from Nashmi. It has the same errors, with the exception of a few error corrections here and there, and a wholesale removal of the footnotes from the Nashmi edition, replaced by some of the DKI editor's own notes in order to give the impression that he is clever.

Then there is one from one Ismatullah Inayatullah Muhammad, published from Islamabad University and released in Word file format. This also has the same type of errors as the previous two, which means it is either stolen or just a Word type up of the book for free access.

I do not believe there has been a sufficient expose of these editions, let alone an effort for a proper edition. It is a tough job. Based on my lessons of the book, in order to edit Jassas's book, one needs good expertise in:
- Arabic language
- Fiqh Hanafi
- Fiqh Shafi'i
- Hanafi Usul
- Rival schools within Hanafi Usul
- Shafi'i Usul
- Fiqh of the Sahabah and Senior Tabi'un
- Mu'tazili principles
- The creed of the Ahl 'l-Hadith
- Biographies (Tarajim)
- Hadith
- Rijal and chains of Hadith
- Turath of 150 AH to 350 AH
- History
- Abbasid and Umayyad histories
- Disputes among the Sahabah
- Tafsir
- Qira'at, including extinct ones
- Jewish, Christian, and Magian beliefs
- Jassas' other works

That is what is required at a high expertise level. Then one will need a decent level of exposure to:
- Maliki Fiqh and Usul
- Hanbali Fiqh and Usul
- Zahiri Fiqh and Usul
- The intellectual and political situation in Baghdad

Such is the interdisciplinary nature of the book. This is not an exhaustive list. What makes the issue even more of a remote prospect is how neglected the book is in terms of education. The belief is that it has been discarded for later Hanafi Usul work. Either that, the book has too many uncomfortable truths highlighting I'tizal as the provenance of many opinions in Hanafi Usul. The fact, however, is that this remains an indispensable book to understand Hanafi Usul. With the amount of raw data and primary source information, there is no Hanafi Usul text that can touch it. No other early extant book in Usul is as exhaustive as it is.

فإلى الله المشتكى

Skip to the replies for a pulse on popular sentiment.

https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1847334102820626716

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/18/yahya-sinwar-video-final-moments-hamas-leader-gaza/

But when she watched the footage of his last moments harried by a drone in a ruined building before he was killed by a tank shell, she quickly felt ashamed for her previous criticism.

Enas said: “I felt very embarrassed about myself that I was wishing death for a person in return for my life, but he was fighting face-to-face and fighting drones as well.

“What happened is very painful. We are all sad about his death, but we are proud of him that he was killed while fighting and not in tunnels as we thought.”

A 21-year-old woman called Rodayna from Gaza old town, said: “People are split. There was a time when many blamed him, saying he’d led us into ruin, into this endless bloodshed, without a real plan. He pushed us off a cliff, they said.

“Yet, when the news broke that he had been killed in a clash with Israeli forces, many of those same voices shifted.

“Suddenly, people felt ashamed, as if they had wronged him with their anger. They started talking about him as if he was a hero, someone who fought to the end.”

Dina, who has been forced to leave her home in northern Gaza and move south to the Mawasi area in Khan Younis, has lost friends, cousins and grandchildren in the war.

The news of Sinwar’s death hit her “like a lightning bolt” she said.

“We wondered, is this really true? Or is it just another story from the Israeli occupation? And then the question: what will happen to us after all of this?”

She went on: “If you’d asked me before Sinwar was killed, I might have said he wasn’t a hero, and that the real heroes were us, the people.”

But her perspective changed with his death.

“When you see him standing firm, fighting, and not among the people hiding in tents, you start to see things differently.”

Dear Gujjis, doing tafkhim on النون المخفاة followed by a non-tafkhim letter makes you sound doubly stupid.

Please stop.

An offending sample: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZouSpq3F6yg

https://x.com/alanrmacleod/status/1845804207867056271?s

There are some, from the medieval era right up to this day, who believe insulting people into Islam is the optimal mode of da'wah.

And it might be a successful strategy - for 1% of people. This 1% is then put on a pedestal as proof that the strategy works. Shame grenades are then lobbed against those who speak up against this, with rhetoric like 'oh he's converted 000s of people to Islam' or 'he is speaking the truth' or 'Allah does not shy away from the truth'.

Really?

What you don't hear about is the other 99% that apostatised, or moved further away from Islam, or became ambivalent of the faith, or were simply put off the faith by these 'clergymen' and retreated into their own shells without their ambitions ever being properly fulfilled.

Many of these people could have contributed so much more to Islam had the message been repackaged for them. Instead, in a bid to stroke their own egos, these clergymen couldn't see how fallacious their strategy was.

It's time to call time on such a strategy and its 'champions'.

کیا اس جاہل کے حلقے میں کوئی ایسا بندہ ہے جو اس کا منہ بند کرنے کی ذمہ داری لے؟

https://x.com/pakistan_untold/status/1844205024169111730

On the same theme, the general body of Usul is Qat’i and is therefore Madhhab-agnostic, or should be approached in that manner: https://t.me/MakkanMusings/1029

إذا كنت تحب غزة، فانظر إلى أعظم عمل قمت به لوجه الله في حياتك، ثم استجمع قلبك، وارفع يديك إلى السماء خاشعاً متذللاً، وقل: اللهم إن كنتُ فعلت هذا العمل لأجلك، وابتغاء مرضاتك، ففرج عن أهل غزة ما هم فيه من ضيق وكربة، قلها بثقة ويقين، لعل الله يرى من قلبك صدقاً وإخلاصاً، فيفرج عنا كربنا ويطفئ حربنا !!

Zakir Naik has more gaffes than Joe Biden. He should retire.

https://t.me/revivee/50077

Free one-off lesson for non-subscribers (live access only):
https://legacy.institute/product/advanced-hanafi-usul-al-jassas/

Topic: TLI - Advanced Hanafi Usul: Al Jassas : Lesson 38 : Sunnah 5/8 : Abu Hurayrah
Time: Oct 12, 2024 10:00 PM London

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89394613965

Meeting ID: 893 9461 3965
Passcode: 264059

In their effort to fight the orientalists, the people drafting a new definition of Ummi have played into another orientalist agenda.

https://fxtwitter.com/chonkshonk1/status/1843722681189052750