KR

ʿAbbās al-Dūrī said: I heard Abu ʿUbayd say, “I have associated with people and debated with the ahl al-kalām (speculative theologians), and I have never seen a group more filthy in their defilement, weaker in argument, or more foolish than they. When I served as judge of the frontier district, I expelled three Jahmīs (followers of the Jahmiyyah sect)… … and another Jahmī.” (6)

The above is the AI translation from Siyar A’lam ‘l-Nubala under the entry of Abu Ubayd Al-Qasim Ibn Sallam (d. 224 AH). Here is the link: https://kutub.io/en/book/10906/6753 The Arabic passage in the same link is as follows: قَالَ عَبَّاسٌ الدُّوْرِيُّ: سَمِعْتُ أَبَا عُبَيْدٍ يَقُوْلُ: عَاشَرتُ النَّاسَ، وَكَلَّمْتُ أَهْلَ الكَلاَمِ، فَمَا رَأَيْتُ قَوْماً أَوْسَخَ وَسَخاً، وَلاَ أَضْعَفَ حُجَّةً مِنْ ... ، وَلاَ أَحْمَقَ مِنْهُم، وَلَقَدْ وَلِيتُ قَضَاءَ الثَّغْرِ، فَنَفَيتُ ثَلاَثَةً جَهْمِيَّيْنَ ... ،... وَجَهْمِيّاً (٦) . Unfortunately, this is a distortion of the passage by the editor. The correct version of the passage is as follows: قال عباس الدوري: سمعت أبا عبيد يقول: عاشرت الناس وكلمت أهل الكلام، فما رأيت قوما أوسخ وسخا ولا أضعف حجة من الرافضة ولا أحمق منهم، ولقد وليت قضاء الثغر فنفيت ثلاثة جهميين ورافضي أو رافضيين وجهميا. See https://majles.alukah.net/showthread.php?t=66248 for a demonstration of the distortion in the Mu’assasah print. Now let’s put this correct version back onto ChatGPT for a translation:

ʿAbbās al-Dūrī said: “I heard Abū ʿUbayd say: ’I have lived among people and debated the practitioners of speculative theology (

ahl al-kalām

). I have never seen a people filthier in conduct, weaker in argument, or more foolish than the Rāfiḍah. When I served as the judge (

qāḍī

) of the frontier district, I expelled three Jahmīs, and one Rāfiḍī—or perhaps two Rāfiḍīs—and one Jahmī.’”

Compare the two translations and you’ll note the problem. Lesson: Not only is your AI translation as good or bad as your print, but AI hallucinates when it is trying to make sense and f a poorly edited or outright distorted passage. Without a human in the loop, any translation of a scholarly text must be rejected.

Some thing that we don't seem to discuss enough: A terrible trait in some people in authority (parents, teachers, caregivers) is that, under the pretext of "education" or "tarbiyah" of their subordinates they subject them to the most severe forms of mental torture while they themselves don't lose a second of sleep. These victims may be their children, their students, or even their wives or husbands. Sometimes this looks like an outburst at their victim for trivial issues, making that victim feel devastated that they hurt or disappointed this person that they love, respect, and/or fear. Other times this poison manifests itself in public scolding, with absolutely zero care for how hurtful it is to embarass one in front of others. Sometimes it manifests itself through emotional blackmail that forces the victim to apologize over and over until a state of total servility, humiliation, and self-deprecation (or self-hatred) is reached. The victim may think about it for hours after an encounter, walk on eggshells for years to avoid stepping on any other mines, and will lose sleep over their perceived failures. Meanwhile, the oppressor lives peacefully with nothing pricking their conscience. One of my teachers (may Allah preserve him, once told me that "Some teachers are enjoying themselves at home with their wives while there are students of theirs who cannot sleep because they are afraid that they've upset them." Some of these wretched souls will be yanked back into line when the waves of Allah's providence turn against them and they realize their wrong, but many will only see their crime when they taste its burning fruit in the next life. The bigger problem is that these victims are often silenced and told to ignore clear oppression with slogans like "respecting your elders", "honouring your teachers", or "keeping the peace in the family". May Allah protect us from falling into this evil and from facilitating it, and may he make it easy for us to stop evil when we witness it.

But if only Awwamah would have read Al-Bahr Al-Ra’iq to save himself from falling into the non-Hanafi view: وَقَدْ حُكِيَ فِي الْمَنَاقِبِ أَنَّ أَبَا حَنِيفَةَ رَأَى النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي الْمَنَامِ فَقَالَ لَهُ كَيْفَ أَوْجَبَتْ عَلَى مَنْ صَلَّى عَلَيَّ سُجُودَ السَّهْوِ فَأَجَابَهُ بِكَوْنِهِ صَلَّى عَلَيْك سَاهِيًا فَاسْتَحْسَنَهُ مِنْهُ (An obvious fabrication but…) The above is convincing proof that the Hanafi School is on the Haqq. Some nutjob should tell Awwamah that Imam Abu Hanifah already that conversation with the Prophet in his dream.

Just to spell things out (as I usually have to): 1. It is not allowed for Ahnaf nutjobs to observe Salah behind Awwamah, as he wilfully omits the Wajib of standing up straight after Tashahhud in 3- or 4-unit prayers. Even if it is Awwamah’s preference (hardly a valid form of Ijtihad), a Muqallid of the Hanafi School - according to the Usul of Ahnaf nutjobs - should refuse to pray behind him. Askimam (yeh that website, to keep things simple) says:

If a person intentionally leaves a wajib (compulsory) act then sajdah sahwu will not be enough. He must repeat the entire salaat.

2. The Qiyamah argument in reverse can be seen here. We’ve seen the opposite before:

Allah will judge us according to our schools

Here, what Awwamah is doing is changing his practice in violation of the Hanafi School because he’s hoping for more reward in Qiyamah. Nutjobbery is unsustainable. Don’t be a nutjob.

As received, make of it as you wish: https://www.instagram.com/reels/DaK28SIs8bT/

UN: Here’s Mol Salman Bijnori, senior teacher at Deoband and VP of Jamiat Ulama Hind, who seconds him (in the lack of Takfir), in otherwise very fair and balanced statement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3pn8BwL7hM

Thought it was important to also share Mufti Abdur Raheem saheb's video on the passing of Moulana Salman: https://youtu.be/UmwqErGEVVQ?is=Y09t0rFlgOf7DME1

The finest view in England. - James Herriot (d. 1995)

I doubt this is the largest authorship on Usul if we are to include Jassas. But being both an obscure figure and a student of Abu Abd 'llah al-Basri and Jassas, his views will hopefully somewhat plug the obscure origins of Iraqi Hanafi Usul that was borne out of I'tizal. It would seem that the book that is to be published gathers both Kalam and Usul discussions, which points to the close link between the two subjects, for the Mu'tazilites at least. The virtual silence of the Hanafis on the book, so it would seem, is striking, perhaps sworn to strategic silence on the Mu'tazili origins of Iraqi Hanafi Usul. Ironically, it was Qadi Abu Ya'la al-Hanbali - and ex-Hanafi - who cited quoite frequently from him in his al-Uddah, either directly, through a close associate of his, or through his writings that were in circulation at the time. I wait for this publication with bated breath.

قريبًا سيصدر عن دار الرياحين: كتاب المستوعب في الخلاف لأبي سفيان السرخسي بتحقيقنا، وهو أضخم مؤلَّف معتزلي في أصول الفقه الحنفي والكلام المعتزلي بعد المغني للقاضي عبد الجبار.

On the passing of Salman Nadwi, by Sajjad Nomani https://youtu.be/vp04X4kUffM

Not the strongest of narrations from the al-Siyar Wa-'l-Maghazi by Ibn Ishaq (d. 151 AH), but it is what it is for the Fiqh angle.

Tell me how clueless you are without being saying so. Friday Khutbah:

اللهم اغفر للعباس وولده مغفرة ظاهرة وباطنة لا تغادر ذنبا

Few moments later:

There will be a lesson on al-Awasim Min al-Qawasim after the Rawatib.

A bequest in which a person sets out distribution of an estate that is not in accordance with Fiqh is forbidden. However, a non-mandatory bequest, in which a person expresses a desire for an ultra vires bequest, is allowed. Effectively, it is a request, not a normal bequest. What this means is, after death, the heirs have discretion to distribute in accordance to the wishes of the deceased, by way of Sulh, which is perfectly valid in Fiqh. Normal conditions apply, such as: no coercion or pressure placed on anyone; no desire to cause quarrelling after death; and no expected animosity post-distribution. When should one consider such a non-mandatory bequest? A person has two sons, one predeceased who has orphaned children of his own. In this case, the person can request half the estate to his orphaned grandchildren. He can already dispose a third to them via a normal bequest; the remaining sixth would be ultra vires that can be managed via request, should the other living son agree post-death.

https://x.com/IbnMahbub_/status/2069001810887467374?s=20 This is the pathology of perhaps three-quarters of anti-Salafi / anti-Ahle Hadis polemics of Indo-Pak Ahnaf. They are dismissing normative, documented, uncontroversial positions of Sunni Fiqh emanating from within the Madhhabs, which they have never actually studied for themselves, as extreme. Predictably, yet again, they have here bulldozed through positions that are entirely unremarkable within the other three Sunni Schools. Then they parade their ignorance before global online audiences. The Hanbali School bears the heaviest cost of this stupidity. A school of towering minds, conflated with Salafism by Ahnaf who could not even name its foundational texts if their life depended on it. These bombastic claims might appeal to social media herd these channels have amassed due to their tabloid-like argumentative behaviour. But no scholar and student should take them seriously. These buffoons have no connection to the tradition they presume to defend. Anyone who has not engaged in inter-Madhhab dynamics and the basic principles of Adab 'l-Khilaf is not qualified to open their mouth or tap their keyboard on these questions, let alone wade into them in polemical fashion. It's quite embarrassing to be honest. They are a cancer in the Hanafi School that deserve only contempt. We live in in a global village, and this is 1448 AH. Scholarship has matured. This isn't 448 AH and we aren't walking the streets of Khorasan or Baghdad.

A sample of a translator's blunders on Mufti Taqi Usmani's widely syndicated book on Taqlid Shakhsi. This sample covers only some of the transliterations of the referenced works - not even the translation. The level of incompetence is truly astonishing. How are they to be trusted to speak on the issue when they mangle their own works?

Translator's blunders on Mufti Taqi Usmani's book on Taqlid Shakhsi, on only the transliteration of the referenced works, not even the translation. The level of incompetence is truly astonishing. How are they to be trusted on representing the issue when they mangle their own works?