Roots Of Knowledge ROK 😊

The Problem With Secondhand Information You either know something yourself, or you know what someone told you about it. The moment you're putting your trust in the second kind, you inherit the responsibility of verifying whether what you've been told is accurate and whether it's the whole truth. When it's about a person, this problem becomes especially delicate, as it claims that so-and-so said or did this. The problem is that hearing about someone secondhand can quietly construct a distorted image of them in your mind, either inflating them into something more than they really are or, the opposite, tarnishing their character and reputation. The latter is what we call backbiting and slander. I remember the first time I heard about a particular scholar, back when I was studying. The image formed in my mind was based on what others said and became exaggerated to the point of making him seem almost superhuman in certain ways. That image bubble burst the moment I actually met him a few times and realised he was human, like everyone else, and that most of what I heard was not accurate. The same distortion happens with ideas and texts, and it's arguably more consequential, because it can shape what people believe about an entire school of thought or what a scholar actually says. I remember hearing statements like Abu Hanifa only knew 17 Hadith, that Imam Malik prayed with his hands to the side due to impaired arms, that Imam Ahmed didn't have a Fiqh School because he was weak in Fiqh, or that all four schools of Fiqh unanimously agree that cutting the beard short is sinful. It took me a while to try to uneducate myself from those claims after speaking to scholars from various backgrounds and reading the original material. Those who haven't studied Arabic, or read the original books themselves, are permanently limited to whatever secondhand sources they can access. I've heard graduates quote Fath al-Bari without having read it. I've heard people critique Ibn Taymiyyah without having read his works in the original Arabic. I've heard people characterise the Hanafi school without having opened a single one of its original sources. This puts them at a real disadvantage, and worse, if they don't recognise the limitation, they have no way of knowing how far their understanding has drifted from the reality of the matter. Secondhand sources, by their nature, are prone to four recurring failures: 1. Misunderstanding: the summariser simply got it wrong. 2. Decontextualisation: a point is lifted out of the argument or circumstance that gave it its true meaning. 3. Extreme exaggeration: a modest position hardens into a caricature by the time it's repeated. 4. Bias of the source: the person relaying the information has their agenda, consciously or not, shaping what they chose to include. Errors are always possible even when reading a text directly in its original language, but secondhand transmission compounds the problem. Every additional link in the chain is another opportunity for human error to creep in, and those errors accumulate rather than cancel out. This brings me to the challenge of our day, social media. It can be said that it has created near-perfect conditions for distorted information on steroids. A claim about a person or a text can now travel through hundreds of retellings within hours, each one slightly reshaped, before anyone involved has had the chance to check the original source. Speed, distance from the source, and the absence of any real accountability all work together to make secondhand distortion worse than it has ever been.

The Grand Puzzle of Commentaries Sometimes it can seem as though authors of classical Islamic literature were writing as if their work was just one piece in a grand puzzle. But that isn't really the case. If you went back in time, you'd find that a scholar simply saw a need for a particular topic to be discussed or felt a text needed a commentary. At the time, that work represented the most up-to-date writing in that field. Then another scholar came along and, whether he knew about the previous work or not, wrote another commentary or a super-commentary. Fast-forward a few centuries, and you find a whole library of works written around just one classical text. Students often become overwhelmed by this huge list of books, feeling like they have to read every single one as if each is indispensable. From experience, most books in a subject usually fall into 3 categories: 1. An original textbook (matn) 2. A commentary or set of footnotes (sharh) aimed at making sense of a condensed text 3. A book that surveys a series of works and adds context When an original text is studied thoroughly, it usually reduces the need for a student to rely heavily on commentaries or footnotes. When I say "thoroughly," I mean at the level of assessment level 3 in modern education terms. That means the student isn't just grasping the facts of the text, but can apply the concepts and analyze the various viewpoints and theories of different scholars. Once you hit that level, the main benefit of reading commentaries is simply learning what other scholars thought about the text. I remember one of my teachers advising us to study and re-read the original text multiple times and even considering this to be better than spending time reading commentaries. A good rule of thumb for mastering a text is that a student can easily, and in their own words, summarise it, provide its context, and apply its principles to modern times. On the other hand, slowly, explaining a subject text-by-text, which is the common method in madrasas, helps students build deep familiarity and understand the subject more systematically. Commentaries in that setting help students further their journey. But because of how and when they were written, commentaries aren't written in a neat, progressive order, though some are naturally much easier for students to read than others. Because of this jumbled library of works, a student who wants to become proficient in, let's say Fiqh, has to spend years at the feet of scholars so that these seemingly disconnected arguments slowly start to make sense and show a hidden pattern. If someone today wanted to write a series of commentaries on Hanafi Fiqh, I'd suggest keeping the following points in mind: Level 1 > Go through a classical authoritative primer such as Mukhtasar al-Quduri. > Recognize that most students are non-Arabs and require elaboration of key words right at the start. > Explain the unwritten concepts behind each chapter that exist behind the scenes, which the author expects students to already be familiar with. > Give a brief reasoning or rationale behind each ruling. Level 2 > Bring detailed arguments for and against the views mentioned. > List the views of later jurists and explain why they held those views. > Identify who, when, and why a certain view was adopted as the official position. > Bring modern-day case studies, helping the student navigate real-world application. Level 3 > Study and evaluate contemporary positions of fatwa from a variety of Hanafi jurists on modern issues. > Look at surveys and the impact of ideas, technology, and medicine on the modern world, showing how these factors impact and revisit the viewpoints of jurists.

When religious practices become routine, it's so easy to lose sight of why we're even doing them We tend to measure piety by what's on the outside. If someone prays a lot or dresses a certain way, we automatically label them as "pious". But when you become hyper-focused on outward acts of worship, you end up paying a lot less attention to how you actually treat other people. In reality, ritual worship is only a slice of Islam. Look at that famous narration where the Prophet ﷺ asked the companions what a Muslim actually is. They immediately thought of someone who submits to Allah, but he replied, "A Muslim is someone from whom others are safe from, both their tongue and their hand." The only reason the Prophet ﷺ would define a Muslim in that way is that people naturally forget the significance of harming others compared to merely fulfilling their prayers or fasts. It reminds me of something Edward Bernays calls the "halo effect" in his book Propaganda. This is where focus is put on one positive act to make everything else about them seem positive. It's unfortunately way too common to hear about someone who's supposedly "practising", yet they won't pay back their debts, neglect their family, kids, or parents, or can't even manage a genuine smile when they meet you. But their prayer and outer appearance cover it up. Why does this behavior happen? This behavior occurs because physical acts of worship can easily become mechanical. Once you establish a routine and move beyond the initial learning curve, practices like prayer, fasting, Zakat, Hajj, and dressing properly become second nature. Many individuals have successfully adhered to these practices for years without any documented errors. Someone once asked Imam Muhammad bin Hasan, "Why haven't you written a book on asceticism (Zuhd)?" And he said, "I have! I wrote the Book of Trade." Think about that. How can trade, exchanging physical, material stuff, be the baseline for piety? The true measure of your sincerity in serving Allah lies in your interactions with others, which can either reveal your genuine commitment or expose your complacency. The true challenge arises when we must apply Islam to our daily interactions, including business dealings, family disputes, controlling our speech, and demonstrating fundamental virtuous character. All of those force an internal choice between your ego and someone else's rights. If I had to summarise it in three words, it would be "caring for others." It means putting your desires aside for someone else's sake. Acts of compassion, like helping others and sacrificing personal desires, reflect the teachings of the Prophet ﷺ. May Allah grant us a complete, grounded understanding of Islam.

The Danger of Refuting Others Refutation isn't just something we see every time we scroll through our feeds. Nor is it a feature unique to Islam. It's been a hallmark of human society from day one. Though it is clear that whenever the Prophets confronted the crimes of their people, debate was the inevitable consequence. The Prophets knew, without a shred of doubt, that the message they carried from the Creator was absolute truth [Haq]. The problem arises when others engage in refutations by laying down their own arbitrary boundaries of ‘Haq’. The Khawarij were the first faction to publicly refute other Muslims simply for not conforming to their narrow understanding of Haq, a path that inevitably led to mainstream believers being labeled as deviants or disbelievers. Even the great Imams were not immune; Abu Hanifa, for instance, was fiercely targeted by contemporaries who claimed he had transgressed the limits of ‘Haq’, according to their own definitions, of course. Whether facing intense opposition for his views on the role of ‘actions’ in the definition of Iman, the ritual of piercing a sacrificial camel's hump for Hajj, or a woman's right to marry without a ‘wali’, his critics were unyielding. Yet, history shows that views change, or at least adjust, when people actually engage in rigorous research and sit down to discuss objections with their opponents. The true litmus test of the boundaries of 'Haq' is how an argument stands the test of time. After a few decades, scholars began to realise that Imam Abu Hanifa’s views were never intended to undermine Islam; rather, it was his rigorous methodology and reasoning that led him to those conclusions. I remember once meeting someone who was taught that Imam Abu Hanifa just invented his own views without any real consistency. When I asked them for an example, they said, "How can he say that wudu breaks when a person laughs in salah, but absolutely nothing happens to their wudu if that same person was to slander someone in salah?" I told them that this wasn't an inconsistency at all. Imam Abu Hanifa has a core principle: when a ruling comes in a Hadith that our minds cannot reach through human reasoning or logic, we accept it exactly as it is and act upon it as much as we can. The scholars of Kufa identified that the Hadith regarding wudu breaking due to laughter in prayer was widely acknowledged and transmitted, unlike the idea of wudu breaking due to slander. What they saw as a contradiction was actually just strict adherence to a precise principle. The true boundaries of 'Haq' must be clearly identified and unanimous among reputable authorities. Views that differ from 'madhab' to 'madhab' and expert to expert are, in most cases, well within these legitimate limits. This does not mean scholars should remain silent or stop correcting errors. Rather, it means that a refutation concerning a matter within the legitimate scope of 'Ijtihad' cannot be used to label someone a deviant or place them outside the fold of Islam. Too often, those who feel triggered by a point of view that differs from what they are accustomed to, or what they have superficially read, feel compelled to launch public debates. We see this clearly with young people newly practising Islam; they tend to view the tradition in stark black and white, finding it difficult to comprehend why others might pray or navigate details differently. If a study were conducted on online debaters, whether independent influencers or comment-section critics, I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority fell into that exact demographic.

So how does a teacher actually teach a book of hadith? It usually depends on their own training and experience. If an average student just opens a raw commentary by themselves, it’s incredibly confusing. That's really why I wanted to share this short breakdown based on what I've seen. To be honest, opening a commentary, whether it's one or twenty volumes, won't help you until you've studied the original text with a qualified teacher. A teacher's explanation speeds up the entire process because it is based on their own teacher's notes rather than being made up on the spot. If you trace those notes backward, you'll find an unbroken chain of teachers passing on insights while adding their own research along the way. A serious teacher never just stops at what they learnt in class. They actively cross-reference their notes with the classical commentaries written by the absolute authorities in the field and discussions from other sciences. This is how they catch any subtle mistakes they might have made without realising it. No single scholar has a monopoly on explaining a hadith, but when an interpretation matches the standards of the masters of this field, it carries real weight. For students, the goal isn't to get lost trying to read these massive commentaries alone but to use them to understand just how much depth our teachers are bringing into the classroom. Whilst studying hadith you can read a commentary that youre comfortable with to supplement your lessons.

What is a commentary on hadith? Most students probably don't ever think to ask this, but if you want to seriously study or teach hadith, it’s a really important question. We need the Prophet’s ﷺ words to actually make sense of the Quran. In reality, without hadith, how would we even know how to pray properly, calculate zakat, or practise the basics of our religion? When we talk about a hadith, we’re usually talking about Arabic words connected to the blessed Prophet Muhammad ﷺ something he said, did, or silently approved of. Once the Prophet ﷺ passed away, the religion was already fully complete. The Sahabah, both men and women, completely lived and breathed these core teachings. If anyone ran into a gap in their knowledge, they’d simply go and ask whoever had some insight. For anything totally new, they relied on the views of experienced people or their own sound judgment as a last resort to figure out the solution. As the community was freshly exposed to the era of revelation, their judgement would always be unmatched compared to subsequent generations. That's really how the whole system of transmission took off. At the same time, a companion would remember a statement and pass it to others, including those who came after known as Tabi'un, to memorise, and they’d hand it down to their own students. It became a generational relay race, an unbroken chain of people carrying these blessed words through history. Some of them would try to convey the exact meaning they heard whilst others would suffice with it in their own words. It became a passion for many people to learn and teach, holding dedicated gatherings for it. I don't want to focus here on the transmission side of things, but instead on the commentary of hadith and how it is traditionally explained. I would summarise the core areas around which the discussions revolve are the following: 1. Language 2. Narrators 3. Message itself 4. Previous writings Since hadith are in Arabic and the phrasing is often really direct and conversational, you have to understand the vocabulary, idioms, and context so you don't completely distort the meaning. Open up any major commentary, and you'll see the author spending pages just breaking down the language. They aren't just looking things up in a standard dictionary; they’re drawing on a deep, internalised mastery of the classical Arabic linguistic tradition, sometimes bringing in heavy debates from grammar and balagha (rhetoric) to unpack a tiny, nuanced expression. They also dissect the narrators. They collect all the background data needed to grade a chain and see if the old masters of the science had any serious criticisms against a specific narrator. From there, they focus on the actual message. They'll pull in other narrations, statements from the Sahabah, or explanations from early scholars to contextualize everything. Finally, they look at what previous commentators said and critique their views. Commentators are human, and digging out the exact meaning requires scholarly ijtihad, so no single person has a monopoly on being right. But when it comes to Fiqh, the madhhabs will naturally prefer interpretations that fit their own legal principles.That is what a normal commentary looks like. Some authors pay close attention to the language, while others concentrate on the legal rules. Obviously, the depth of the book depends entirely on how skilled the author is.

Clipping videos of any Muslim: 1. Without context 2. With misleading titles/commentary 3. Assumed intentions of the speaker Is not from the character of a believer and falls under the following: 1. Lying 2. Slander 3. or/and Backbiting The severity of the sin continues with everyone who views it

🎓 Sanatayn Graduation 2026 🎓 Join us for a special evening as we honour and celebrate the accomplishments of 14 graduating students who have completed years of dedication, study, and commitment in the pursuit of Islamic knowledge. This memorable gathering will mark an important milestone in their journey, recognising the effort, sacrifice, and perseverance required in seeking the knowledge of the Qur’an and Sunnah. We are also honoured to welcome Mufti Liaquat Zaman as our guest speaker for the evening, who will deliver an inspiring reminder on the virtue of sacred knowledge and its responsibility in today’s world. 📅 Saturday 11th July 2026 ⏰ 6PM – 8PM 📍 Ad-Duha Institute, 1164 Stratford Road, Hall Green, B28 8AQ 🎟 Free Event 👥 Open to brothers onsite only (due to limited space) 💻 Available onsite and online 🔗 Register adduha.org/sanatayn-graduation An evening of inspiration, reflection, and gratitude as we celebrate the next generation of students carrying forward the legacy of Islamic scholarship. 🤍

birthday today !!! May Allah accept our efforts especially those supporting my work & make it a sadaqa Jariya ameen!

For this reason, when Imam Ahmad was questioned regarding this same issue, and the questioner asked him: "If the Imam did not perform wudu [after bleeding], should I pray behind him?" He replied: "Glory be to Allah! Should you not pray behind Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib and Malik ibn Anas?!" Following this very path (sunan), a response was given by our teacher, the erudite scholar of Hadith and jurist, Sheikh Muhammad Abd al-Rashid al-Nu'mani (18/11/1333 AH – 5/1/1420 AH), may Allah Almighty have mercy on him. This was when one of the people of knowledge questioned him regarding performing the Witr prayer behind the Imam of the Sacred Mosque in Mecca (Al-Haram al-Makki). This occurred during the month of Ramadan in the year 1408 AH. The questioner, as well as the one being questioned, adhered to the Hanafi school (madhhab), which dictates that the Imam should not perform the closing salutation (taslim) at the completion of the first two units (rak'ah) of Witr. The Sheikh responded to the questioner by asking: "Tell me, if Imam Ahmad were standing and praying as an Imam, would you follow him in prayer?!" His question served as an incredibly astute answer, even though he [al-Nu'mani] had been unfairly stigmatized with hateful fanaticism (ta'assub) by certain ignorant individuals. Another famous report concerns Imam Abu Yusuf, may Allah Almighty have mercy on him. It is reported that he performed a ritual bath (ghusl) in a public bathhouse (hammam), and after performing the Friday prayer (Jum'ah), he was informed that there was a dead mouse in the well supplying the bathhouse. However, he did not repeat the midday (Zuhr) prayer. Instead, he said: "We adopt the view of our brothers, the people of Medina: 'When water reaches the volume of two qullas, it does not carry impurity.'"

Teaching How to Differ With Others Needs To Be Learnt One of the books I highly recommend for students is Adab al-Ikhtilaf by Sheikh Muhammad 'Awwamah. This text allows the reader to truly appreciate how classical jurists navigated and accommodated differences of opinion. Unfortunately, traditional madrassas generally neglect the etiquette of disagreement (Adab al-Ikhtilaf), the history of Fiqh, the biographies of the jurists, and the nuanced grading of jurisprudence books and masā’il (legal issues). In the absence of this critical context, legal matters are reduced to a rigid black and white understanding for students, especially when the writings of a particular scholar they look up to are made the absolute untouchable standard. When teachers compound this by fiercely attacking alternative perspectives, whether classical Shafis views or contemporary academic positions, graduates enter the community believing that the only valid response to a differing opinion is a harsh one. I remember an incident many years ago in class, a teacher spent about 10 to 15 minutes completely tearing apart a specific Fiqhi position of Imam al-Shafi. By the end of it, the students were literally cheering as though someone had just scored a winning goal in a match. Later on, a student from Malaysia wrote a polite, structured response to the teacher's points based on his studies of the Shafi school. After reading it, the teacher actually stopped the next class, apologised to everyone, and admitted that his whole explanation had just been taken from secondary Hanafi books. He admitted he hadn't actually read the primary Shafi works on the issue, nor had he ever discussed it with senior Shafi experts. That was the first time I realised that if information isn't presented in a fair, balanced way, it becomes 'misinformation', a completely skewed version of the facts. Sometimes we are very quick to criticise Ahl al-Hadith scholars in the subcontinent for not discussing matters with Hanafis or giving them a chance to present their side before attacking them. If that's our rule, then the exact same standard of intellectual honesty needs to be applied within our own circles. Sh Awwamah writes: "Among the evidences demonstrating the exact opposite of this caution is: adopting Taqlid (following another school) when a pressing necessity arises, and taking the position of other schools. Examples of this are found in what Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah Almighty have mercy on him, stated in Majmu' al-Fatawa: "The view of the people of Medina is that if the Imam prays while forgetting that he is in a state of major ritual impurity (janabah) and only remembers afterward, he alone must repeat his prayer, while the congregation's prayer remains valid and they do not repeat it. Whereas according to Abu Hanifah, everyone must repeat the prayer." This very scenario happened to Abu Yusuf. The Caliph had appointed him to lead the people in the Friday prayer. He led the prayer, but later remembered that he had been in a state of ritual impurity. Consequently, he repeated his own prayer, but he did not command the people to repeat theirs. When he was questioned about this, he replied: "Perhaps when a matter becomes strictly constricted for us, we take the position of our Medinan brothers." Furthermore, it is related that [the Caliph] Harun al-Rashid underwent cupping (hijama), and Imam Malik gave him a legal verdict (fatwa) that his ritual purity (wudu) remained intact. Following this, Abu Yusuf prayed behind the Caliph. Now, the position of Abu Hanifah and Ahmad is that the exiting of impurity from anywhere other than the two passages invalidates wudu, whereas the position of Malik and al-Shafi'i is that it does not invalidate wudu. Thus, someone asked Abu Yusuf: "Do you really pray behind him?!" He replied: "Glory be to Allah! [He is] the Commander of the Faithful! Verily, abandoning prayer behind the Imams over matters like this is from the hallmarks of the people of innovation, such as the Rafidha and the Mu'tazilah."

3 of the worst characteristics in scholars of Islam: 1. Jealousy 2. Arrogance 3. Backbiting disguised as speaking Haq

No Scientific Miracles of the Quran! I remember when I first started practising, one of my earliest "wow" moments came from reading a leaflet at a local mosque about the stages of embryonic development mentioned in the Quran. At the time, it blew my mind. It made me feel so much closer to Islam and gave me this massive drive to dive deeper into the words of the Quran. But fast forward to a few years later when I was studying at a Jamia in Pakistan. One of our teachers told us a story about Mawlana Yusuf Banuri (may Allah have mercy on him). The Mawlana was in Makkah when a prominent Egyptian scholar came to meet him and asked if he had read his 25-volume tafsir called Al-Jawahir. Mawlana Yusuf said yes, but after giving it some polite praise, he told the author he completely disagreed with his approach. The author had built his entire explanation of the Quran around modern scientific discoveries. The Mawlana warned him that even if a verse seems to match a specific scientific discovery today, that science is probably going to be debunked or modified down the line, and when that happens, ordinary Muslims are going to end up disheartened and confused about the text. And he was entirely right. Think about how we interact with the world through science. It's all induction: we collect whatever data we can see, spot a temporary pattern, and try to build a theory around it. Then down the line, someone else comes along with fresh data, points out a completely different pattern, and throws the old theory out the window. That’s just the nature of science, it is built to constantly change and update itself. But the Quran isn't bound by that kind of guesswork. When it talks about the physical world, whether it's the skies, the earth, rain, or how a fetus develops, it speaks from a place of absolute, ultimate reality. It's like a spectator who can see the whole picture from the subatomic level to the galactic level, clearly with their own eyes, completely independent of the limited, flawed observations we rely on. The Creator sees things exactly as they truly are. But because it's addressing human beings who simply don't have the capacity to wrap their heads around that absolute reality, the wording has to meet us where we are. It uses language that stays relatable across thousands of years. By using everyday expressions, idioms, and observational phrases that humans can actually visualize, the message simplifies deep realities. Just because a modern reader tries to force a 21st-century scientific theory into that simplified language, it doesn't mean the verse was meant as a literal blueprint for a modern lab finding. If we don't draw limits, people will not stop at the scientific miracles but add architectural miracles, culinary miracles, artistic miracles etc... At the end of the day, if we lose sight of why the Quran was actually revealed, it just becomes a toy for people looking to connect dots that aren't even there. The real purpose of the Quran is guidance (hidayah), to bring people back to the worship of Allah and to break us away from the false ideas and practices invented by men.

Yahya Michot says: "When I was in Oxford once, I remember some students told me, oh, in Islam you do not have anybody like Gandhi or Martin Luther King, you know, pacifists, et cetera. I said, yes, I'm very sorry. But we also do not have Hiroshima and Nagasaki." His response perfectly sums up that we don't need to have an Islamic version of every single thing produced by the West.