Faisal H - Notes

These are my personal notes from Sh. Hatim al-Awni's three-and-a-half hour lectures on the topic. You can find the links to the original videos here: Part 1 - https://youtu.be/kcFL8CZ3r3w Part 2 - https://youtu.be/s3GPZX2lmfs This is naturally a multilayered topic. My purpose is to simply capture the intent of the speaker rather than share personal thoughts on every point. May Allah bless you all. 🙏❤️

Worry not, I'll share these notes later tonight InSha'Allah. 😁

I just remembered I have detailed notes on Sh. Hatim al-Awni's lectures regarding Allah's justice and mercy in relation to the hereafter and salvation. They're actually quite insightful, and I hope to share them here. Hopefully now that I've mentioned it, it'll force me to actually revisit my notes! 😁🙏

This is a hadith also related to the topic of non-Muslim children who pass away before the age of moral accountability. They have secured their place in Paradise InSha'Allah, and there exists a report of Prophet Ibrahim in that regard.

حديث 'الوائدةُ والموؤودةُ في النّارِ': قال الشيخ عبدالله الجديعُ: هذا الحديثُ اختُلفَ في سندِه ومتنِه، وبعضُ ما قيلَ في تعليلِه يكفي لإسقاطِه. هذا الحديثُ لا يثبتُ وهو معلَّلٌ لمعارضةِ القرآنِ ('وإذا الموؤودةُ سُئِلَتْ بِأيِّ ذنبٍ قُتِلتْ') وأيضا هو مُعارِضٌ لما هو أحسنُ منه وهو: 'المولودُ في الجنّة والوئيدُ في الجنّة' (وهو حديثٌ صالحٌ، أي: يُستشهَد بمثلِه، وهو أولى بقبولٍ). فخلاصةُ القول: حديثُ الوائدة والموؤودة لا يصحُّ، مضطربٌ سندًا ومختلفٌ متنًا، وشرحَ علّتَه البخاريُّ في التاريخ الكبير والدارقطنيُّ في العلل.

9) Balkhi explains the stance of the Mu'tazilah on abrogation in the Quran. He says that most of the Ummah accept abrogation in commands and prohibitions but not akhbar. The Rafidah and those who agree with them in bada' allow it in akhbar. Therefore, he cites the different views on akhbar alone. In numerous instances in the book, he himself cites abrogation. He also highlights the different views on نسخ القرآن بالسنة. 10) Balkhi discusses Hujjiyyah Khabar al-Ahad. He has a book titled قبول الأخبار ومعرفة الرجال. He states that khabar al-ahad which are probabilistic (dhanni) without contextual arguments (qara'in) raising it to what is conclusive (qat'i) are proof in furu' al-din, not usul al-din. In other words, it is accepted in majority of Fiqh rulings. 11) Balkhi explains the statement إن الله لا يريد المعاصي والكفر according to the Mu'tazilah. 12) Balkhi discusses issues of takfir at length and disagreements amongst the Mu'tazilah. He mentions a dialogue regarding خلق القرآن between Abu al-Hudhail al-'Allaf and Ja'far ibn Harb. Abu al-Hudhail says that whoever from the general public does not say القرآن مخلوق then he is not made takfir of, while someone who says السماء ليست مخلوقة is made takfir of. This, he argues, is because the former is differed over while the latter is not. (p. 376) This dialogue is quoted word-to-word by Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi (F: d. c. 414) in البصائر والذخائر (v. 4, pp. 215-216), which indicates the book to Balkhi has sound ascription. After quoting this, Abu Hayyan says that this is the view of Abu al-Hudhayl (i.e. the view that does not hastily apply takfir). Abu Hayyan says that in his time, however, he finds the Mu'tazilah hastily applying takfir. He says that those most hasty amongst them in takfir are closest to fisq. 13) Balkhi discusses the Hujjiyyah of Ijma' and argues that one who rejects it is an unbeliever. This is also mentioned by his teacher al-Khayyat. As mentioned previously, the statement of Ahmad not only shows that the early Mu'tazilah accepted Ijma' but they appealed to it excessively. This shows that they respected the Salaf, and that they did not claim they were more knowledgeable. Awni argues that the quote cited from them and Ash'ari scholars مذهبنا أحكم ومذهب السلف أسلم is often misunderstood. What is intended is that details (tafsil) in the time of the Salaf were not needed, but when they were required after some time, they were provided. This occurs with every madhhab, even Ahmad when he said القرآن كلام الله غير مخلوق; he provided detail (tafsil). 14) Balkhi mentions issues for which some Mu'tazilah authorities were criticised. He states that Abu al-Hudhail al-'Allaf sometimes discussed issues for intellectual stimulation (إثارة الأذهان والتساؤلات) without accepting (or commiting to) the conclusions. As a result, there are issues attributed to him which he did not accept in reality. This shows it is necessary to verify statements of scholars. Awni argues that this book also shows that the Mu'tazilah discussed issues the answers to which had no benefit and could not be grasped by the intellect. (F: also see Awni's ضوابط فهم كلام أهل العلم, pp. 49-51.)

Sh. Hatim al-Awni - 'Kitab al-Maqalat' by Abu al-Qasim al-Balkhi al-Ka'bi (d. 319) - (personal notes) https://youtu.be/ohgV3qOGoS0?feature=shared This book is important (to understand Mu'tazili thought) because al-Balkhi died before other early Mu'tazilah figures like al-Qadi Abd al-Jabbar and Abu al-Husain al-Basri. Balkhi was a senior scholar amongst the Mu'tazilah. Contrary to other Mu'tazilah, he was somewhat familiar with the science of Hadith, although not a scholar of it. This allowed him to make a stronger argument than other Mu'tazilah with respect to Hadith. One of his teachers was Abu al-Husain Ibn al-Khayyat (d. c. 290), author of الانتصار والرد على ابن الراوندي الملحد. Balkhi rebuts his view on Khabar al-Ahad. The [publication] uses a manuscript dated 408 AH, so written within a hundred years between it and the author. Fourteen miscellaneous topics from Kitab al-Maqalat: 1) Balkhi mentions that the Zaydiyyah and Mu'tazilah are very similar. The early Zaydiyyah from the 2nd century had a strong inclination to I'tizal. This is why many of the manuscripts of early Mu'tazilah works are in Yemen. 2) Balkhi states that the scholars among the Khawarij are few. This indicates that those who have literalistic and takfiri tendencies possess little juristic understanding (fiqh). They may be narrators of hadith but rarely will you find a jurist in their ranks. Balkhi mentions that most senior of the Khawarij are narrators as opposed to scholars who possess fiqh and athar, with the exception of a handful whose association with the school is contested. He then lists ten or so people. 'Ikrimah, for example, is known for Khuruj but he was primarily known as a narrator or scholar of Tafsir. There are hardly any fiqh opinions transmitted from him. Knowledge of Tafsir primarily required transmission and knowledge of language. On the other hand, Fiqh requires knowledge of the Sunnah in addition to other sciences. (see p. 154 - ورجالهم كثير...) 3) Balkhi praises the Ibadiyyah for political justice, despite disagreeing with their theology. He mentions their power of lands in Jazirah (i.e. Furatiyyah in Northern Iraq), Mawsil, Bahrain, Sijistan, Oman and other areas. He then says ولهم في إنفاذ الأحكام وقسمة الفيء وإقامة الحدود وترك الرشوة سيرة حسنة. 4) Balkhi mentions the chain for the school of I'tizal from Wasil Ibn 'Ata to the Prophet (peace be upon him). (p.161) This shows they at least believed they were following the Salaf. We also see this in other issues like Ijma' al-Sahaba, which many of them accept; they accept Ijma' as an evidence in general. This is also indicated in the statement of Ahmad, من ادعى الإجماع فقد كذب، هذه دعوى أبي العباس الأصم [وبشر المريسي]. 5) Balkhi transmits the stance of the leading scholar of I'tazal, Hisham Ibn 'Amr al-Futi (d. c. 240, not Fuwati who is another scholar), regarding the period of fitan in the era of the Sahaba. Balkhi states that Hisham rejected the claim that Talhah and Zubair went out to Jamal for war. He says it was merely for consultation (تشاور). This is the same stance as Ibn Taymiyyah: Aishah, Talhah and Zubair went to hasten the decision of Hadd on the rebels against Uthman. The battle took place inadvertently. Hisham also says that the Sahaba who were present in Madinah when Uthman was killed did not approve of these events. Balkhi then states: والذي حمله على هذا حسنُ الظن بالصحابة والطلب لسلامتهم. This shows that some Mu'tazilah had a good opinion of the Sahaba. 6) Balkhi discusses the Mu'tazilah's actual stance on خلق أفعال العباد. Awni argues that Balkhi's explanation of how a person creates his own actions is merely semantic (خلاف لفظي). In the issue of Qada' and Qadar the Mu'tazilah simply intended to highlight that people have choice, and they feared the significant entailments of Jabr. 7) Balkhi also praises إيمان العوام even if it is not based on sound evidence. 8) Balkhi explains the statements of the Mu'tazilah that Allah is عالم بلا علم وقادر بلا قدرة, and highlights their intention behind these statements. (p. 258)

InSha'Allah I'll soon share my detailed notes from Sh. Hatim al-Awni on 'Kitab al-Maqalat' by Abu al-Qasim al-Balkhi al-Ka'bi (d. 319).

I was recently asked about Tafsir al-Manar by Rashid Rida (d. 1354/1935), so I thought I'd share my notes on the work here. Rashid Rida (d. 1354/1935) – ‘Tafsīr al-Manār' - This work began as lesson notes of Muhammad Abduh (d. 1323/1905), which was built on by Rashid Rida over a period of 35 years. The tafsir was initially published in the al-Manār journal and then published again separately. - The tafsir lessons by Abduh took place between 1318-1323/1900-1905 – and he ended at Surah Nisa’: 125 (‘wa kāna (A)llāhu bi kulli shay’ muḥīṭ(an)’). (See Tafsir al-Manar 1/14 and 5/441) - Abduh would read from Tafsir al-Jalalayn in his lessons, and would highlight areas of disagreement. (1/14-15) - (For his approach, see Tafsir al-Manar 1/14-16, 17-19, 17-31.) - Providing his assessment of the book, Abdullah al-Judai says the work draws from reports while offering personal insights and reflections and connects verses to lived realities. - Judai argues that the work contains views that can be disputed like any other book, or even rejected, like the dismissal of some authentic reports without strong justification which is considered the main criticism. - Judai says the book was authored over an extended period, and serves as a historical record of events given its focus. - The work was not completed and ended on Surah Yusuf, verse 101 – with the last verse being ‘tawaffanī muslim(an) wa alḥiqnī bi al-ṣāliḥīn’. - Yusuf al-Qaradawi (d. 2022) later had student notes from his public tafsir lectures compiled on the chapters after Surah Yusuf - namely Ra’d, Ibrahim and Hijr. - In his introduction to Surah Ra'd, he says that he had covered Surah Yusuf before and was asked by others in Qatar to start Surah Ra’d thereafter. He saw this not only as a continuation of his previous lectures but also a continuation of the Tafsīr al-Manār project which he had been asked by others to continue before. - He explains, however, that it should not be viewed as an exact copy of the work for several reasons, one being that while he admires Rida, he is not his clone. (See 10-11)

While there'll be no live book session today, I'll be uploading a video about books from the Tafsir genre 😊

I just shared a short thread on Sh. Abdullah al-Judai's 'al-Muqaddimat al-Asasiyyah', which I had a book session on last week: http://fxtwitter.com/i/status/2052137212137878009

I'll be covering Sh. Judai's book on Ulum al-Quran this week. We'll begin in ten mins InSha'Allah: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/5485476404?pwd=PkizdqUQqDFbyO6RFaxItK3kXyvTho.1

36:55 - With respect to covering the face, the majority of classical scholars (jumhur) argue that it is not obligatory for a woman to cover her face. 37:10 - With respect to hanging lower garments below the ankles (isbal), the majority of classical scholars (jumhur) argue that it is not prohibited when done without arrogance. This is also the view of Ahmad and Ishaq in Masa'il al-Kawsaj, who argue it is discouraged. This is also the view preferred by Ibn Taymiyyah (as transmitted by Ibn Muflih in al-Furu' and al-Adab al-Shar'iyyah). Compare this to the way this is made a core issue of piety today. Awni says that since the day he reached the age of moral accountability, he has personally never performed isbal. In other words, he is not trying to justify personal practice as he has never done it, but to rather state the legal ruling as it is, irrespective of his own practice. 43:50 - Classical scholars higlight that backbiting does not only apply to those explicitly mentioned by name, but also includes speaking ill about someone when those present are fully aware of whom is intended. This is Shaytan's way of deceiving people into speaking ill of others. 49:50 - Most scholars who permitted a woman to uncover her face also permitted looking at her face without desire or lust. There is no argument to obligate lowering the gaze in its absolute sense [even without desire]. If this were the case then it would also be obligatory on men to cover their face since women are likewise commanded to lower their gaze, but they too are permitted to look at the face of men without desire.

32:00 - Awni discusses the classical scholarly dispute on the legality of growing a beard. He argues that scholars differ even in trimming below the length of a hand fist, and argue that the 'lengthening' in the report simply refers to maintaining some form of a beard. In fact, some scholars argue that shaving is discouraged (makruh) rather than prohibited. To explain, the practice of the Prophet (peace be upon him) itself does not indicate obligation from a point of law, as mentioned in books of Usul. The Prophet (peace be upon him) performed many actions that are not considered obligatory, like the Sunnah prayers that follow the obligatory. Awni explains that if we were to assess the main report on the beard, the report contains an instruction to grow the beard and trim the mustache (with varying wording), and to oppose the Majus. Awni argues that those who argue for obligation argue it in two ways: (i) the report includes an instruction (amr), and instructions indicate obligation; and (ii) the report includes an instruction to oppose the Majus. Awni responds, however, that trimming (haff) the mustache is sunnah by agreement, yet it is also coupled in the report with an instruction (amr) and likewise the instruction to oppose the Majus. Therefore, either both instructions on the beard and mustache are obligatory (which Awni argues is not the case as he believes all scholars agree the instruction for the mustache is recommended), or both are recommended. As for opposing the Majus, this does not necessarily indicate obligation, as there are several other reports that mention this same concept (i.e. opposing the practice of other groups) which are likewise not taken to indicate obligation. E.g. the Prophet (peace be upon him) instructed to perform Salah in footwear and to oppose Jewish practice, yet it is not obligatory to perform Salah in footwear; and the Prophet (peace be upon him) encouraged the pre-dawn meal when fasting as a form of opposing Ahl al-Kitab, yet the pre-dawn meal is not obligatory. All that is required here is to demonstrate that the report on the beard is not conclusive (qat'i), and this is sufficient in demonstrating that the strictness on this topic is not warranted. Rather, today we make this the defining characteristic between the righteous and the shameless sinner (majin). Awni says he is aware of scholars in Egypt and North Africa who are committed to Allah and His religion who hold the view that growing the beard is not obligatory. The issue here is not disagreeing with their conclusion, as that is completely fine; the issue is disregarding their scholarship and piety as a result of that disagreement.

Sh. Hatim al-Awni - الخلاف الفقهي (part 3/3) https://t.me/Hatim_Al3uny/2842 06:05 - When discussing the idea of ease in law (Fiqh al-Taysir), Awni says this should neither be accepted nor rejected completely. Each ruling ought to be assessed on its own merit. If a view is unsound, then it is rejected regardless of whether it carries ease or difficulty. An opinion cannot be disregarded simply because it is Fiqh al-Taysir, as perhaps most of these opinions are valid. Otherwise, those who adopt Fiqh al-Taysir could equally claim that others adopt an approach of difficulty (Fiqh al-Tashdid) and dismiss their opinions on that basis. Q&A 25:50 - Awni says that some may assume that he is arguing that nabidh and musical instruments are both permitted, but this is not the case nor the point he is making. In fact, at the time of the recording (2009/2010), Awni says he believes both nabidh and musical instruments are prohibited. (F: he changed his view on musical instruments in around 2019, which he now argues to be permitted.) 27:50 - Everything in the music industry in the past likewise exists today. The scholarly discussion around music simply pertains to the legality of instruments themselves. As for vulgar speech, this is prohibited with or without instruments. As for promiscuous behaviour, this is prohibited with or without instruments. That is not the point of debate as nobody permits this. Those who permit instruments intend only to permit instruments when they are coupled with permitted speech. For example, the famous poem of 'Banat Su'ad' is permitted as it was recited in front of the Prophet (peace be upon him). If someone were to utter the same lines of poetry and then simply play a musical instrument in the background, then those who permit musical instruments would not prohibit that. As for prohibited lyrics, they are not permitted irrespective of whether they are accompanied by music or not.

01:07:00 - Dhahabi says that if we were to completely disregard a scholar everytime he made a mistake, then nobody would in reality be safe, irrespective of who they are. 01:08:00 - Qarafi argues that an invalid view is not permitted to issue a fatwa on, but the scholar himself is not sinful; rather, he is rewarded for his best effort. In other words, according to Qarafi, not only is the scholar not sinful for the invalid view, but he is rewarded for trying his best to reach the truth. Elsewhere, Qarafi argues that in each legal school, there are views that upon careful examination are not permitted to issue fatwa by them. In other words, he argues that nobody is free of error. 01:09:00 - Ibn Daqiq al-'Id says that an invalid view does not necessarily mean the one who adopts the view is to be given no consideration. (F: In other words, it is possible to argue a view is invalid while still respecting the person who adopts it.) 01:15:50 - Ahmad believed the permissibility of nabidh to be an invalid view in his Kitab al-Ashribah. Abu Hatim al-Razi says he mentioned scholars in Kufa who held the view of permissibility to Ahmad, and he replied that this is a mistaken view, though their moral integrity ('adalah) is not stripped as a result of this mistake. (al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil) Awni says that imagine if someone held this view today. How do you think he would be treated, and would his integrity be questioned? 01:17:00 - Awni shares a noteworthy quote from Ibn Qutaybah regarding the people of Kufa and nabidh. 01:20:30 - Ibrahim ibn Sa'd (d. 185) who permitted musical instruments was the [F: great] grandson of the companion Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf. Dhahabi says that Ibrahim ibn Sa'd held the view that instruments are permitted and did not find a reason for prohibition, and then says "so what." (F: Dhahabi says this in a book defending reliable hadith transmitters, which is noteworthy context.) Yusuf ibn Ya'qub ibn Abi Salamah al-Majishun (d. 185) was a jurist from Madinah. Ibn Ma'in declares him reliable, despite saying that he would go to his house for hadith, and there would be girls in a separate house or room (bayt) who would be there playing an instrument. As Khalili says, Yusuf ibn Ya'qub and his family were known to permit instruments (sama'), though they are reliable hadith transmitters and included as transmitters in Sahih collections. Khalili also mentions the same for Abd al-'Aziz ibn Abdillah ibn Abi Salamah al-Majishun (d. 165) - who was a contemporary and peer of Malik; the two of them were known to be the main jurists to issue fatwa in Madinah at the time. Khalili says Abd al-'Aziz permitted the 'ud instrument. 01:26:00 - Sometimes a scholar will have harsh words against a view that they consider invalid. In this case, there are three possibilities: (i) The harsh words are directed at the view rather than the person adopting the view, which is not an issue as there is a distinction between the two. (ii) It is directed at a person for whom the harshness is warranted, like someone arguing for an invalid view when he is not a person of learning. (iii) The harsh statement by the scholar is simply a mistake on his part, as scholars are not infallible.

Sh. Hatim al-Awni - الخلاف الفقهي (part 2/3) https://t.me/Hatim_Al3uny/2841 00:45 - Some scholars cite consensus on the prohibition of chess, but this is not an issue of 'umum al-balwa (i.e. an issue of widespread relevance and concern) for there to be an actual valid consensus. In fact, we find reports from early scholars like Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab and Ikrimah permitting chess. Ishaq Ibn Rahuwayh also argues that it is prohibited only when it involves gambling, and that otherwise it is discouraged (makruh). There are also other reports from the Salaf. These scholars obviously did not believe there to be a consensus for them to hold the view of permissibility. Ibn Abi Shaybah has a chapter in his Musannaf for those who prohibited chess. He does not mention any dispute on the issue besides that. However, Ibn Qutaybah in 'Uyun al-Akhbar shares an authentic transmission through his teacher Ishaq ibn Rahuwayh right to Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab arguing for permissibility. Therefore, it is not correct to simply gather reports from one book to arrive at a conclusion [of consensus] as it may not be comprehensive. 04:20 - An indication (qarinah) that an opinion is acceptable and valid - rather than an intrinsic proof (dalil) - is that it is held by the majority. Awni says that he is not aware of an opinion that three of the four Imams held at once which is not [at least] valid. E.g. performing salah in congregation in the mosque. Salah in congregation is an emphasised Sunnah according to Abu Hanifah and Malik. It is Fard Kifayah based on the main view of Shafi'i. Ahmad argues salah in congregation itself is obligatory but can be performed anywhere, and it is sunnah to do so in the mosque (based on the main view in the school). From Ahmad, there is also a related report mentioned by Ibn Abi Hatim (in his 'al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil') transmitted through his father, from Salih, from his father Ahmad. The report mentions that during the time of salah, Ali ibn al-Madini asked whether they should go to the mosque to pray. Ahmad replied that they are currently in a congregation, so they performed salah together where they were rather than in the mosque. Therefore, the practice of Ahmad also indicates that he did not believe performing salah in congregation in the mosque to be obligatory. Accordingly, from the four Imams, none actually argued that it is obligatory to perform salah in congregation in the mosque in particular - so Awni argues it cannot be said that this view is completely invalid. Awni says that if someone wanted to argue for another view, then principally that is not a problem, but the view of the majority should not be labelled invalid. 42:00 - To label something bid'ah is to condemn the act (and claim it contradicts something conclusive, i.e. qat'i). Therefore, to say there exists valid disagreement on an issue while labelling the view bid'ah is a contradiction because a valid disagreement cannot be condemned by definition. 45:45 - Ibn Qutaybah argues that one should be just and fair even when describing a view to be invalid or those who adopt it. Awni cites a relevant quote by him on the topic of nabidh. 53:00 - Awni shares examples from Ahmad expressing caution in associating people with bid'ah.

Sh. Hatim al-Awni - الخلاف الفقهي (part 1/3) - (personal notes) https://t.me/Hatim_Al3uny/2840 10:00 - The idea of scholarly disagreement itself should not be considered an issue, to the extent that even a scholar who errs in judgement is rewarded. 10:55 - There is a consensus that valid and acceptable scholarly disagreements exist (which is also cited by Qadi Iyad and Imam Nawawi). The Sahaba differed with one another in countless legal issues without imposing their opinions on one another. This is despite it being possible to have imposed their opinion on others, particularly those who held authority in different regions. The Sahaba disagreed in issues when they dispersed in different regions. The Tabi'un likewise differed, including the seven famous jurists of Madinah. No scholar condemned the opinions held by others except those particular conclusions they believed deserved condemnation. Imam Malik famously also did not impose his views when he had the opportunity to do so by the state. 42:00 - Imam Shafi'i said regarding the hadith on camel meat invalidating wudu' that if he considered the hadith authentic he would act on it. Bayhaqi and others argue that the hadith is authentic and quote Shafi'i's famous statement: "When a report is sound, it is the view I adopt" (إذا صحّ الحديثُ فهو مَذهبي) for this legal issue because Shafi'i stated this explicitly here. In other words, Shafi'i had no problem with the import (dalalah) of the hadith indicating invalidity of wudu', but just its authenticity (thubut). This is mentioned by Awni simply by way of example, rather than to prefer one view over the other. 44:05 - Awni cites another example from Shafi'i making the same contingent argument regarding a hadith, which later scholars acknowledged. Awni notes that it is also possible that if a hadith is authentic, one may dispute its import (dalalah) and argue for the same conclusion as someone who disputes its authenticity (thubut).

I also just shared a short thread on Sh. Hatim al-Awni's Ikhtilaf al-Muftin: https://x.com/i/status/2048875089622396946