Massoud Vahedi

Thus, when it comes to such laws, what is prone to change with time is the wisdom, not the ruling itself, when the ratio legis remains applicable and present. We could say that a 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐝𝐨𝐦 of a ruling deduced via Ijtihad served its purpose a long time ago or is limitedly serving its purpose in specific geographical locations or circumstances, but that does not change the fact that there could be other wisdoms of these rulings unknown to us. Some, like Fadel, might not find it intellectually satisfying to concede that we at many times do not know the wisdom 𝒐𝒓 𝒂𝒍𝒍 the wisdoms behind divine legislations. It does not mean they do not exist; it is just that we may not know them. As scholars have said, that could be intentional so that a higher wisdom is actualized, namely the spiritual maslahah of submitting to Allah and His commands. This makes full sense, and there is nothing irrational about this. I would be curious to hear an actual cogent philosophical critique of this reasoning if there is one. In light of this, it is wrong for Fadel to conclude in his article that “one can no longer simply assume that modernist interpretations of Qur'an 2:282 represent a radical break from Islamic law.” Modernist interpretations are guided by hermeneutical methods and underlying ideological premises anathema to mainstream Sunnism. Moreover, I find it disingenuous for Fadel to advise, as he repeatedly does in his works, modernists and feminists to engage in “exploiting problems and tensions that have long been recognized to exist within Islamic law” to infiltrate mainstream Islamic settings under the misleading guise of a shared ideological and hermeneutical framework.

The primary one appears to be his unwarranted conflation between the ratio legis (علة), or legislative intent or purpose, and wisdom (حكمة) of a ruling (an example of such a conflation committed by several modernists can be found here https://www.facebook.com/5039.../posts/10165957520065245/...). Even if one assumes that the ratio legis and wisdom are one and the same, it is not always obvious whether a fiqhi ruling is interlinked with a single ratio legis or multiple ones. This could lead to problems where people attribute a ratio legis to a ruling that is only valid in partially describing legislative intent, thereby giving the false impression that in the absence of this partial ratio legis, the ruling no longer applies. For example, it is wrong to say that 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 ratio legis for the prohibition of consuming swine is because pigs are dirty and eat dirty things. Why? Because that would then entail that if pig farming were to change in the future and pigs were raised in cleaner environments and were to be exclusively fed clean food, that would make their meat consumption halal. This is problematic, especially since the ratio legis is not textually relayed to us but is rather deduced as 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒔 for the prohibition of eating pork. Such deductions are at other times contentious and prone to error and cannot be ascertained with confidence. An important principle agreed upon in meaning by the scholars is that it is baseless to stipulate that the only ratio legis for a divinely ordained legislation is malleable to change to the point that it nullifies scripture (كل تعليل يتضمن إبطال النص باطل). And this is the mistake that Fadel has committed, yet again (as he did in his article on women’s wilaayah as can be seen here https://www.facebook.com/5039.../posts/10165952741870245/...), whereby he has neglected to recognize that the actual ratio legis for why men’s testimony is 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 valued more than women’s is, 𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑦, the 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟. God’s specific method of communicating this law in the Qur’an, in addition to the hadeeth of the Prophet (peace be upon him) linking deficiency of aql to women’s testimony (a critical hadeeth that Fadel strangely did not engage with sufficiently in his piece), entails that this is a matter from the fixed specific dictates of the Shari’ah (المقدّرات الشرعية) where there is no ijtihad permitted in changing the foundation of this ruling. Fixed specific dictates feature prominently in acts of worship (e.g., how to pray, Zakah being 2.5%, etc.), but also include things like inheritance laws, hudud, etc. Since Fadel claims to incline toward the Maliki Madhab, he could read up on the Maliki madhab’s stance on such fixed specific laws in a recently published article by Dr. Ayman Mustafa (Ph.D. in fiqh from The University of Jordan), entitled: المقدرات الشرعية عند المالكية بين الظنية والقطعية.

Bassam Zawadi's Critical Review of Mohammed Fadel's Article I would like to make a few remarks concerning Dr. Mohammad Fadel’s article “Two Women, One Man: Knowledge, Power, and Gender in Medieval Sunni Legal Thought.” The article addresses the testimonial value of women in contrast to men in Sunni legal discourse. Having read a number of his articles, it has become clear to me that there is a flawed methodological pattern in Fadel’s approach to fiqh.

Al-Shaybānī and Ibn ʿUlayya, about whom the book adds considerable new material, are viewed almost entirely through the lens of al-Shāfiʿī’s Kitāb al-Umm, which records debates with unnamed interlocutors whom El Shamsy identifies with these two figures (plausibly but still not definitively; the passage cited in n. 11 on p. 46 does not in fact name al-Shaybānī). One wonders whether a close reading of Mālik’s Muwaṭṭaʾ or other non-Shāfiʿī sources might not complicate El Shamsy’s interpretation of these two figures (and implicitly of all early Muslim jurists) as proponents of a common ideology of communal tradition .... Closer study of non-Shāfiʿī materials will undoubtedly reveal that al-Shāfiʿī’s introduction of a textualist ideology was not as novel or dramatic an innovation as El Shamsy makes it out to be." - David R. Vishanoff, book review of El Shamsy's The Canonization of Islamic Law

"Ahmed El Shamsy’s decision to expand his history of early Shāfiʿism into a dramatic narrative about all of Sunni law (7) may have been a mistake. It is certainly not warranted by the evidence presented in the book, which adds little new material to the dissertation and is still based on overwhelmingly Shāfiʿī sources and on a few Egyptian chronicles that hardly suffice to make this a “social history” of third-/ninth-century Egypt, much less the Islamic world. The attitudes El Shamsy ascribes to individuals and groups are sometimes inferred from little or no specific evidence (e.g., 20-21, 37-42, 51, 83, 148, 217), while masses of relevant evidence are left unexamined. Mālik’s watershed work al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, for example, is the main subject of Chapter 1 but is cited there only twice (29, 41).

Online Muslim gravediggers/undertakers who share pictures of the deceased - even when blurred - for maximizing "emotional effect" and garnering cheap clicks are disrespecting the rights of the dead and lacking in basic dignity. If you don't feel troubled sharing such pictures, then you are in the wrong industry and should let someone else who is not interested in the spotlight take your place. "But he washed x thousand bodies, reminds us of death, etc." Yeah, he did, but it looks like he has not learned the most important lesson.

قال الشيخ عبدالله الجديع: وأما قول البخاري: (في إسناده نَظَر) فتوقُّفٌ منه في ثبوت إسناد معَّين جاء من رواية المذكور، إذ أكثر ما أتت هذه العبارة في كلامه، عقبَ حديث أو أثر يذكره في ترجمة الراوي، فالهاء في قوله (إسناده) لا تعود على الراوي، إنما تعود على الرواية المذكورة. ومن أدلّ علامة عليه، قوله في ترجمة (أبي الجوزاء أوس بن عبد الله الربعي): قال لنا مسددٌ: عن جعفر بن سليمان، عن عمرو بن مالك النُّكري، عن أبي الجوزاء، قال: أقمت مع ابن عباس وعائشة اثنتي عشرة سنة، ليس من القرآن آية إلا سألتْهُم عنها. قال البخاري: في إسناده نظر. قلت -القائل هو الشيخ الجديع-: فهذا ليس حُكماً على أبي الجوزاء، فإنه ثقة معروف، وإنما هو توقُّفٌ من البخاري في إثبات هذا الخبر عنه، والمفيد اتِّصال ما بينه وبين ابن عباس وعائشة، وربما من أجل كونه من رواية جعفر بن سليمان الضبعي، وهو عند البخاري يخالف في بعض حديثه.

If a writer cannot discern mudaf/mudaf ilayhi and mawsuf/sifah phrases (which is Level 1 Arabic by the way), avoid them. If they can't distinguish ism fa'il (active participle) from ism maf'ul (passive participle) when speaking about the titles of books, avoid them. It's al-Rawd al-Murbi', not al-Murba'. 🙂 We don't say Zad al-Mustaqna' and then say it is just a transliteration mistake.

The Prophet ﷺ mentions an additional piece of information regarding the two groups: he says that while the believer is karim (noble), the transgressor is la'im (avaricious), meaning he is devoid of any ethical restraints and acts on his impulses. The scholars who commented on this hadith noted that the Prophet ﷺ intentionally mentioned two pieces of information regarding both parties to indicate how their mentality shapes their behaviour. The mu'min is karim, and it is this moral compass which restrains him from taking unethical shortcuts to increase his wealth and prestige, and instead he adopts a simple demeanour. The fajir (evildoer) on the other hand, has no morals so he enjoys taking unethical shortcuts. In other words, the second predicate of every sentence of the hadith (المؤمنُ غرٌّ كريمٌ ، والفاجرٌ خِبٌّ لئيمٌ) is the cause of the first predicate. It is as if the Prophet ﷺ is saying: "The mu'min is simple BECAUSE OF his high ethical outlook of life and value, while the fajir is a trickster BECAUSE OF his lack of any morals."

From the Wonders of Prophetic Eloquence In a notable Hadith, the Prophet ﷺ said: (المؤمنُ غرٌّ كريمٌ ، والفاجرٌ خِبٌّ لئيمٌ) "The believer is simple (by adopting an unsuspecting demeanour) and noble; And the transgressor is deceitful (by swindling and engaging in trickery) and bereft of nobility." When describing the believer and the transgressor, the Prophet ﷺ mentions two pieces of information regarding each of them. Every subject of the two sentences has two khabars (known as predicate in English), which is an interesting form of phrasing. The believer (mu'min) is a simple person, and is not engrossed in worldly affairs. Because of his unsuspecting demeanour, he may lose out on some worldly gains, but this does not concern him because his priority is the Hereafter. The transgressor (fajir), on the other hand, is a swindler, whose priority is to cheat out on others to maximize their material gains in this dunya. The Prophet ﷺ mentions an additional piece of information regarding the two groups: he

A qāʿidah fiqhiyyah (legal maxim) may be understood as a broad juridical principle that provides a general framework for determining the ruling applicable to most, if not all, particular cases falling within a given category. Typically, a qāʿidah is juxtaposed with a ḍābit (controller), with the latter having much less scope, usually applying to a particular chapter or section. In contrast, a qāʿidah fiqhiyyah is expected to have greater breadth, subsuming within its explanatory range legal particulars from several chapters of law. Secondly, a qāʿidah fiqhiyyah should be contrasted with a qāʿidah uṣūliyyah. While the former constitutes a post-facto abstraction of concrete legal particulars that share a common legal rationale, the latter refers to hermeneutical principles employed to derive substantive laws. The qawāʿid uṣūliyyah, on the other hand, are theoretically prior to the law, and they serve as tools to derive substantive rulings. The qawāʿid fiqhiyyah appeared only after substantive rulings were derived, and comprise of meaningful explanations of the law’s rationale. A useful analogy for the analytical process is that the qawāʿid uṣūliyyah function as the roots of a tree, while the derived substantive laws of fiqh are the apples. The qawāʿid fiqhiyyah consists of the process of sorting the apples into different baskets and boxes based on their properties and commonalities, such that they are meaningfully divided.

"Rawd al-Murba''" (sic) "Al Zaad al-Mustaqni" (sic) We have people speaking about 'ilm, but they cannot even get the title of the book they are teaching right! How can we trust them when they teach the contents of the book?!

According to some commentators (such as Yaḥyā ibn Ādam), the hadith "Purity is half of īmān" (الطهور شطر الإيمان) should be read to mean "Ritual purity is half of ṣalāh (prayer)". The two - purity and prayer - thus comprise two halves of a complete whole, since without taharah (ritual purification), a person's prayer cannot be valid. This interpretation is supported in the Qur'an, as Allah calls prayer īmān in Surat al-Baqarah (verse 143): "And Allah would never cause your prayer (īmān) to be in vain", referring to the prayers that the Sahabah performed towards Bayt al-Maqdis.

The qawāʿid fiqhiyyah appeared only after substantive rulings were derived, and comprise of meaningful explanations of the law’s rationale. A useful analogy for the analytical process is that the qawāʿid uṣūliyyah function as the roots of a tree, while the derived substantive laws of fiqh are the apples. The qawāʿid fiqhiyyah consists of the process of sorting the apples into different baskets and boxes based on their properties and commonalities, such that they are meaningfully divided.

A qāʿidah fiqhiyyah (legal maxim) may be understood as a broad juridical principle that provides a general framework for determining the ruling applicable to most, if not all, particular cases falling within a given category. Typically, a qāʿidah is juxtaposed with a ḍābit (controller), with the latter having much less scope, usually applying to a particular chapter or section. In contrast, a qāʿidah fiqhiyyah is expected to have greater breadth, subsuming within its explanatory range legal particulars from several chapters of law. Secondly, a qāʿidah fiqhiyyah should be contrasted with a qāʿidah uṣūliyyah. While the former constitutes a post-facto abstraction of concrete legal particulars that share a common legal rationale, the latter refers to hermeneutical principles employed to derive substantive laws. The qawāʿid uṣūliyyah, on the other hand, are theoretically prior to the law, and they serve as tools to derive substantive rulings.

Good writing advice for your 15 underpaid and underqualified 'Muslim Skeptic Team' ghostwriters.

Why Arabic Syntax Matters In Surat al-Buruj (verses 14-15), Allah says: ( وهو الغفورُ الودودُ * ذو العرشِ المجيدُ) The word al-Majid (lit. Glorious) could actually be read in two ways: al-Majidu (المجيدُ), or al-Majidi (المجيدِ), which are known as the nominative (al-raf') and genitive (al-jarr) states respectively. If the word al-Majid is read in the nominative state, then it will be read here as denoting an attribute of Allah: "He is the Lord of the Throne, and [He is] the Most Glorious." But if it is read in the genitive state, then it will be an attribute of the Throne: "He is the Lord of the Glorious Throne." Both of these readings are valid (see Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 14/313). Note how this difference in syntax plays a role in Qur'anic translations. Abdel Haleem picks the nominative reading, while Pickthall adopts the genitive reading (The Glorious referring to Allah vs. the Throne).

Arabic is a remarkably rich fusional language, capable of expressing subtle distinctions of gender, number, and grammatical person – first, second, and third – through the careful combination of vowels and letters with a single verbal root. Where English may require an entire phrase of several words to convey a particular meaning, Arabic can often encapsulate that same breadth of meaning in a single word. In this sense, the language possesses an extraordinary economy of expression: a small alteration in form or pattern can carry layers of grammatical information that English must express separately.

. السؤدد «قال الجاحظ في كتاب «شرائع المروءة»: وكانت العرب تسود على أشياء: أما مضر؛ فتسود ذا رأيها. وأما ربيعة؛ فمن أطعم الطعام. وأما اليمن؛ فعلى النسب. وكان أهل الجاهلية لا يسودون إلا من تكاملت فيه ست خصال: السخاء، والنجدة، والصبر، والحلم، والتواضع، والبيان، وصار في الإسلام سبعا. وقيل لقيس بن عاصم: بم سدت قومك؟ قال: ببذل الندى، وكف الأذى، ونصرة المولى، وتعجيل القرى. وقد يسود الرجل بالعقل، والعفة، والأدب والعلم. وقال بعضهم: السودد: اصطناع العشيرة، واحتمال الجريرة. وقال الأصمعي: ذكر أبو عمرو بن العلاء عيوب جميع السادة، وما كان فيهم من الخلال المذمومة -إلى أن قال-: ما رأيت شيئا يمنع من السودد إلا قد رأيناه في سيد! وجدنا الحداثة تمنع السودد؛ وساد..». «خزانة الأدب» ٩٠/٣. - لم يمنعه ذلك العيب من السيادة؛ إما لزيادة تقدمه في الأمور الأخرى، أو لعدم المنافس. - صاحب الخزانة عنده كتب كثيرة نفيسة نادرة.. وفي كتبه نقول كثيرة منها. وفي «رسائل الجاحظ» ١٨٣/٤ -«النبل والتنبل وذم الكبر»- نقل كلام أبي عمرو بطوله.. وصوب منه -إن شئت- ما وقع من خطأ في «الخزانة».

من الأخطاء المشهورة المُتداوَلة في ترتيب كتب التفاسير : جعلُ تفسير الجلالين موضوعا للمبتدئين، نظرا إلى صِغر حجمه واختصار عبارته، مع أن واقع هذا التفسير غير ذلك، فإشاراته دقيقة وعباراته غامضة أحيانا، وتفكيكها وبيان ما أُدمِج فيها من المباحث والمسائل يقتضي تطويلا أصلا، بل لو عُدَّ هذا التفسير عُصارة وخُلاصة غيره من كتب التفسير لم يكن ذلك بعيدا، ومِن ثَم فجعلُه للمنتهين هو الأقرب، اللهم إلا أن يكون المُطالع يكتفي بظاهر الكلام فقط دون معرفة ما وراءه.