Massoud Vahedi

There is no use engaging with an interlocutor when they resort to ad hominems and stroking their ego by talking about their "qualifications" instead of directly addressing a point of contention. When someone lacks substance, they must appeal to shaming the other side and talking about their own authority. The fallacy of this approach is that even if they may be more qualified in general terms, they have not proven how their knowledge is reflected specifically in the particular issue of contention.

Some beautiful reflections from Ibn al-Qayyim on how Musa 'alayhi al-Salam gently called Fir'awn to Allah. Musa did not order Fir'awn to believe in Allah by making a direct command – he made the call to monotheism in the form of a question, an offer rather than a demand. Instead of telling Fir'awn, "Shall I not purify you?", he said, "Would YOU YOURSELF like to purify YOURSELF?" putting the ball in Fir'awn's court.

A promising publication: A critical edition of Ibn Taymiyya's Minhāj al-Sunnah. One noteworthy addition is that they cross-examined Ibn Taymiyya's references to Shi'ite tradition from extant Shi'ite sources.

One of my close friends said: "There is nothing more shameful than the 'student of knowledge' who rushes through reading or even skips the verses of the Qur'an found in the fiqh books he reads! You ignore the verses of your Lord in the book you're reading but carefully read every single word found around them!"

"Several members of the Salaf, including Qatadah and al-Dahhak, remarked that every mention of the word ka's (كأس) in the Qur’an is an implicit reference to wine." – Sh. 'Abd al-Muhsin b. 'Abd al-'Aziz al-'Askar. This reflects the eloquence of the Qur’anic discourse: the vessel alone is mentioned, while its contents are left unstated. The listener or reader is expected to apprehend the intended meaning through subtle indication.

Some scholars have said: The hadith, “Actions are only by intentions,” is the benchmark for inward actions. Whereas the hadith, “Whoever introduces into our affair [that which does not belong to it, then it is rejected],” is the criterion for outward actions.

Being punctual isn't just about following some rules, but it's about showing respect for others and yourself. I always recall the quote of Elin Hilderbrand from High school days where she says: “To be early is to be on time, to be on time is to be late, to be late is to be forgotten” Arriving early means you are prepared, reliable, and respectful of other people’s time. But if you arrive exactly at the starting moment, you may still need time to settle in, prepare, or respond to unexpected delays. So “on time” is treated as barely acceptable or practically late. Likewise.. repeated lateness can damage trust, reputation, and opportunities. People may stop depending on you or overlook you entirely.

"وذكر الشيخ محمد محمود اتلاميد الشنقيطي أن اسم عمر جمع عُمرة وأنه منصرف، وهذا خطأ فادح و شذوذ منه رحمه الله، فقد خالف جماهير الأمة." - الشيخ عبد المحسن بن عبد العزيز العسكر

Reminder that this class will begin tomorrow insha' Allah! You don't want to miss it!

English isn't a dirty language. It's simply a means of communication like any other language. Allah says, "We have sent no messenger but in the language of his people, in order to make things clear for them." (Ibrahim: 4) My people speak English, so we communicate in English. Simples!

Has the Field of Philosophy Achieved any Genuine Progress? Writing a few decades back, Dr. Tawfiq al-Tawil said: "If we leave the traditional schools of philosophy and turn to look at the latest voice in the world of philosophy, known as existentialism, and glance at the views of its top proponents, we find that philosophy has remained exactly where it was before: it is still in its its infancy, though it has been around twenty-six centuries." - trans. M. S. Kayani

Ibn al-Jawzi in Sayd al-Khatir warns of how a person of knowledge should not be ignorant of history, as it can lead to serious misconceptions and absurd errors that are unbefitting of their status. P.S. I know the translation is not that good, but it was the best I could find!

Shaykh Ammar Jakda, a leading scholar in the Greater Toronto Area, will be teaching an online class about the four Sunni legal schools of thought and their methodologies. The course starts this Thursday (May 14). The course should be beneficial for individuals who wish to begin their journey studying fiqh and appreciating how law is conceptualized and practiced in the Sunni paradigm. For more information and to register, refer to the following link: https://www.wijhah.org/courses/beyond-the-differences-the-four-schools?v=v3&fbclid=IwY2xjawRwwgVleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFlZzBYUUFpWkVtTU54YWYzc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHtUytRsHdczOrIL-PjFcBCKWFSGpP6-E5h06QjIFavDlTZqnxCL-iJStvuyA_aem_G6DLpfAQEYbB2lNcQ8eEOg

This statement is either fabricated or has had incorrect meanings added to it. It cannot be correct in its current form. Knowing the history of coffee reveals why that is the case. Shaykh 'Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani passed away at 561 AH/1165 CE. Coffee was discovered and introduced in the Muslim world approximately 3 centuries later. Moreover, the Hanbali scholar and historian 'Abd al-Qadir al-Jaziri al-Hanbali has a detailed book (entitled 'Umdah al-Safwah) on the history and ruling on coffee. Nowhere does he mention this statement of al-Jilani. If it was true, it would have certainly been worth quoting (especially from a fellow Hanbali), considering all the other less important information and quotations he shares from the scholars of all madhabs concerning coffee. Al-Jaziri goes through much pains in his book to establish the ruling of coffee's permissibility. If Shaykh al-Jilani had said this, it would have been a golden piece of evidence to establish the praiseworthy status of coffee.

"Imam Abū al-Ḥasan al-Māwardī may be regarded as being among the first scholars to explicitly articulate the distinction between al-tafsīr bi al-maʾthūr (tafsīr by relying on transmitted proofs) and al-tafsīr bi al-raʾy (tafsīr via independant reasoning)." - Dr. Muhammad Ghalib al-'Umari

We often hear of the principle: (لا مشاحة في الاصطلاح). While true, this principle is not fully applicable in absolute terms as many people assume today. It only applies if the term's meaning has not settled yet and different scholars continue to assign conflicting meanings to it. But once a term has been given an * agreed-upon * meaning by the scholars and it settles, one cannot then change its meaning by assigning their own proposed definition. The latter is owing to another governing principle: (تغيير الاصطلاح من غير فائدة في قوة الخطأ عند المحصلين). -summarized from Sheikh Muhammad al-Sayyid al-Hanbali

Were Hanafis the First to Write in Usul al-Fiqh? Read a critical breakdown here: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=27320789767519064&set=a.577010225657048&notif_id=1778481299547551&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif

Muslim Neo-Traditionalists and Muslim Reformists when "Meta-Fiqh" enters the chat.

Muslim Traditionalist figures when talking about the Hanbali Madhhab in public classes: "We absolutely recognize the Hanbali madhhab as one of the four valid schools of thought, and you may follow it." Muslim Traditionalist figures when talking about the Hanbali Madhhab in private amongst themselves....