KR

WHEN HE WAS FOUR YEARS OLD

"Ala hazrat was also a great scientist, he has written more than a 100 books related to science, and in a book he explained the formula of the ultrasound machine"

حلقة ممتعة أنصح بسماعها https://youtube.com/watch?v=AgclkR3OLgI&si=Q_2gZEs-NZf4oMsd

The problem is how the other side goes out of its way to delegitimise any practice other than their understanding. It’s obvious why the proponents of Arabic-only sermon have the attitude that nothing else will do, and why they can’t accept the alternative practice as a valid one. It’s because this issue is now one of identity for them. It also sets themselves up as defenders and gatekeepers of tradition. This explains the attitude of intolerance.

Further to the citations shared above, beyond validity, the question now becomes as to whether there is an element of undesirability (karahah). This comes back to conceptualising the sermon. Is it purely Dhikr? Is it purely a reminder? Is it a hybrid of the two? If any aspect of the ritual nature is diminished, there might be more leeway. Certainly, when two competing factors are pulling an act in opposite directions – and plenty of examples can be found like this in Ibn Rushd’s Bidayat ‘l-Mujtahid – then it automatically becomes a grey area of Fiqh where difference of opinion must be tolerated.

Some claimants have said that any place nowadays where there is non-Arabic khutbah was because of European colonial powers. This is patently false – none of the following countries were colonised by them: - Japan: https://youtu.be/wg2fgrvI2mg?si=iL-58Y0wiqX1lGSj - South Korea: https://youtu.be/YbZpThZQH2I?si=ebiZPcanNue2kCdg - Thailand: https://youtu.be/02fhsiXM_x0?si=XMa3BcfK_74DnS0T - Liberia: https://youtu.be/Ia4cuch_kJw?si=BeXruT0GCe3a1mne Even if sceptic argues there was an element of European colonisation in them and therefore can be dismissed, that doesn’t mean the colonisers specifically targeted the Muslims on the issue of language. If anything, the colonisers prevented the promotion of the Arabic language in schools, which is why most non-Arabs do not understand the Arabic Khutbah. So the correct anti-colonial response would have been to institutionalise the study of classical Arabic for Muslim children, instead of focusing on an Arabic sermon without offering people the requisite knowledge to understand it. But if we really want to go down that route, the Muslims hailing from the Sub-Continent should realise that Persian was the lingua franca of scholars, until the British came, who uprooted the medium of Persian and replaced it with… URDU. Your Urdu obsession is a remnant of British colonialism. It certainly isn’t anything to do with the religion.

And the contemporary scholar Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Mukhtar al-Shinqiti said that it is fine so long as the requisite Arabic quota of the sermon is met: فاختلف العلماء رحمهم الله في صحة خطبة الجمعة بغير العربية على قولين مشهورين، والصحيح أنه يبتدئ الخطبة والموعظة بالكلام العربي حتى يحصِّل القدر المعتبر لصحتها، ثم بعد ذلك يخطب بلغة القوم ولا حرج عليه حينئذٍ، أما لو تمحضت بالأعجمية، فإن في صحتها نظراً، ولذلك لا بد من ورودها على الوجه الذي ذكرنا، فيخطب بالعربية على القدر المجزي بما فيه بشارة ونذارة، ثم بعد ذلك شأنه بالقوم يعظهم ويذكرهم. والله تعالى أعلم.

For the Hanafis, Ibn Mazah al-Bukhari in al-Muhit al-Burhani considered the khutbah valid according to Abu Hanifah as well as in a view ascribed to Abu Yusuf: ولو خطب بالفارسية جاز عند أبي حنيفة رحمه الله تعالى على كل حال، وروى بشر عن أبي يوسف: أنه إذا خطب بالفارسية وهو يحسن العربية لا يجزئه إلا أن يكون ذكر الله في ذلك العربية في حرف أو أكثر من قبل أنه يجزىء في الخطبة ذكر الله تعالى، وما زاد فهو أفضل. قال الحاكم أبو الفضل: هذا خلاف قوله المشهور For the Malikis, in his Fatawa, Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani was asked about a Berber who does not know Arabic: can he supplicate in his mother tongue? His answer was there is not issue with that, as Allah knows every language. Given his view on using Berber *inside* Salah, his position of a Berber Khutbah can perhaps be easily determined. For the Shafi’is, offering a part of the Khutbah in Arabic is good enough for the core component (rukn) that is the Arabic language. This is from Ramli’s Nihayat ‘l-Muhtaj: (قَوْلُهُ: كَمَا أَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِهِمَا أَرْكَانُهُمَا) يُفِيدُ أَنَّهُ لَوْ كَانَ مَا بَيْنَ أَرْكَانِهِمَا بِغَيْرِ الْعَرَبِيَّةِ لَمْ يَضُرَّ، وَيَجِبُ وِفَاقًا لِ م ر أَنَّ مَحَلَّهُ إذَا لَمْ يَطُلْ الْفَصْلُ بِغَيْرِ الْعَرَبِيِّ وَإِلَّا ضَرَّ لِإِخْلَالِهِ بِالْمُوَالَاةِ كَالسُّكُوتِ بَيْنَ الْأَرْكَانِ إذَا طَالَ بِجَامِعِ أَنَّ غَيْرَ الْعَرَبِيِّ لَغْوٌ لَا يُحْسَبُ، لِأَنَّ غَيْرَ الْعَرَبِيِّ لَا يُجْزِئُ مَعَ الْقُدْرَةِ عَلَى الْعَرَبِيِّ فَهُوَ لَغْوٌ انْتَهَى سم عَلَى مَنْهَجٍ. وَالْقِيَاسُ عَدَمُ الضَّرَرِ مُطْلَقًا، وَيُفَرَّقُ بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ السُّكُوتِ بِأَنَّ فِي السُّكُوتِ إعْرَاضًا عَنْ الْخُطْبَةِ بِالْكُلِّيَّةِ، بِخِلَافِ غَيْرِ الْعَرَبِيِّ فَإِنَّ فِيهِ وَعْظًا فِي الْجُمْلَةِ فَلَا يَخْرُجُ بِذَلِكَ عَنْ كَوْنِهِ مِنْ الْخُطْبَةِ On either side of this citation, حاشية الشرواني adds the following two interesting passages. The first states that the stipulation in the Shafi’i School for the sermon being in Arabic is when there is an Arab in the congregation. Otherwise, apart from verses, it can be conducted in non-Arabic: وَمَحَلُّ اشْتِرَاطِ الْعَرَبِيَّةِ إنْ كَانَ فِي الْقَوْمِ عَرَبِيٌّ وَإِلَّا كَفَى كَوْنُهَا بِالْعَجَمِيَّةِ إلَّا فِي الْآيَةِ In the second, it goes on to say that if the khatib is good at two non-Arabic languages and the congregation only understand one of the two, then he may not offer the sermon in the language they do not understand, but he can do so in the language they do: قَالَ ع ش قَوْلُهُ: م ر، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَعْرِفْهَا إلَخْ قَضِيَّتُهُ أَنَّ الْخَطِيبَ لَوْ أَحْسَنَ لُغَتَيْنِ غَيْرَ عَرَبِيَّتَيْنِ كَرُومِيَّةٍ وَفَارِسِيَّةٍ مَثَلًا وَبَاقِي الْقَوْمِ يُحْسِنُ إحْدَاهُمَا فَقَطْ أَنَّ لِلْخَطِيبِ أَنْ يَخْطُبَ بِاللُّغَةِ الَّتِي لَا يُحْسِنُونَهَا وَفِيهِ نَظَرٌ بَلْ الظَّاهِرُ أَنَّ الْخُطْبَةَ لَا تُجْزِي حِينَئِذٍ إلَّا بِاللُّغَةِ الَّتِي يُحْسِنُهَا The Hanbalis has one view in which a completely non-Arabic Khutbah is allowed, so forget a Khutbah that has both Arabic and non-Arabic. This is from Mardawi’s Al-Insaf: لثَّانِيَةُ: لَا تَصِحُّ الْخُطْبَةُ بِغَيْرِ الْعَرَبِيَّةِ مَعَ الْقُدْرَةِ، عَلَى الصَّحِيحِ مِنْ الْمَذْهَبِ، وَقِيلَ: تَصِحُّ، وَتَصِحُّ مَعَ الْعَجْزِ قَوْلًا وَاحِدًا، وَلَا يُعْتَبَرُ عَنْ الْقِرَاءَةِ بِكُلِّ حَالٍ. وقيل تصح In Majallat ‘l-Bayan, the Hanafi-trained Rashid Rida highlighted the necessity of having the sermon in a language that the people understand: موعظة الناس وتذكيرهم: عن جابر بن سمرة قال: كانت للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم خطبتان يجلس بينهما: يقرأ القرآن ويذكّر الناس. وقوله يذكر الناس فيه دليل على جواز الخطبة بلغة غير العربية، لكن لا بد له من قراءة الآيات والأحاديث بالعربية كما لا يخفى، ثم يترجم معانيها بلغة المخاطبين. وإذا فهم المقصود من الخطبة عُلم أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لم تكن خطبته مجرد كلام لا حياة فيه ولا روح، ولا رسالة ولا توجيه، بل كانت متصلة بالحياة، وبالواقع كل الاتصال، وقد كانت خطبه تملأ القلوب إيماناً وتوحيداً، لا كخطب غيره التي قد لا يحصل منها إلا النوح على الحياة، فتخلو من ذكر ما يعرّف بالله ويذكّر بأيامه، ويبعث النفوس على محبته، والشوق إلى لقائه.

Al-Muhit al-Burhani rejects the view that the Friday Khutbah is a substitute for two units from Zuhr

Jewish Chronicle - it got caught out https://www.972mag.com/jewish-chronicle-elon-perry-netanyahu-intelligence/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/14/crisis-at-jewish-chronicle-as-stories-are-withdrawn https://www.jewishpress.com/news/media/sacked-by-the-jewish-chronicle-elon-perry-may-have-been-duped/2024/09/15/

And to that, I say the following: When reading a Quran translation, people ought to do three things: 1) Fix their attitude. Have an approach of humility before reading the Quran, and take guidance from it while recognising you're not a specialist (and not giving fatwa). 2) Ask specialists any questions you have while reading the Quran, and partake in their public Quran lessons. 3) Actively read explanations on the Quranic verses - i.e. English tafsir. I believe if someone does this, they've done what's within their capacity and are not accountable. Are you going to make mistakes along the way? Sure, but by doing the above, these mistakes are less severe than the mistake of abandoning the Quran and failing to take its guidance. Sincere mistakes, we are told in the hadith, are forgiven anyway. Allah has accepted the Quranic supplication: "Our Lord, do not take us to account if we forget or commit error." (ربنا لا تؤاخذنا إن نسينا أو أخطأنا) Among the Companions too we find some instances of misunderstanding verses (e.g. حتى يتبين لكم الخيط الأبيض من الخيط الأسود من الفجر) - but the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not tell them to stop taking Quranic guidance as a result of that mistake. Rather, the response was simple: Recognise the mistake, correct it, and move on. Continue taking Quranic guidance. So, should you read Quran translations? Absolutely! There's no doubt about it.

Should people actually read Quran translations? Now this question can be responded to in two ways: 1) The commonsense response - which is to say, "The purpose of every book is for it to be read and understood. You wouldn't go through a history book by simply articulating letters without understanding, so why do that with the book you call God's revelation and guidance?" 2) The bird's-eye perspective of building a meaningful connection with God and His message. What do I mean? In order for people and communities to embody change, there must be long-term lifelong activities that set that trajectory for change. Part of this is an active, living and intellectually stimulating relationship with God and what He expects from us. In the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), all attention was given to the Quran. There was no other book. The Companions, from the very day they converted -- whether that was in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s or 60s -- were taught to learn and study the Quran until the day they died. That was their lifelong project. The Quran was their template in understanding what God wanted from them, not just in the law and legalities (which, of course, only directly relate to a small portion of the Quran), but also one's outlook and philosophy on life. You take that all from the Quran. So to say, "You shouldn't read Quran translations" is similar to saying, "Don't treat the Quran like the Companions did - a book of guidance from which you take inspiration and shape your worldview." It makes no sense. The Quran is the book we proudly hold high up in the air and say, "This is the book that guides to the most upright way and from which I take inspiration. This is communication from God." But how can someone who doesn't attempt to read Quran translations and revelation make that claim?? What inspiration are they actually taking from it? Now, of course, a concerned fellow might ask: "But what if I misunderstand the Quran?"

Madaris here call themselves Azhar e Hind to show how great they are but to find out they also discourage students from going to Azhar is hilarious

(ولتعلم ثقل الأمانة في التصحيح والتضعيف. فرب حديث من هداية الوحي ثم صد الناس عن الاهتداء به بسبب خلل في التضعيف. ورب حديث لا علاقه له بالوحي ضل الناس باتباعه بسبب خلل في التصحيح. واعلم أن التصحيح والتضعيف فتوى حديثية، ومنصب المفتي ليس منصبا سهلا! فاتق الله في تسنم رتبةٍ ما أحلّك العلم فيها) من خاتمة مقرر التخريج ومنهج الحكم على الحديث للشريف حاتم العوني