al-Ḥanafiyyah | ٱلْمَذْهَب ٱلْحَنَفِيّ
Open in Telegram
Ḥanafī Madhhab in English, German, and Türkish. Join chat: https://t.me/+riq_pJqincgxNGM0 Share our channel: https://t.me/hanafi_school Tritt unserem deutschen Kanal bei: https://t.me/hanafi_school_deutsch
Show more3 020
Subscribers
+524 hours
+27 days
+8530 days
Data loading in progress...
Similar Channels
Tags Cloud
Incoming and Outgoing Mentions
---
---
---
---
---
---
Attracting Subscribers
September '26
September '26
+19
in 1 channels
August '26
+167
in 3 channels
Get PRO
July '26
+150
in 3 channels
Get PRO
June '26
+137
in 3 channels
Get PRO
May '26
+128
in 2 channels
Get PRO
April '26
+115
in 3 channels
Get PRO
March '26
+154
in 3 channels
Get PRO
February '26
+258
in 6 channels
Get PRO
January '26
+163
in 2 channels
Get PRO
December '25
+383
in 6 channels
Get PRO
November '25
+124
in 3 channels
Get PRO
October '25
+63
in 2 channels
Get PRO
September '25
+123
in 1 channels
Get PRO
August '25
+101
in 5 channels
Get PRO
July '25
+100
in 3 channels
Get PRO
June '25
+279
in 2 channels
Get PRO
May '25
+75
in 2 channels
Get PRO
April '25
+82
in 2 channels
Get PRO
March '25
+150
in 4 channels
Get PRO
February '25
+69
in 2 channels
Get PRO
January '25
+79
in 3 channels
Get PRO
December '24
+113
in 0 channels
Get PRO
November '24
+163
in 1 channels
Get PRO
October '24
+158
in 2 channels
Get PRO
September '24
+74
in 0 channels
Get PRO
August '24
+91
in 1 channels
Get PRO
July '24
+177
in 3 channels
Get PRO
June '24
+36
in 0 channels
Get PRO
May '24
+12
in 1 channels
Get PRO
April '24
+327
in 2 channels
Get PRO
March '240
in 0 channels
Get PRO
February '24
+26
in 0 channels
| Date | Subscriber Growth | Mentions | Channels | |
| 07 September | +2 | |||
| 06 September | +5 | |||
| 05 September | +4 | |||
| 04 September | 0 | |||
| 03 September | +2 | |||
| 02 September | +4 | |||
| 01 September | +2 |
Channel Posts
The Teacher Should Not Refuse to Teach Due to an Imperfect Intention
The teacher should not refrain from teaching a student merely because the student’s intention is not yet sincere. Rather, he should hope that the student’s intention will become sound through the blessing of knowledge.
One of the Salaf said:
🔴We sought knowledge for other than Allāh, but knowledge refused to be for anything other than Allāh.🔴It has been explained that this means that the eventual outcome of their pursuit was that it became for Allāh. This is also because, if sincerity of intention were made a prerequisite for teaching beginners, despite the difficulty of attaining such sincerity for many of them, it would lead to many people being deprived of knowledge altogether. Rather, the teacher should gradually cultivate in the beginner a good and sincere intention, both through his words and through his actions. Once the student becomes accustomed to and attached to the pursuit of knowledge, the teacher should teach him that, through the blessing of a good intention, he may attain: • An exalted rank in knowledge and righteous action. • The outpouring of subtle spiritual gifts. • Various forms of wisdom. • Illumination of the heart. • Expansion of the heart. • Success in forming a firm and sound resolve. • Attainment of the truth. • Excellence and rectitude in one's spiritual state. • Soundness and correctness in speech. • Elevation of one's ranks on the Day of Resurrection. Thus, the wise teacher does not demand perfection from the beginner before teaching him. Rather, he teaches him, and through the blessing of that knowledge, gradually guides him toward sincerity.
📚 • Adab al-ʿĀlim wa-l-Mutaʿallim, p. 72-73.
| 2 |  Will Believers Who Died Unmarried Marry in Paradise?
As for the question of whether the children of believers who did not marry in this world will marry in the Hereafter, the apparent meaning of the Prophetic traditions indicates that they will marry.
Likewise, girls who died as virgins will also marry men from the people of this world.
It is narrated in al-Bukhārī and Muslim from Abū Hurayrah رضي الله عنه that the Companions discussed whether men or women would be more numerous in Paradise. He said:
🔴Did the Messenger of Allāh ⚡️ not say: ‘There is no one in Paradise except that he will have two wives. Indeed, he will see the marrow of their shins through seventy layers of clothing. There is no unmarried person in Paradise.’🔴
According to the narrations transmitted by Abū Yaʿlā and al-Bayhaqī, each of the people of Paradise will have two wives from among the human women, in addition to whatever he has of the Ḥūr al-ʿĪn:
🔴A man among them will enter upon seventy-two wives: two from among those whom Allāh creates, and two from the descendants of Ādam. The latter two will have superiority over those whom Allāh creates because of their worship of Allāh in this world.🔴
Accordingly, whoever among the believers dies before marrying will marry two human women, due to the generality of the texts negating the existence of unmarried people in Paradise and the generality of the texts concerning marriage.
The apparent position is that his two wives will be women who themselves had no husbands in this world. However, an explicit statement to this effect has not been found in the transmitted texts.
And Allāh knows best.
📌 • Kashf al-Shubuhāt ʿan Ihdāʾ al-Qirāʾah wa-Sāʾir al-Qurab lil-Amwāt by al-Faqīh al-Shaykh Maḥmūd Ḥasan Rabīʿ al-Azharī, p. 71. | 246 |
| 3 |  The Company of the Intelligent
What increases the intelligent person in the growth and refinement of his intellect is drawing close to those who resemble him and distancing himself from those who are contrary to him.
It has been said:
«جالسوا الألباء، أصدقاء كانوا أو أعداء؛ فإن العقول تلقح العقول.»
“Keep the company of intelligent people, whether they are friends or enemies, for indeed, intellects cultivate one another.”
Abū Ḥātim 🇧🇬 said:
“Keeping the company of intelligent people is never devoid of one of two benefits:
— Either it reminds the intelligent person of a matter to which he needs to pay attention;
— or it imparts to him something valuable that the ignorant person needs to know.”
📌 • Rawḍat al-ʿUqalāʾ. | 275 |
| 4 |  Who Are the Righteous Servants of Allāh?
Allāh ʿAzza wa-jall says:
«وَعَلَىٰ عِبَادِ اللَّهِ الصَّالِحِينَ»
“And upon the righteous servants of Allāh.”
A discussion once took place between Shaykh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Ḥāḍirī and Mullā Aḥmad Qajqān concerning the meaning of ʿibād Allāh al-ṣāliḥīn, “the righteous servants of Allāh.”
Shaykh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz initially said:
🔴The righteous are those whom Sayyid Aḥmad al-Rifāʿī 🇧🇳, mentioned, and those who follow their way.🔴
Mullā Aḥmad replied:
“No; rather, it means every believer.”
Shaykh ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz later mentioned this discussion to his own shaykh, Shaykh Aḥmad Jāmī, without mentioning Mullā Aḥmad’s name. Shaykh Aḥmad Jāmī then said:
🔴The truth is with Mullā Aḥmad.🔴
This understanding is further illustrated by what Imām al-Shaʿrānī relates in al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā from Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Mursī, who said that he heard Shaykh Abū al-Ḥasan al-Shādhilī 🇧🇳, say:
🔴If the light of a sinful believer were unveiled, it would encompass what is between the heavens and the earth. So what, then, do you suppose the light of an obedient believer is like?🔴
The point is profound. Even a sinful believer possesses a light by virtue of his īmān. The distinction between the sinful and obedient believer is therefore not the presence versus absence of īmān, but the strength and manifestation of that light.
This meaning finds further support in the ḥadīth narrated in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, in which the Messenger of Allāh ⚡️ said:
«وَسُبْحَانَ اللهِ وَالْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ تَمْلَانِ - أَوْ تَمْلَأُ - مَا بَيْنَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ»
“Subḥān Allāh and al-ḥamdu lillāh fill, or fills, the space between the heavens and the earth.”
Thus, the designation “the righteous servants of Allāh” need not be restricted to a particular class of exceptionally pious individuals. Rather, in this context, it encompasses the believers, while their righteousness and spiritual illumination differ according to their īmān, obedience, and nearness to Allāh.
One should therefore not imagine that the ʿibād Allāh al-ṣāliḥūn are exclusively the spiritual elite, the saints, or those who have reached extraordinary stations.
Every believer has a share in the servitude of Allāh and possesses a light through īmān.
The obedient believer increases that light through obedience, while sin diminishes its manifestation. Yet the fundamental light of īmān remains a tremendous gift from Allāh ʿazza wa-jall.
And Allāh knows best. | 323 |
| 5 | There are some different reports however coming from Sufyan and Layth bin Sa’d and even Abu Yusuf when it comes to it being permissible for the Aseer and not the Musta’man Muslim, but this is not our objective. We have not even spoken about the other two Madhaahib!
Practically every thing these Haddādīs attack the Hanafīs over can be found as a Qawl in their own Madhhab with some of their own adhering to it.
We urge these sectarian cretins to return to Ahlus Sunnah and to repent for disparaging the A’immah and to rebuild unity between us, In Sha Allah. | 321 |
| 6 | Many prejudiced Hanābilah such as the Haddādiyyah like to attack Abu Haneefah and Muhammad (but they never attack Ibrahim an Nakha’i and Sufyan Ath Thawri who held the same) for the relevant opinion of Ribā in Dār Al Harb.
This is incredibly incredulous from them given that this opinion is also another Riwāyah from their own Imām Ahmad, as well as what some of the Hanābilah themselves adopted.
One of the leaders of this cult of Haddādiyyah who has gained prominence online is an individual that is simply 18 years of age - yet he has thousands of impressionable people that follow him - and most shockingly, STUDY under him - in his disgusting comments about the A’immah.
As Imām Ash Shāfi’i says: one of the conditions for obtaining knowledge is the passing of time and attainment of age. It’s no doubt that these filthy individuals continue to make a mockery out of Ahlus Sunnah since they themselves are still fresh out of the loins of their fathers.
———
Ibn Muflih says in Al Mubdi’ Fī Sharh al Muqni’ 4/153
وَنَقَلَ الْمَيْمُونِيُّ أَنَّهُ مُحَرَّمٌ إِلَّا بَيْنَ مُسْلِمٍ وَحَرْبِيٍّ لَا أَمَانَ بَيْنَهُمَا جَزَمَ بِهِ فِي " الْمُسْتَوْعِبِ "، وَ " الْمُحَرَّرِ "، وَهُوَ ظَاهِرُ " الْوَجِيزِ "، وَعَنْهُ: لَا يَحْرُمُ فِي دَارِ الْحَرْبِ، ذَكَرَهَا فِي " الْمُوجَزِ " وَأَقَرَّهَا الشَّيْخُ تَقِيُّ الدِّينِ عَلَى ظَاهِرِهَا لِمَا رَوَى مَكْحُول مَرْفُوعًا: «لَا رِبَا بَيْنَ الْمُسْلِمِ وَأَهْلِ الْحَرْبِ فِي دَارِ الْحَرْبِ» ، وَلِأَنَّ أَمْوَالَهُمْ مُبَاحَةٌ، وَإِنَّمَا حَظَرَهَا الْأَمَانُ فِي دَارِ الْإِسْلَامِ،
فَمَا لَمْ يَكُنْ كَذَلِكَ كَانَ مُبَاحًا
In Al Insāf by Al Mardāwī 5/53:
وَفِي الْمُوجَزِ رِوَايَةٌ: لَا يَحْرُمُ الرِّبَا فِي دَارِ الْحَرْبِ. وَأَقَرَّهَا الشَّيْخُ تَقِيُّ الدِّينِ - رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ - عَلَى ظَاهِرِهَا. قُلْت: يُمْكِنُ أَنْ يُفَرِّقَ بَيْنَ الرِّوَايَةِ الَّتِي فِي التَّبْصِرَةِ وَغَيْرِهَا، وَبَيْنَ الرِّوَايَةِ الَّتِي فِي الْمُوجَزِ، وَحَمَلَهَا عَلَى ظَاهِرِهَا، بِأَنَّ الرِّوَايَةَ الَّتِي فِي التَّبْصِرَةِ وَغَيْرِهَا: لَمْ يُقَيِّدْهَا بِعَدَمِ الْأَمَانِ. فَيَدْخُلُ فِيهَا لَوْ كَانُوا بِدَارِنَا أَوْ دَارِهِمْ بِأَمَانٍ، أَوْ غَيْرِهِ. فَرِوَايَةُ التَّبْصِرَةِ أَعَمُّ لِشُمُولِهَا دَارَ الْحَرْبِ وَدَارَ الْإِسْلَامِ، بِأَمَانٍ أَوْ غَيْرِهِ. وَرِوَايَةُ الْمُوجَزِ أَخَصُّ، لِقُصُورِهَا عَلَى دَارِ الْحَرْبِ، وَحَمْلِهَا عَلَى ظَاهِرِهَا، سَوَاءٌ كَانَ بَيْنَهُمْ أَمَانٌ أَوْ لَا، وَلَا يَتَوَهَّمُ مُتَوَهِّمٌ أَنَّ ظَاهِرَهَا يَشْمَلُ الْمُسْلِمَ. فَإِنَّ هَذَا بِلَا نِزَاعٍ فِيهِ. وَمَعَاذَ اللَّهِ أَنْ يُرِيدَ ذَلِكَ الْإِمَامُ أَحْمَدُ - رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ
This - as has been mentioned - is also the opinion Ibn Taymiyyah leaned toward as mentioned by Ibn Muflih.
Ibn Muflih goes into more detail in Al Furū’ 6/292:
وَهُوَ مُحَرَّمٌ مُطْلَقًا, نَصَّ عَلَيْهِ, كَدَارِ الْبَغْيِ, لِأَنَّهُ لَا يَدَ لِلْإِمَامِ عَلَيْهِمَا, قَالَ فِي عُيُونِ الْمَسَائِلِ: وَالْبَاغِي مَعَ الْعَادِلِ كَالْمُسْلِمِ مَعَ الْحَرْبِيِّ, لِأَنَّ كُلًّا مِنْهُمَا لَا يَضْمَنُ مَالَ صَاحِبِهِ بِالْإِتْلَافِ, فَهِيَ كَدَارِ حَرْبٍ, كَذَا قَالَ.
وَفِي الْمُسْتَوْعِبِ فِي الْجِهَادِ وَالْمُحَرَّرِ: إلَّا بَيْنَ مُسْلِمٍ وَحَرْبِيٍّ لَا أَمَانَ بَيْنَهُمَا, وَنَقَلَهُ الْمَيْمُونِيُّ, وَهُوَ ظَاهِرُ كَلَامِ الْخِرَقِيِّ فِي دَارِ حَرْبٍ, وَلَمْ يُقَيِّدْهَا فِي التَّبْصِرَةِ وَغَيْرِهَا بِعَدَمِ الْأَمَانِ وَفِي الْمُوجَزِ رِوَايَةٌ: لَا يَحْرُمُ فِي دار حرب, وأقرها شيخنا على ظاهرها, و"١عنه: لَا رِبَا بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ مُكَاتَبِهِ, كَعَبْدِهِ, فَعَلَى الْمَنْعِ فَلَوْ زَادَ الْأَجَلُ وَالدَّيْنُ جَازَ, فِي احْتِمَالٍ١".
وَفِي الِانْتِصَارِ فِي حَدِيثِ الرَّقَبَةِ٢: مَالُ كَافِرٍ مُصَالَحٍ مُبَاحٌ بِطِيبِ نَفْسِهِ, وَالْحَرْبِيُّ يُبَاحُ أَخْذُهُ عَلَى أَيِّ وَجْهٍ, وَقَالَ:كُلُّ شَرْطٍ يُعْتَبَرُ فِي مُعَامَلَةِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ يُعْتَبَرُ فِي مُعَامَلَةِ ذِمِّيٍّ وَمُسْتَأْمَنٍ, وَالْمَذْهَبُ: لَا يَحْرُمُ رِبَا الْفَضْلِ إلَّا فِي بَيْعِ كُلِّ مَكِيلٍ أَوْ مَوْزُونٍ بِجِنْسِهِ
Here are explicit statements that show there is indeed a riwayah from Ahmad in accordance to the view of Abu Haneefah and Muhammad and Ibrahim an Nakha’i and Sufyan Ath Thawri - in which Ibn Taymiyyah also leaned to. | 616 |
| 7 | How Should One Suppress a Yawn?
If possible, one should suppress the yawn by grasping the lips with the teeth rather than immediately covering the mouth with one's hand or garment.
He should grasp his lower lip with one's teeth.
There is some variation in the transmitted wording concerning which hand should be used to cover the mouth.
One transmission mentions the left hand, while other Ḥanafī works transmit that it should be covered with the right hand.
Some scholars reconcile the reports by distinguishing between postures:
- While standing: the right hand is used.
- In other positions: the left hand is used.
The underlying consideration is ease of movement and avoiding unnecessary movement of both hands.
The important point is that covering the mouth with the hand or garment is only resorted to when one cannot suppress the yawn by means of the mouth itself.
al-Khulāṣah states:
«If a person is able to suppress the yawn by grasping his lips with his teeth, but does not do so and instead covers his mouth with his hand or garment, then this is makrūh. This has been narrated from Imām Abū Ḥanīfah رحمه الله.» | 365 |
| 8 |  Ādāb al-Ṣalāh — The Etiquettes of Prayer — Ḥanafī Maddhab
The Ḥanafī scholars discuss a number of recommended etiquettes (ādāb) pertaining to the prayer. These are acts which the Messenger of Allāh ⚡️ performed on one or two occasions but did not consistently maintain.
What is The Meaning of Adab?
Ādāb is the plural of adab. In the terminology of prayer, adab refers to an action performed by the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ once or twice without his consistently maintaining it.
An example is reciting more than three tasbīḥāt in rukūʿ and sujūd.
This definition is mentioned in works such as Ghāyat al-Bayān and al-ʿInāyah. In al-Ḥilyah, several definitions are given, after which it is stated that the apparent position is that adab is equivalent to the mandūb (recommended act).
🔴Leaving the Adab
When the scholars say that leaving an adab is such-and-such, they mean leaving the particular recommended etiquette included within the plural term ādāb.
Its ruling resembles leaving the Sunan al-Zawāʾid.
The Sunan al-Zawāʾid are the non-emphasized Sunnah (al-sunan ghayr al-muʾakkadah), such as the Prophet's ⚡️ customary manner concerning:
- His clothing.
- His standing.
- His sitting.
- His grooming.
- His wearing of footwear.
They are distinguished from the Sunan al-Hudā, which constitute recognizable features of the religion, such as:
- The adhān.
- Jamaʿāt prayer.
Both categories are distinct from nafl, under which fall terms such as mandūb, mustaḥabb, and adab.
🔴Where Should One Look During Prayer?
Among the recommended etiquettes is directing one's gaze toward the area immediately before oneself.
The expression إلى أرنبة أنفه (ilā arnabati anfihi) means:
“Toward the tip of his nose.”
Another expression mentioned is إلى حِجره (ilā ḥijrihi), meaning:
“Toward the area of his garment immediately in front of him.”
The underlying objective of these recommendations is khushūʿ.
The purpose behind these guidelines is to attain khushūʿ, devotional humility, attentiveness, and concentration in prayer and to avoid unnecessary distraction.
If a person does not intentionally occupy himself with looking around, his gaze will naturally remain directed toward these areas. This protects him from looking at things that may distract him from his prayer.
This ruling is expressed generally enough to include even looking toward the Kaʿbah. The reason is that a person cannot always be certain that looking at it will not distract him.
Likewise, even if one is praying in darkness, or is blind, the underlying principle remains applicable, the consideration is the attainment of khushūʿ and awareness of the greatness of Allāh.
Thus, if looking at any particular place would actually compromise one's khushūʿ, one should instead direct one's attention toward whatever is more conducive to attaining it.
According to the Ẓāhir al-Riwāyah, the end-point of one's gaze during prayer should be the place of prostration (mawḍiʿ al-sujūd).
This is transmitted in al-Muḍmarāt and adopted by works such as al-Kanz.
The more detailed classifications concerning the precise direction of one's gaze are attributed to the scholars such as al-Ṭaḥāwī and al-Karkhī, as becomes evident from the more extensive Ḥanafī works.
Another etiquette is holding one's mouth closed when yawning.
The scholars emphasize that yawning itself is disliked (makrūh) even outside prayer, because it is attributed to Shayṭān, while the Prophets عليهم السلام are protected from his influence. | 354 |
| 9 |  The renowned Ḥanafī work al-Hidāyah
• Shaykh Dr. ʿAbd al-Ilāh Āl Thābit حفظه الله | 366 |
| 10 |  The Intention (Niyyah) in Wuḍūʾ According to the Ḥanafīs
A common misunderstanding is to assume that because niyyah is not a condition for the validity of wuḍūʾ according to the Ḥanafīs, it has no fiqhī significance whatsoever.
🔴Is niyyah a condition for the validity of wuḍūʾ?
According to the Ḥanafī madhhab, niyyah is not a condition for the validity of wuḍūʾ.
Thus, if a person washes the limbs of wuḍūʾ without intending purification, such as while cooling himself, removing dirt, or entering water without any intention, his ritual purification is nevertheless effected, provided the requisite acts of wuḍūʾ have been fulfilled.
Consequently, if he subsequently prays, the ṣalāh is valid with that purification.
The reason is that water is intrinsically purifying (muṭahhir bi'l-ṭabʿ). The attainment of ṭahārah therefore does not depend upon the intention.
Shaykh al-Islām states in al-Mabsūṭ that there is no dispute concerning the fact that the commanded wuḍūʾ does not occur without niyyah; however, the validity of ṣalāh does not depend upon that commanded wuḍūʾ. Rather, what is ultimately required is purification, and purification can be obtained through the commanded wuḍūʾ or otherwise.
🔴Then why is niyyah recommended in wuḍūʾ?
The answer lies in distinguishing between the attainment of purification and the performance of an act of worship.
The Ḥanafī scholars distinguish between:
🚫 Ṭāʿah (طاعة): an act for which one receives reward, whether or not it requires an intention.
🚫 Qurbah (قربة): an act for which one receives reward after knowing the One to whom one is drawing near, even if the act does not require an intention.
🚫 ʿIbādah (عبادة): an act for which one receives reward and whose performance depends upon intention.
Accordingly, the five prayers, ṣiyām, zakāh and ḥajj are simultaneously ṭāʿah, qurbah and ʿibādah, since their performance requires niyyah.
By contrast, acts such as reciting the Qurʾān, giving ṣadaqah, waqf and ʿitq are ṭāʿah and qurbah, but are not technically ʿibādah in this particular classification, because their validity does not depend upon niyyah.
🔴Where does wuḍūʾ fall?
Wuḍūʾ without niyyah produces ṭahārah and permits ṣalāh, but it does not constitute the commanded wuḍūʾ as an ʿibādah.
Therefore, the niyyah in wuḍūʾ is recommended because it transforms the act into an ʿibādah, thereby making the person deserving of the reward attached to the commanded act.
As stated in al-Baḥr:
🔴Niyyah is not a condition for wuḍūʾ to be a key to ṣalāh; rather, according to the sounder position, it is a condition for it to be a cause of reward.🔴
Thus:
Without niyyah:
The physical and legal purification is attained → ṣalāh is valid.
With niyyah:
Purification is attained + the wuḍūʾ itself becomes an act of worship → reward is obtained.
🔴What should one intend?
The cited Ḥanafī discussion indicates that intending wuḍūʾ is sufficient.
Some scholars discussed whether merely intending ṭahārah is sufficient, because ṭahārah can refer to different forms of purification, such as removal of ḥadath and removal of physical impurity (khabath).
Thus, the safer and more specific intention is:
”نَوَيْتُ الْوُضُوءَ / I intend wuḍūʾ“
Alternatively, one may intend the removal of ritual impurity (rafʿ al-ḥadath) or the fulfilment of Allāh's command, depending upon the particular formulation discussed by the scholars. | 451 |
| 11 | The Ashʿarī position maintains that the mismūʿ [that which was heard] was Allāh's eternal Speech itself, while maintaining its absolute transcendence from the characteristics of created letters and sounds.
The Māturīdī account cited by al-Rāzī instead identifies the particular nidāʾ heard by Mūsā 🇧🇫 as belonging to the genus of letters and sounds.
The Muʿtazilah likewise affirmed letters and sounds, but interpreted them as a created miracle through which Mūsā 🇧🇫 knew that Allāh was addressing him.
— Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb. | 424 |
| 12 |  The Divine Call Heard by Mūsā 🇧🇫
Allāh says:
﴿وَإِذْ نَادَىٰ رَبُّكَ مُوسَىٰ أَنِ ائْتِ الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ﴾ “And when your Lord called out to Mūsā: ‘Go to the wrongdoing people.’” [Qurʾān 26:10]
The Sulṭān al-Mutakallimīn, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī رحمه الله تعالى, discusses the nature of the nidāʾ [call] that Mūsā 🇧🇫 heard from Allāh:
“The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah differed concerning the call that Mūsā 🇧🇫 heard from Allāh: was it His pre-eternal Speech, or was it a kind of sound?”
🔴[1] The Position of Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī
What was heard was the pre-eternal Speech [al-kalām al-qadīm].
Just as His Essence does not resemble any other thing, despite rational proof establishing that His Essence is something that may be known and apprehended, likewise His Speech is transcendent above resembling letters and sounds, despite the fact that it is heard.
Thus, according to the Ashʿarī position, the fact that the divine Speech is heard does not entail that it consists of letters, sounds, or sequential vocal utterances. Just as Allāh's Essence is unlike created things despite being knowable, His Speech is unlike created speech despite being audible to Mūsā 🇧🇫
🔴[2] The Position of Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī
What Mūsā 🇧🇫 heard was a call belonging to the genus of letters and sounds.
This is because when rational proof demonstrated that we perceive both substances [jawāhir] and accidents [aʿrāḍ] through vision, there necessarily had to be a common factor between them by virtue of which they are capable of being seen. There is no such factor other than existence [al-wujūd]. Therefore, we concluded that every existent thing is capable of being seen.
However, it has not been established for us that we hear both sounds and bodies such that we could conclude that there must necessarily be a common factor between a body and a sound. Therefore, it does not follow that everything that exists must be capable of being heard. Hence, the distinction becomes apparent.
al-Māturīdī's argument therefore distinguishes between the conditions of visibility and audibility. The fact that different categories of existent things can be seen does not establish that every existent thing can likewise be heard.
🔴[3] The Position of the Muʿtazilah
As for the Muʿtazilah, they unanimously held that what was heard was nothing other than letters and sounds.
They consequently explained the miraculous nature of the event as follows:
“They therefore said that this call occurred in such a manner that Mūsā 🇧🇫 knew that it was from Allāh. Thus, it became a miracle [muʿjizah] through which he knew that Allāh was addressing him. Consequently, there was no need for an intermediary. | 465 |
| 13 |  On the Greatest Dangers to the Ummah
ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb 🇧🇳 said:
🔴Indeed, what I fear most for you is the changing of the times, the deviation of a scholar, the disputation of a hypocrite using the Qurʾān, and misguided scholars who lead people astray without knowledge.🔴
📌 • Jāmiʿ Bayān al-ʿIlm wa Faḍlihi ibn ʿAbd al-Barr. | 889 |
| 14 | al-Istighāthah has become one of those online disputes among laypeople, so much so that even those who identify themselves as “Sunnīs” are constantly fighting amongst themselves over whether a walī can grant someone a child or not.
The statement of al-ʿAllāmah Ibn ʿĀbidīn quoted above is directly relevant to this entire discussion.
When the majority of the Ḥanafiyyah and Shāfiʿiyyah prohibited istighāthah, how exactly does the permissive position of a handful of selected scholars suddenly become the “Sunnī position” that everyone is expected to defend? (Keeping in mind that, not a single scholar allowed for asking for a child, risq or jannah from a walī)
You cannot take a minority position, detach it from its context, elevate it into a matter of Sunnīsm or not, and then pretend that anyone who disagrees with it has somehow departed from Ahl al-Sunnah.
And to those “Sunnīs” who spend endless hours arguing online over whether X walī can grant a child, learn some ʿulūm before turning every dispute into a loyalty test of Sunnīsm.
If you actually studied the relevant discussions in fiqh, you would understand that the issue is considerably more nuanced than the simplistic arguments being thrown around online.
There is, moreover, an opinion within the Ḥanafī madhhab that the dead do not hear. If you take that position seriously, then a rather basic question presents itself. When you call upon the deceased for help, whom exactly are you addressing, and on what basis do you believe your request is being heard?
Not every disagreement needs to be settled by shouting “Sunnī” and “non-Sunnī.” Sometimes the more appropriate response is to put down the phone and touch some grass. | 755 |
| 15 |  The Ruling on Vows (Nadhr) Made at the Shrines of the Dead — al-Muḥaqqiq Ibn ʿĀbidīn
Someone saying: “O my master, so-and-so! If my absent person returns, or my sick person is cured, or my need is fulfilled, then for you I shall give such-and-such amount of gold or silver, or such-and-such quantity of food, candles, or oil,” and so forth.
This is invalid and unlawful (bāṭil wa-ḥarām). This is for several reasons.
One of them is that he has made a vow to a created being, and making a vow to a created being is ḥarām, because a vow is an act of worship, and worship cannot be directed to a created being.
Another reason is that the one for whom the vow is made is dead, and a dead person has no ownership.
Another reason is that if he believes that the deceased exercises control over affairs independently of Allāh, then holding such a belief is disbelief (kufr).
However, this is an exception if he says: “O Allāh! I have vowed to You that, if You cure my sick person, or return my absent person, or fulfill my need, I will feed the poor who are at the gate of Sayyidah Nafīsah, or [at the shrine of] Imām al-Shāfiʿī, or Imām al-Layth; or I will purchase mats for their mosques, oil for their lamps, or money for those who attend to their religious functions,” and similar things through which there is benefit for the poor.
In this case, the vow is made to Allāh, and mentioning the shaykh merely designates the place where the vowed offering is to be distributed to its rightful recipients, the poor who reside in his ribāṭ or masjid.
Thus, it is permissible on this consideration.
📌 • Ḥāshiyat Ibn ʿĀbidīn = Radd al-Muḥtār – Ṭabʿat al-Ḥalabī, 2/439. | 668 |
| 16 |  Allāh sends down His mercy upon the Imām first
The statement, “And the best of the rows for men is the first of them,” is because it has been narrated in the reports:
“Indeed, when Allāh Most High sends down His mercy upon the congregation, He first sends it down upon the Imām. Then it extends from him to those who are directly beside him in the first row; then to those on the right; then to those on the left; and then to the second row.”
The remainder of the discussion can be found in al-Baḥr.
📌 • ḥāshiyah of Imām Ibn ʿĀbidīn (d. 1252 AH).
This supports the position of our jurists that leading the prayer [imāmah] is more virtuous… And Allāh knows best. | 641 |
| 17 | Notes
¹ This is the position of the majority of scholars and is also attributed to Imām Aḥmad. Ibn Jinnī stated: “Most of the language is majāz.” See al-Fuṣūl, 1/359 ff.; al-Tamhīd, 2/265–266; and Irshād al-Fuḥūl, 2/1.
² Al-Ghazālī attributed this position to the Ḥashwiyyah in al-Manḫūl. Among those reported to have adopted this position are Abū Isḥāq al-Isfarāyīnī, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn al-Qayyim and most Wahhābīs.
It is stated in al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ that al-Qāḍī said in Mukhtaṣar al-Taqrīb:
“Affirming majāz in the language necessarily entails affirming it in the Qurʾān.”
Something similar is attributed to Ibn Fūrak:
“Whoever denies majāz in the Qurʾān has effectively claimed that the Qurʾān was revealed in a language other than Arabic, for the Arabic language contains both majāz and ḥaqīqah, while the Qurʾān was revealed in their language. Whoever disputes the designation of an expression as majāz or metaphor, while accepting the intended meaning, is merely disputing over terminology while conceding the substantive meaning.”
References: al-Fatāwā, 20/400–497; al-Fuṣūl, 1/359; al-Wuṣūl, 1/97; al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ, 3/48. | 603 |
| 18 |  Proof for Establishing Majāz in the Speech of Allah ﷻ
There is no disagreement among the scholars that the Speech of Allāh ﷻ contains both literal expression (ḥaqīqah) and figurative expression (majāz).¹ The only exception is what has been transmitted from Abū Muslim ibn Yaḥyā al-Iṣfahānī, who held that there is no majāz in the Speech of Allāh.²
🔴The First Proof: The Position of the Scholars of the Arabic Language and Sharīʿah
The falsity of his position is demonstrated by the consensus of the scholars of Sharīʿah and the Arabic language who preceded him and held the contrary view.
Indeed, scholars authored works specifically addressing this subject and discussed therein the existence of majāz in the Qurʾān. Thus, whoever rejects majāz in the Speech of Allāh is comparable to one who rejects the existence of ḥaqīqah in His Speech, for there is no essential difference between the two claims.
🔴The Second Proof: The Meaning of Majāz
When we describe an expression as majāz, what we mean is that:
«A word is employed in a meaning other than that for which it was originally designated, and what is intended by it is other than its original lexical meaning.»
If the opponent accepts this meaning but merely refuses to call it majāz, then the disagreement is purely terminological, and there is no substantive dispute here.
However, if he refuses to accept even this meaning, then the Qurʾān itself refutes his position.
Allāh ﷻ says:
﴿إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يُؤْذُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ﴾
“Indeed, those who harm Allah and His Messenger…” [al-Aḥzāb 33:57]
Allāh ﷻ is exalted far above being subject to harm. Rather, what is intended is harming the allies and servants of Allāh.
Likewise, Allāh ﷻ says:
﴿لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ﴾
“There is nothing whatsoever like Him.” [al-Shūrā 42:11]
The intended meaning is that nothing resembles Him, for He has no likeness or equal. It cannot mean that there is something comparable to His likeness and that resemblance to that likeness is then being negated.
Allāh ﷻ also says:
﴿وَجَاءَ رَبُّكَ﴾
“And your Lord came.” [al-Fajr 89:22]»
What is intended here is: “The command of your Lord came.”
Thus, these expressions demonstrate that words may be employed in meanings other than their immediately apparent lexical designations.
🔴The Objection of the Opponent
The one who denies majāz argues:
«Majāz is only needed by one whose speech is incapable of expressing all meanings through literal expressions. Such a person therefore resorts to metaphor and employs a word in a meaning other than that for which it was originally designated. But such a notion cannot be attributed to Allāh سبحانه وتعالى.»
🔴The Answer
This argument is based upon a false assumption.
The employment of a word in a meaning other than its original designation is not necessarily due to a need or inability. Rather, it may be employed for the sake of eloquence (balāghah) and rhetorical excellence (faṣāḥah).
The same principle applies to brevity (ījāz) and elaboration (iṭnāb).
Each may be appropriate in a particular context where the other would not be appropriate. Allāh ﷻ addressed mankind in the language of the Arabs and employed the modes of expression familiar to them. He therefore addressed them according to the conventions and rhetorical usages of their language.
Consider the absurdity of saying that the entire Speech of Allah consists exclusively of ījāz, with no iṭnāb whatsoever. One could argue, according to the opponent's reasoning, that elaboration is only required by someone incapable of brevity.
Yet this reasoning is clearly invalid.
Likewise, the same principle applies to majāz.
The presence of majāz in the Speech of Allāh does not imply any deficiency, inability, or need on His part. Rather, it is one of the modes of Arabic eloquence and rhetorical expression through which meanings are conveyed with greater precision, force, and beauty. | 601 |
| 19 |  Alḥamdulillāh. Our channel now has 3.0K subscribers. 🤩
We are incredibly grateful to each of you for joining our channel dedicated to the study of Islām and the Ḥanafī school of thought.
Make sure to share publications and posts that you find beneficial with your friends and family. ʾIn shāʾ Allāh, we will continue to share informative and inspiring content.
Those subscribers who use “telegram premium” service, please promote our channel using the link below!
🔴 Boost The Ḥanafī Channel
💎 The Ḥanafī Library
🔥 Join the Ḥanafī Chat | 552 |
| 20 |  Muʿtazilism and Ḥanafīs
The accusation of Muʿtazilism levelled against certain Ḥanafī scholars did not originate with al-Ṣaymarī; rather, such accusations can be found considerably earlier.
Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ, as well as his teacher al-Karkhī, were likewise not spared such allegations. al-Jaṣṣāṣ has been accused by some, though without compelling evidence, of possessing Muʿtazilite tendencies. This may explain why some of the later Muʿtazilites included him in their biographical classifications.
Both al-Jusamī (d. 494 AH) [1] and al-Murtaḍā (d. 840 AH) [2] place al-Jaṣṣāṣ among the twelfth class of the Muʿtazilites.
al-Dhahabī reports, that al-Jaṣṣāṣ was inclined toward Muʿtazilism. He further remarks that some of al-Jaṣṣāṣ’s writings contain indications of this tendency, particularly concerning the beatific vision (ruʾyat Allāh) and other theological questions. al-Dhahabī concludes with the duʿāʾ: “We ask Allāh for safety.” [3]
As for al-Karkhī, Ibn Ḥajar mentions that Ibn al-Furāt (d. 384 AH) accused him of Muʿtazilism. [4] Nevertheless, there is an important distinction between the two cases: unlike al-Jaṣṣāṣ, al-Karkhī does not appear in the biographical classifications (ṭabaqāt) of the Muʿtazilites.
References
[1] Sharḥ ʿUyūn al-Masāʾil, p. 391.
[2] Ṭabaqāt al-Muʿtazilah, p. 118.
[3] Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, 16/341.
[4] Lisān al-Mīzān, 4/98–99.
The resemblance between Muʿtazilī ʿaqīdah and Māturīdī ʿaqīdah is also fairly undeniable. | 601 |
