Massoud Vahedi

The great Syrian historian and scholar Shaykh Muhammad Raghib al-Tabbakh said: "The acquirement of knowledge requires three things: 1. The wealth of Qarun, 2. The lifespan of Nuh ('alayhi al-Salam), 3. And the patience of Ayyub ('alayhi al-Salam)." His student Shaykh 'Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah said: "And I will add a fourth matter as well: the residence of the Sultan, that is, a grand residence that is big enough to fit all his books."

"Virtually all environmental legislation in Muslim countries is borrowed from the industrialized West, in spite of the many principles, policies, and precedents of Islamic law governing the protection and conservation of the environment and the use of natural resources. Much of this legislation remains inadequate and unenforced. One reason is that many people in the Muslim world have little sympathy with laws that are derived from alien beliefs and values and have no legitimacy in their eyes. A number of sharī‘ah practices do continue to govern or influence the ways in which people use their natural resources, particularly in rural areas. In most Muslim countries, however, these practices do not receive official recognition, and even where Islamic legislation is constitutionally recognized, it is seldom applied effectively or creatively. The exceedingly rich contributions that Islamic law and ethics have to offer remain largely unarticulated and unrealized. Although environmental law is not yet recognized as an independent discipline within Islamic law, ample bases do exist for its development. Much as the discipline of Islamic economics has been formulated and developed in recent decades, that of environmental law can be derived from the objectives, principles, precepts, and instruments of Islamic jurisprudence, as well as the myriad substantive rulings of the sharī‘ah that pertain to the environment." - Othman Abd-ar-Rahman Llewellyn, “The Basis for a Discipline of Islamic Environmental Law”

"If you are a student of knowledge, for every field and discipline you have to memorize one foundational text. But in the field you are specializing in and chosen to be your specialty you need to memorize much more than that." - Dr. Ahmad Saad al-Azhari

YouTube's level of censorship is arbitrary, and arguably getting out of control. Entire pages and video playlists are getting deleted without any notice. We often talk about how much knowledge gets produced, but a lot of it gets censored and blocked from playing any effective role in the 'marketplace of ideas'. If you listen to an amazing talk or lecture that you like to refer to from time to time, you are better off downloading it so you can ensure you have access to it, rather than experiencing the pain that you might never have the chance to listen to it again.

The website https://ar.islamway.net/ has been down for almost 2 months. If the site is really gone for good, then this is a huge loss, because the site had thousands of PDF and MP3 files that cannot be found elsewhere. A lot of rare lectures from a host of major scholars could only be found there, and it appears that no backup sites exist. This is a reminder that even in the digital age, a lot of knowledge can disappear in the blink of an eye.

The scholars of uṣūl al-fiqh say that non-Muslims are accountable for the detailed rulings (furūʿ) of the Sharīʿah. The fuqahāʾ (jurists), on the other hand, say that they are not. Does this mean the two groups contradict each other? The answer is no. When the scholars of uṣūl say that non-Muslims are accountable for the detailed rulings of the Sharīʿah, they mean that non-Muslims will be held responsible in the Hereafter for failing to follow Allah's commands. When the jurists say that non-Muslims are not accountable, they mean that non-Muslims are not required to perform acts of worship or other rulings of the Sharīʿah while they remain non-Muslim, because Islam is a condition for those acts to be valid. So, the two groups are speaking about different issues: the scholars of uṣūl are discussing accountability before Allah in the Hereafter, while the jurists are discussing the validity and legal obligation of performing acts of worship in this life. - summarized from Shaykh Hamad al-Hamad

Some people might say that the Hanbalis contradict themselves because they hold that removing three hairs while in iḥrām is enough to incur a fidyah. Yet removing three hairs at taḥallul is not enough to exit iḥrām. If three hairs "count" in one case, why not in the other? As Shaykh 'Abd al-Muhsin al-Zamil explains, the answer of the Hanbalis is that these rulings concern two different legal principles. Shaving or shortening the hair for taḥallul is a commanded act of worship. A commanded act is not fulfilled until the required act has been fulfilled in a complete sense. The Sunnah explains that the Qur'anic command to shave or shorten the hair means shaving or shortening the entire head, as the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him shaved his whole head and said, "Take your rites from me." Therefore, removing only three hairs does not fulfill the obligation and does not bring about taḥallul. By contrast, removing hair while still in iḥrām falls under a prohibition. The legal maxim is that a prohibition applies to all parts of the prohibited act. Thus, removing * even part * of the hair is considered a violation of the prohibition, just as eating part of a loaf violates the instruction, "Do not eat this loaf." On this basis, the Hanbalis say that removing three hairs is sufficient to incur the relevant ruling. In other words, the first question is, "What is sufficient to fulfill a commanded act?" while the second is, "What is sufficient to violate a prohibition?" Since these are different legal questions governed by different principles, the Hanbalis do not see the two rulings as contradictory.

قاعدة مهمة للمنتقِدْ: ليس جميعُ ما كتبنا نعتقدْ أصلٌ أفادهُ الإمامُ الخيضِري وأعمِلنْ قرينةً إنْ تحضرِ الصورة من قناة فوائد الديوانين: https://t.me/arrewayahalthkafh/3976

"The concept of maṣlaḥah mentioned in foundations of jurisprudence (uṣūl al-fiqh) appears at first glance to be similar to the concepts of “interests”, “welfare”, and “utility” that philosophers study in ethics. Perhaps the greatest similarity is when moral philosophers write about Utilitarianism and other forms of consequentialism. This similarity, however, is skin deep. The basic tenet of consequentialism is that the moral status of an act is determined solely upon its consequences—not something intrinsic to the action or the circumstances wherein it occurs. This tenet is not compatible with maṣlaḥaḥ. One of the reasons for this is that religion is the authoritative source for knowing maṣlaḥah and mafsadah—not rationalism, or trial and error. While human reason and experience can identify some things as seemingly good and others as seemingly bad, reason and experience alone often result in disagreement about the status of an individual action. Trial and error are limited to matters of this life; neither it nor rationalism can tell us anything specific about an action’s goodness or badness in the Afterlife. Trial and error are good at determining what pleases us in this life—not what pleases Allah in this life or the Afterlife. Revelation, then, is the authoritative source for knowing which of the things we deem a maṣlaḥah or mafsadah are truly of significance to Islamic legal rulings." - Sh. Musa Furber, "Islamic Frameworks for Decision Making"

Mufti Taqi Uthmani's critical or skeptical view on cryptocurrency is nothing new, and has been expressed by other scholars as well. Here is Dr. Muhammad Shehata's conclusion on cryptocurrency, where he similarly argues that it does not fulfill the criteria required to qualify as wealth.

Shaykh 'Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah advised against using excessive honorifics. When a student addressed him with lofty titles in a letter, he replied that he should instead simply write "al-Ustādh al-Mudarris" ("proficient and instructor"). He explained that ustādh means someone skilled in a field, and adding mudarris clarified that he meant a teacher, reflecting his preference for humility over exalted titles.

Post: "Mufti Taqi Usmani says cryptocurrencies are impermissible." Bitcoin Bros in the comments:

Modernism: There is an existing reality. Nothing exists except what is perceptible by the senses. Human experience is the source of knowledge. Religion is a human invention that has evolved over time. Truth comes from outside yourself. Truth is found in the material realm, not in religion. Postmodernism: Something exists if you regard it as existing. Truth is relative. Truth does not exist. You are the source of truth. Truth is subjective. What is right is whatever you see as right. Truth springs from within yourself. Divinity is an unnecessary idea. There is no God. The New Age Movement: What exists is energy. You are unlimited energy. You are spirit. You are everything. We are all God!

Shaykh al-Islam Daniel Haqiqatjou was asked: "What is your usul in law?" Shaykh al-Islam said: "When the words of the Deobandi scholars and the virtuous A'immah from the Emirate of Afghanistan reach me, I follow them and do qiyas upon them. When the words of the Compassionate Imams reach me, I postpone judgement or do istihsan upon them. And istihsan is nine-tenths of the law in America." - Rasa'il Shaykh al-Islam Daniel Haqiqatjou

A mufti may not always be able to fully explain the reasoning behind a particular ruling. This is reflected in the fiqh literature, particularly in the genre of tafriq al-ahkam, which is closely connected to istihsan. In many cases, istihsan operates more as an intuitive juristic faculty possessed by the mufti than as a line of reasoning that can be completely articulated. As a result, two cases may appear identical to most people, yet the mufti may perceive subtle distinctions that justify treating them differently. Those distinctions are real, even if the mufti cannot fully express them in words or systematically lay out the reasoning behind them.