KR

Sh. Ahmad Zayni Dahlan, one of the leading scholars of the Hijaz in his time, wrote this head-scratcher of a book arguing for the salvation of Abu Talib. Happy reading: https://archive.org/details/AsnalMatalibFiNajaatAbitalib

Regarding whom it has been said - rightly or wrongly - that his knowledge is more than his powers of logic (علمه أكثر أو أكبر من عقله) - with mention of the person who suggested it: - Ahmad ibn 'l-Tayyib al-Sarakhsi (by Ibn 'l-Nadim as cited by Ibn Hajar) - Khalil ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi (by Ibn al-Muqaffa') - Ibn 'l-Rawandi (by Balkhi in Majalis Khurasan as cited by Dhahabi) - Ibn Taymiyyah (by Ibn al-Jazari, Qastalani, Safadi, Wali al-Iraqi, Kashmiri; this assumption was heavily criticised in Majallah al-Bayan) - Shihab al-Suhrawardi (by Baha' 'l-Din Ibn Shaddad, Sibt Ibn 'l-Jawzi) - Haskafi (by Muhibbi) - Shawkani (by Laknawi - he also said: وفهمه أنقص من فضله) - Ali al-Khafif (by Ali al-Tantawi) Regarding whom it has been said - rightly or wrongly - that his powers of logic is more than his knowledge (عقله أكثر أو أكبر من علمه): - Ibn 'l-Muqaffa' (by Khalil) - Dawud al-Zahiri (by Tha'lab) - Juwayni (by Qaradawi) - Abu 'l-Hajjaj al-Dani (by Abu 'l-Abbas al-Dani) - Zayn 'l-Din al-Khalili (by Ibn 'l-Wardi) - Abu 'l-Barakat al-Alusi (by Muhammad Bahjah al-Athari) - Abd 'l-Wahhab al-Khallaf (by Ali al-Tantawi)

Just another day in Pakistan. Arabic calligraphy on your dress can get you lynched, thanks to that Tahreek Labbaik cult and all other groups who showed such deference to that Khadim Hussein Rizvi when he dropped dead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym1fvAvWutM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9CCRIVRf4w

LOL. Allow this Awnist to shamelessly market his 250-odd page book in Urdu! Image attached. I can already see the chappies at the RotD channel deleted this ridiculous post. Perhaps they are better off sticking to what they are actually good at and maintain a semblance of credibility.

LOL. Allow this Awnist to shamelessly market his 250-odd page book in Urdu! Image attached. I can already see the chappies at the RotD channel deleted this ridiculous post. Perhaps they are better off sticking to what they are actually good at and maintain a semblance of credibility.

Those who have known me for quite some time will be aware that once upon a time I was well-known for refuting Madkhalis. I can't help but notice the uncanny similiarity between debating Madkhalis and debating Brelvis. Like the Madkhali brand, Brelvism depends on endlessly gathering quotes from scholars who have supported their positions on the obscure niche issues that they have chosen to base their identity while most people really could not care less. In debating Madkhalis, I realised very quickly that the reason that non-Madkhali Salafis (or Sururis, if you like) fail in refuting Madkhalis simply because they cannot win the quote wars. The reason for this is that none of them are as dedicated to fishing for quotes as Madkhalis are (not to mention it's a fairly pointless and stupid exercise). If you give them a quote that counters their narrative, they are ready with a list of 20 counter-quotes. The entire identity of Madkhalis revolves around the gathering of useless quote lists, which is why they are still obsessed with personal disputes from the 90's. Brelvism is basically what happens when Madkhalism carries on for over a century. And like its younger cousin, there is no point in getting into endless back-and-forth quote wars. In the case of Brelvi-Deobandi beefs, it is very easy to go to the original passages that were the basis of Ala Hazrat's judgments of takfir on his opponents and see that all of these statements can be understood in a manner that does not dictate kufr. At that point, it does not matter who said what, as Ibn al-Humam states concerning the abundance of unfounded rulings of takfir in the statements of some of the fuqaha (fuqaha in the sense they speak about and are practitioners of fiqh, but not true mujtahids): نعم يقع في كلام أهل المذاهب تكفير كثير ولكن ليس من كلام الفقهاء الذين هم المجتهدون بل من غيرهم، ولا عبرة بغير الفقهاء "Yes, there is plenty of takfir (i.e. unfounded takfir) in the statements of the followers of the schools, but it is not from the words of the (true) fuqaha who are the mujtahids. Rather, it comes from other than them, but there is no weight for the opinion of anyone but the fuqaha." After seeing for myself that the takfir is unfounded, it makes no difference to me who agreed with Ala Hazrat or who praised him (just as I don't care who agreed with Rabee al Madkhali or who praised him when I can see he is wrong). Those who praised Ala Hazrat (or Rabee) might be great pious people. Some might even be great scholars in their own right. Some might have even agreed with some of Ala Hazrat's (or Rabee's) more controversial takes. I simply don't care. 🤷🏽‍♂️ What makes it worse is when you see that Brelvis are still obsessing over what are - at worst - ambiguous statements, well over a century later. Seriously, move on guys. Any reasonable person would have moved on by now, but obviously that is not possible when you belong to a personality cult.

Those who have known me for quite some time will be aware that once upon a time I was well-known for refuting Madkhalis. I can't help but notice the uncanny similiarity between debating Madkhalis and debating Brelvis. Like the Madkhali brand, Brelvism depends on endlessly gathering quotes from scholars who have supported their positions on the obscure niche issues that they have chosen to base their identity while most people really could not care less. In debating Madkhalis, I realised very quickly that the reason that non-Madkhali Salafis (or Sururis, if you like) fail in refuting Madkhalis simply because they cannot win the quote wars. The reason for this is that none of them are as dedicated to fishing for quotes as Madkhalis are (not to mention it's a fairly pointless and stupid exercise). If you give them a quote that counters their narrative, they are ready with a list of 20 counter-quotes. The entire identity of Madkhalis revolves around the gathering of useless quote lists, which is why they are still obsessed with personal disputes from the 90's.

Maybe it's because I don't actually care what the Deobandis or anyone else has to say. 🤷🏽‍♂️

"Not even a speck of Urdu"

Not even a speck of Urdu

Then we get these condescending Awnists, who are actually closet Deobandis, who think they have any basis to criticise Imam Ahmad Rida Khan for his takfir on the Deobandi elders. Maybe they should put their bias aside and actually try to see where Imam Ahmad Rida Khan was coming from. But these Awnists are extremely ignorant who don't even know a speck of Urdu. They claim that Imam Ahmad Rida Khan doesn't have any good/influential works something the Deobandis don't even claim! They rely on articles from Deobandis and base their views on them. May Allah guide these ignorant and frankly stupid Awnists. Deaf, dumb, blind—they do not understand.

" والمبادرة إلى التكفير إنما تغلب على طباع من يغلب عليهم الجهل " _حجة الإسلام الغزالي

Larry Bird is the greatest SF of all time. That's it. That's the post.

This is advice that can be applied to any field of studies/life. Don’t follow the maxim “Practice until you get it right.” Follow the maxim, “Practice until you can’t get it wrong.” Larry Bird demonstrates here. He purposely shows the wrong technique and tries to miss, but still makes the shot. https://youtu.be/NzIUw4moy2o?

A new channel in Arabic only by our friend Shaykh Faisal Kasim from al-Madinah al-Munawwarah.

بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم سلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته. هذه القناة لنشر الفوائد اللغوية وما يتعلق بمعاني آيات القرآن وحديث النبيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم. لِمَ سُمِّيَتِ القناةُ لغةَ الوَحيَينِ؟ -الوحيان القرآن والسنة فلغة الوحيين لغة القرآن والسنة وهي اللغة العربية لغة الإسلام ولغة كل مؤمن. ما معنى الوحي؟ وَالْوَحي من الله عز وَجل ثَنَاؤُهُ نبأ وإلهام وَمن النَّاس إِشَارَة. قَالَ الله جلّ ثَنَاؤُهُ: {وَأوحى رَبك إِلَى النَّحْل} . وَقَالَ فِي قصَّة زَكَرِيَّا: {فَأوحى إِلَيْهِم أَن سبحوا بكرَة وعشيا}. - ابن دريد وَقَالَ أَبُو إِسْحَاق: وأصل الوَحْي فِي اللُّغَة كلّها إعلامٌ فِي خفاءٍ، وَلذَلِك صَار الإلمامُ يُسمَّى وحْياً. قلت: وَكَذلِكَ الإشارَةُ والإيماءُ يُسمى وَحْياً، وَالْكِتَابَة تسمى وَحْياً.وَقَالَ اللهُ جلّ وعزّ: {قَدِيرٌ وَمَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ أَن يُكَلِّمَهُ اللهُ إِلاَّ وَحْيًا أَوْ مِن وَرَآءِ} (الشورى: 51) مَعْنَاهُ إِلَّا أنْ يُوحِي اللَّهُ إِلَيْهِ وَحيا فيُعلمه بِمَا يعلم الْبشر أَنه أَعْلَمَه إمّا إِلْهَاماً وَإِمَّا رُؤْيَا وَإِمَّا أَن يُنْزِل عَلَيْهِ كِتَاباً، كَمَا أَنْزَل على مُوسَى أَو قُرآناً يُتْلَى عَلَيْهِ كَمَا أَنْزَل على محمدٍ، وكل هذَا إِعْلَام وَإِن اخْتلفت أسبابُ الْإِعْلَام فِيهَا. وأفادني المنذريّ عَن ابْن اليزيدي عَن أبي زيد فِي قَوْله: {قُلْ أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ أَنَّهُ اسْتَمَعَ نَفَرٌ مِنَ الْجِنِّ فَقَالُوا إِنَّا سَمِعْنَا قُرْآنًا عَجَبًا } (الجنّ: 1) من أَوْحَيْتُ. قَالَ: وأناسٌ من الْعَرَب يَقُولُونَ: وَحَيْتُ إِليه، ووحيْتُ لَهُ، وأَوْحَيْتُ إِلَيْهِ وَله. -الأزهري

فها هو شيخنا طه إمامي فقل لي هل رأيت له مثيلا أطه رحمة الغفار دوماً عليك لقد أبنت لنا السبيلا وكنت لأحمدٍ صلوات ربي عليهِ في جنان الخلد خِلّا