Roots Of Knowledge ROK 😊

The Danger of Refuting Others Refutation isn't just something we see every time we scroll through our feeds. Nor is it a feature unique to Islam. It's been a hallmark of human society from day one. Though it is clear that whenever the Prophets confronted the crimes of their people, debate was the inevitable consequence. The Prophets knew, without a shred of doubt, that the message they carried from the Creator was absolute truth [Haq]. The problem arises when others engage in refutations by laying down their own arbitrary boundaries of ‘Haq’. The Khawarij were the first faction to publicly refute other Muslims simply for not conforming to their narrow understanding of Haq, a path that inevitably led to mainstream believers being labeled as deviants or disbelievers. Even the great Imams were not immune; Abu Hanifa, for instance, was fiercely targeted by contemporaries who claimed he had transgressed the limits of ‘Haq’, according to their own definitions, of course. Whether facing intense opposition for his views on the role of ‘actions’ in the definition of Iman, the ritual of piercing a sacrificial camel's hump for Hajj, or a woman's right to marry without a ‘wali’, his critics were unyielding. Yet, history shows that views change, or at least adjust, when people actually engage in rigorous research and sit down to discuss objections with their opponents. The true litmus test of the boundaries of 'Haq' is how an argument stands the test of time. After a few decades, scholars began to realise that Imam Abu Hanifa’s views were never intended to undermine Islam; rather, it was his rigorous methodology and reasoning that led him to those conclusions. I remember once meeting someone who was taught that Imam Abu Hanifa just invented his own views without any real consistency. When I asked them for an example, they said, "How can he say that wudu breaks when a person laughs in salah, but absolutely nothing happens to their wudu if that same person was to slander someone in salah?" I told them that this wasn't an inconsistency at all. Imam Abu Hanifa has a core principle: when a ruling comes in a Hadith that our minds cannot reach through human reasoning or logic, we accept it exactly as it is and act upon it as much as we can. The scholars of Kufa identified that the Hadith regarding wudu breaking due to laughter in prayer was widely acknowledged and transmitted, unlike the idea of wudu breaking due to slander. What they saw as a contradiction was actually just strict adherence to a precise principle. The true boundaries of 'Haq' must be clearly identified and unanimous among reputable authorities. Views that differ from 'madhab' to 'madhab' and expert to expert are, in most cases, well within these legitimate limits. This does not mean scholars should remain silent or stop correcting errors. Rather, it means that a refutation concerning a matter within the legitimate scope of 'Ijtihad' cannot be used to label someone a deviant or place them outside the fold of Islam. Too often, those who feel triggered by a point of view that differs from what they are accustomed to, or what they have superficially read, feel compelled to launch public debates. We see this clearly with young people newly practising Islam; they tend to view the tradition in stark black and white, finding it difficult to comprehend why others might pray or navigate details differently. If a study were conducted on online debaters, whether independent influencers or comment-section critics, I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority fell into that exact demographic.

So how does a teacher actually teach a book of hadith? It usually depends on their own training and experience. If an average student just opens a raw commentary by themselves, it’s incredibly confusing. That's really why I wanted to share this short breakdown based on what I've seen. To be honest, opening a commentary, whether it's one or twenty volumes, won't help you until you've studied the original text with a qualified teacher. A teacher's explanation speeds up the entire process because it is based on their own teacher's notes rather than being made up on the spot. If you trace those notes backward, you'll find an unbroken chain of teachers passing on insights while adding their own research along the way. A serious teacher never just stops at what they learnt in class. They actively cross-reference their notes with the classical commentaries written by the absolute authorities in the field and discussions from other sciences. This is how they catch any subtle mistakes they might have made without realising it. No single scholar has a monopoly on explaining a hadith, but when an interpretation matches the standards of the masters of this field, it carries real weight. For students, the goal isn't to get lost trying to read these massive commentaries alone but to use them to understand just how much depth our teachers are bringing into the classroom. Whilst studying hadith you can read a commentary that youre comfortable with to supplement your lessons.

What is a commentary on hadith? Most students probably don't ever think to ask this, but if you want to seriously study or teach hadith, it’s a really important question. We need the Prophet’s ﷺ words to actually make sense of the Quran. In reality, without hadith, how would we even know how to pray properly, calculate zakat, or practise the basics of our religion? When we talk about a hadith, we’re usually talking about Arabic words connected to the blessed Prophet Muhammad ﷺ something he said, did, or silently approved of. Once the Prophet ﷺ passed away, the religion was already fully complete. The Sahabah, both men and women, completely lived and breathed these core teachings. If anyone ran into a gap in their knowledge, they’d simply go and ask whoever had some insight. For anything totally new, they relied on the views of experienced people or their own sound judgment as a last resort to figure out the solution. As the community was freshly exposed to the era of revelation, their judgement would always be unmatched compared to subsequent generations. That's really how the whole system of transmission took off. At the same time, a companion would remember a statement and pass it to others, including those who came after known as Tabi'un, to memorise, and they’d hand it down to their own students. It became a generational relay race, an unbroken chain of people carrying these blessed words through history. Some of them would try to convey the exact meaning they heard whilst others would suffice with it in their own words. It became a passion for many people to learn and teach, holding dedicated gatherings for it. I don't want to focus here on the transmission side of things, but instead on the commentary of hadith and how it is traditionally explained. I would summarise the core areas around which the discussions revolve are the following: 1. Language 2. Narrators 3. Message itself 4. Previous writings Since hadith are in Arabic and the phrasing is often really direct and conversational, you have to understand the vocabulary, idioms, and context so you don't completely distort the meaning. Open up any major commentary, and you'll see the author spending pages just breaking down the language. They aren't just looking things up in a standard dictionary; they’re drawing on a deep, internalised mastery of the classical Arabic linguistic tradition, sometimes bringing in heavy debates from grammar and balagha (rhetoric) to unpack a tiny, nuanced expression. They also dissect the narrators. They collect all the background data needed to grade a chain and see if the old masters of the science had any serious criticisms against a specific narrator. From there, they focus on the actual message. They'll pull in other narrations, statements from the Sahabah, or explanations from early scholars to contextualize everything. Finally, they look at what previous commentators said and critique their views. Commentators are human, and digging out the exact meaning requires scholarly ijtihad, so no single person has a monopoly on being right. But when it comes to Fiqh, the madhhabs will naturally prefer interpretations that fit their own legal principles.That is what a normal commentary looks like. Some authors pay close attention to the language, while others concentrate on the legal rules. Obviously, the depth of the book depends entirely on how skilled the author is.

Clipping videos of any Muslim: 1. Without context 2. With misleading titles/commentary 3. Assumed intentions of the speaker Is not from the character of a believer and falls under the following: 1. Lying 2. Slander 3. or/and Backbiting The severity of the sin continues with everyone who views it

🎓 Sanatayn Graduation 2026 🎓 Join us for a special evening as we honour and celebrate the accomplishments of 14 graduating students who have completed years of dedication, study, and commitment in the pursuit of Islamic knowledge. This memorable gathering will mark an important milestone in their journey, recognising the effort, sacrifice, and perseverance required in seeking the knowledge of the Qur’an and Sunnah. We are also honoured to welcome Mufti Liaquat Zaman as our guest speaker for the evening, who will deliver an inspiring reminder on the virtue of sacred knowledge and its responsibility in today’s world. 📅 Saturday 11th July 2026 ⏰ 6PM – 8PM 📍 Ad-Duha Institute, 1164 Stratford Road, Hall Green, B28 8AQ 🎟 Free Event 👥 Open to brothers onsite only (due to limited space) 💻 Available onsite and online 🔗 Register adduha.org/sanatayn-graduation An evening of inspiration, reflection, and gratitude as we celebrate the next generation of students carrying forward the legacy of Islamic scholarship. 🤍

birthday today !!! May Allah accept our efforts especially those supporting my work & make it a sadaqa Jariya ameen!

For this reason, when Imam Ahmad was questioned regarding this same issue, and the questioner asked him: "If the Imam did not perform wudu [after bleeding], should I pray behind him?" He replied: "Glory be to Allah! Should you not pray behind Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib and Malik ibn Anas?!" Following this very path (sunan), a response was given by our teacher, the erudite scholar of Hadith and jurist, Sheikh Muhammad Abd al-Rashid al-Nu'mani (18/11/1333 AH – 5/1/1420 AH), may Allah Almighty have mercy on him. This was when one of the people of knowledge questioned him regarding performing the Witr prayer behind the Imam of the Sacred Mosque in Mecca (Al-Haram al-Makki). This occurred during the month of Ramadan in the year 1408 AH. The questioner, as well as the one being questioned, adhered to the Hanafi school (madhhab), which dictates that the Imam should not perform the closing salutation (taslim) at the completion of the first two units (rak'ah) of Witr. The Sheikh responded to the questioner by asking: "Tell me, if Imam Ahmad were standing and praying as an Imam, would you follow him in prayer?!" His question served as an incredibly astute answer, even though he [al-Nu'mani] had been unfairly stigmatized with hateful fanaticism (ta'assub) by certain ignorant individuals. Another famous report concerns Imam Abu Yusuf, may Allah Almighty have mercy on him. It is reported that he performed a ritual bath (ghusl) in a public bathhouse (hammam), and after performing the Friday prayer (Jum'ah), he was informed that there was a dead mouse in the well supplying the bathhouse. However, he did not repeat the midday (Zuhr) prayer. Instead, he said: "We adopt the view of our brothers, the people of Medina: 'When water reaches the volume of two qullas, it does not carry impurity.'"

Teaching How to Differ With Others Needs To Be Learnt One of the books I highly recommend for students is Adab al-Ikhtilaf by Sheikh Muhammad 'Awwamah. This text allows the reader to truly appreciate how classical jurists navigated and accommodated differences of opinion. Unfortunately, traditional madrassas generally neglect the etiquette of disagreement (Adab al-Ikhtilaf), the history of Fiqh, the biographies of the jurists, and the nuanced grading of jurisprudence books and masā’il (legal issues). In the absence of this critical context, legal matters are reduced to a rigid black and white understanding for students, especially when the writings of a particular scholar they look up to are made the absolute untouchable standard. When teachers compound this by fiercely attacking alternative perspectives, whether classical Shafis views or contemporary academic positions, graduates enter the community believing that the only valid response to a differing opinion is a harsh one. I remember an incident many years ago in class, a teacher spent about 10 to 15 minutes completely tearing apart a specific Fiqhi position of Imam al-Shafi. By the end of it, the students were literally cheering as though someone had just scored a winning goal in a match. Later on, a student from Malaysia wrote a polite, structured response to the teacher's points based on his studies of the Shafi school. After reading it, the teacher actually stopped the next class, apologised to everyone, and admitted that his whole explanation had just been taken from secondary Hanafi books. He admitted he hadn't actually read the primary Shafi works on the issue, nor had he ever discussed it with senior Shafi experts. That was the first time I realised that if information isn't presented in a fair, balanced way, it becomes 'misinformation', a completely skewed version of the facts. Sometimes we are very quick to criticise Ahl al-Hadith scholars in the subcontinent for not discussing matters with Hanafis or giving them a chance to present their side before attacking them. If that's our rule, then the exact same standard of intellectual honesty needs to be applied within our own circles. Sh Awwamah writes: "Among the evidences demonstrating the exact opposite of this caution is: adopting Taqlid (following another school) when a pressing necessity arises, and taking the position of other schools. Examples of this are found in what Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah Almighty have mercy on him, stated in Majmu' al-Fatawa: "The view of the people of Medina is that if the Imam prays while forgetting that he is in a state of major ritual impurity (janabah) and only remembers afterward, he alone must repeat his prayer, while the congregation's prayer remains valid and they do not repeat it. Whereas according to Abu Hanifah, everyone must repeat the prayer." This very scenario happened to Abu Yusuf. The Caliph had appointed him to lead the people in the Friday prayer. He led the prayer, but later remembered that he had been in a state of ritual impurity. Consequently, he repeated his own prayer, but he did not command the people to repeat theirs. When he was questioned about this, he replied: "Perhaps when a matter becomes strictly constricted for us, we take the position of our Medinan brothers." Furthermore, it is related that [the Caliph] Harun al-Rashid underwent cupping (hijama), and Imam Malik gave him a legal verdict (fatwa) that his ritual purity (wudu) remained intact. Following this, Abu Yusuf prayed behind the Caliph. Now, the position of Abu Hanifah and Ahmad is that the exiting of impurity from anywhere other than the two passages invalidates wudu, whereas the position of Malik and al-Shafi'i is that it does not invalidate wudu. Thus, someone asked Abu Yusuf: "Do you really pray behind him?!" He replied: "Glory be to Allah! [He is] the Commander of the Faithful! Verily, abandoning prayer behind the Imams over matters like this is from the hallmarks of the people of innovation, such as the Rafidha and the Mu'tazilah."

3 of the worst characteristics in scholars of Islam: 1. Jealousy 2. Arrogance 3. Backbiting disguised as speaking Haq

No Scientific Miracles of the Quran! I remember when I first started practising, one of my earliest "wow" moments came from reading a leaflet at a local mosque about the stages of embryonic development mentioned in the Quran. At the time, it blew my mind. It made me feel so much closer to Islam and gave me this massive drive to dive deeper into the words of the Quran. But fast forward to a few years later when I was studying at a Jamia in Pakistan. One of our teachers told us a story about Mawlana Yusuf Banuri (may Allah have mercy on him). The Mawlana was in Makkah when a prominent Egyptian scholar came to meet him and asked if he had read his 25-volume tafsir called Al-Jawahir. Mawlana Yusuf said yes, but after giving it some polite praise, he told the author he completely disagreed with his approach. The author had built his entire explanation of the Quran around modern scientific discoveries. The Mawlana warned him that even if a verse seems to match a specific scientific discovery today, that science is probably going to be debunked or modified down the line, and when that happens, ordinary Muslims are going to end up disheartened and confused about the text. And he was entirely right. Think about how we interact with the world through science. It's all induction: we collect whatever data we can see, spot a temporary pattern, and try to build a theory around it. Then down the line, someone else comes along with fresh data, points out a completely different pattern, and throws the old theory out the window. That’s just the nature of science, it is built to constantly change and update itself. But the Quran isn't bound by that kind of guesswork. When it talks about the physical world, whether it's the skies, the earth, rain, or how a fetus develops, it speaks from a place of absolute, ultimate reality. It's like a spectator who can see the whole picture from the subatomic level to the galactic level, clearly with their own eyes, completely independent of the limited, flawed observations we rely on. The Creator sees things exactly as they truly are. But because it's addressing human beings who simply don't have the capacity to wrap their heads around that absolute reality, the wording has to meet us where we are. It uses language that stays relatable across thousands of years. By using everyday expressions, idioms, and observational phrases that humans can actually visualize, the message simplifies deep realities. Just because a modern reader tries to force a 21st-century scientific theory into that simplified language, it doesn't mean the verse was meant as a literal blueprint for a modern lab finding. If we don't draw limits, people will not stop at the scientific miracles but add architectural miracles, culinary miracles, artistic miracles etc... At the end of the day, if we lose sight of why the Quran was actually revealed, it just becomes a toy for people looking to connect dots that aren't even there. The real purpose of the Quran is guidance (hidayah), to bring people back to the worship of Allah and to break us away from the false ideas and practices invented by men.

Yahya Michot says: "When I was in Oxford once, I remember some students told me, oh, in Islam you do not have anybody like Gandhi or Martin Luther King, you know, pacifists, et cetera. I said, yes, I'm very sorry. But we also do not have Hiroshima and Nagasaki." His response perfectly sums up that we don't need to have an Islamic version of every single thing produced by the West.

Everyone's Statements Can Be Scrutinised Even The Ulema Whenever I hear a statement from a scholar regarding a matter outside of their field of speciality, I always take it with a pinch of salt and never assume it to be a universal absolute rule. Humans are always going to be limited by their upbringing, their surroundings, and their own finite knowledge. Naturally, this means their takes on worldly life are often highly specific to their own context, not general rules for everyone. Even if a scholar genuinely believes their advice applies universally, those opinions rarely age well. For instance, a scholar might mention that a certain fruit is the best, and people will misinterpret that to mean it’s a religious recommendation for everyone. Or they might wear a particular style of clothing, and suddenly that design is believed to be preferred over others as if it were spiritually superior. In almost any other field, we only take someone seriously when they’ve done rigorous research, collected large amounts of data, and had their results tried and tested by others. Yet, it is incredibly common to find speakers on the pulpit making sweeping statements without much research or basing arguments entirely on a random quote from a past mufassir or pious person. What I truly admire about our classical tradition, though, is that the greatest scholars have always tested such statements through strict principles of research. They always mentioned that the Prophet's (peace be upon him) sayings to his companions were exact, accurate, and free of unnecessary exaggeration. Even then, the Prophet spoke to individuals on different levels. He tailored his advice to many audiences, including the entire Muslim nation, his family, his congregation, men, women, children, and non-Muslim communities. Many early experts made a clear distinction between words meant for a specific group at the time and those meant for the entire Muslim Ummah. Because of this, later scholars would look at the context to differentiate between universal laws and localised time-bound advice. This level of honesty in classical scholarly circles is something I have always deeply admired. I still remember the first time I heard Imam Malik’s famous statement: "Everyone is subject to being right or wrong except for the occupant of this grave [the Prophet, peace be upon him]." I believe this human fallibility must be constantly reiterated today, just in case people start buying into grandiose statements and treating a scholar's personal opinions as absolute truths. As students, we have to realise that a scholar’s opinion will always remain just that, the opinion of a human being. It can never come close to the divine weight of the statements of the Prophet (peace be upon him). For me, mixing the two up is dangerous; it ultimately opens the door to innovations and distorts the beautifully consistent nature of Islamic teachings.

Hanafi timeline of scholars https://ziyadasghar-git.github.io/hanafi-atlas/index.html

Why Madrasa Graduates Don't Write As Much As Those Who Have Been Uni I have recently been thinking about why today's graduates are not stepping up into the public domain and putting pen to paper, despite spending the better part of a decade studying various areas of the Islamic sciences. Generally, it is only when they go to university that they become more confident in writing articles, papers, and books. University seems to bring out their research skills and gives them the space to articulate themselves. Madrasa setups, unfortunately, lack the curricula to develop these research skills. Instead, students are encouraged to repeat what a few of their teachers and elders have written and said, without being given the opportunity to test whether those findings are unchangeable or if there is still room for disagreement. The graduates who do become prolific writers, actively engaging with contemporary topics and discussions, are usually the product of a passionate teacher or two who shaped the way they think and satiated their desire for unbiased research. I'd say there is a clear correlation between being a thinker and being a writer. There is nothing wrong with graduates spending the rest of their days simply teaching what they have learned without engaging in the contemporary discussions circulating in our communities. What is not okay, however, is when someone tries to criticise someone else's research simply because it does not align with what they were told in class. The difference between a graduate who has reached a conclusion through rigorous research and someone who relies solely on what they were taught is clear: the former will be content and secure in their position, while the latter usually feels insecure and is unable to counter points of contention themselves.