KR

On the day where nine siblings were martyred in an instant and a sole sibling and their father left severely injured, all while their mother and wife was at work in a hospital in Gaza and received their charred bodies there, it is perhaps worth highlighting the narrative being framed in the Western media and by Western governments. That narrative is that Netanyahu and extremists elements in his cabinet are responsible for all of this. In other words, nobody else is responsible. Everybody else is infantilised, with agency taken away from them. The soldiers massacring Palestinians are not responsible. The Israeli society egging on this genocide is not responsible. Other political parties supporting the war effort are not responsible. The ever so noble Israeli courts that Netanyahu is trying to undermine is not responsible. Just Netanyahu - he’s responsible. A person with an ounce of heart and an iota of a brain cell knows none of this is true. They are all culpable, maybe some more than others, but culpable indeed they are. The Western media and government are begging the Zionists to go back to a more palatable form of occupation, daily humiliation of Palestinians away from the eyes of the media, and a smaller-scale murder of Palestinians that doesn’t raise eyebrows globally. This does not end with the end of Netanyahu, عامله الله وأعوانه بما يستحقون في الدنيا قبل الآخرة، وإلى الله المشتكى على جثث الشهداء من غزة، اللهم لا تجعل دماء هؤلاء الأطفال هدرا

I really enjoyed Wednesday's book presentation, and I hope you did too. 🙏 ❤️ I've just uploaded the recording on YouTube, so feel free to check it out! You can find all the timestamps in the video description. ____ 'Maqasid Analysis: Hadith Verification and Interpretation' by Sh. Hatim al-Awni https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUzPd5VLU5E

A review of this book.

InSha'Allah we'll start this live book session in an hour: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/5485476404?pwd=PkizdqUQqDFbyO6RFaxItK3kXyvTho.1 If required: Meeting ID: 548 547 6404 Passcode: W2kXiF

On the subject of plagiarism, here is one of our friends over at the great forum of all time, Sunniport:

So there was a mujmal hukm In this hadees which was explained (تشريح) and made clear (توضيح) by the actions of the sahaba. And this is Qaim maqaam hadeeth (holds the same authority as a hadeeth) According to Fath al-Qadeer: ۔ الاخذ منھا وھی دون ذلک کما یفعلہ بعض المغاربۃ ومخنثۃ الرجال "Taking less than that, as done by some effeminate men and Westerners, is prohibited." (فتح القدیر،باب الصیام باب مایوجب القضاۃ والکفارۃ،مکتبہ نوریہ رضویہ سکھر 2/ 270) For further details, refer to Fatawa Razawiyyah and the book Ahkam-e-Daarhi

Link: https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/the-ruling-of-the-beard-according-to-hanafi-fiqh.13812/page-2#post-85533 The guy obviously plagiarised it from the Urdu blog here, which said:

فتح القدیر میں ہے:الاخذ منھا وھی دون ذٰلک کما یفعلہ بعض المغاربۃ ومخنثۃ الرجال ۲؎۔داڑھی تراشنا یا کترنا کہ وہ مشت کی مقدار سے کم ہوجائے ناجائز ہے جیسا کہ بعض مغربیت زدہ لوگ اور ہیجڑے کرتے ہیں ۔ (ت) (۲؎ فتح القدیر باب الصیام باب مایوجب القضاۃ والکفارۃ مکتبہ نوریہ رضویہ سکھر ۲/ ۲۷۰)

Link: https://faizahmadchishti.blogspot.com/2025/02/blog-post_21.html This is what makes Sunniport the greatest forum of all time.

One subliminal reason why some are not pleased with normative hadith method as expressed by S. Hatim al-Awni is that he has reclaimed the hadith sciences from the subjectivity and relativism that seeped into it and firmly placed it under the rational disciplines. The implication of that is, for scholars at least, taqlid in this subject - like what many can get away with in fiqh - matter becomes unsustainable. You cannot get out of narrating obvious fabrications and severely weak hadiths by simply relying on the (erroneous) verdict of a past scholar. As a result, the response from those in that camp to S. Hatim - both person and works - can be encapsulated as follows: - Some will become favourable, leading to a rift between them and their ex associates. Conveniently for the anti-S. Hatim camp, these new admirers of S. Hatim are labelled as Awnists. It is a low form of namecalling. - Some will find anything to throw dirt on him and his admirers, in order to discredit the whole project with what is essentially is a series of ad hominems. - Some will not be able to find it within themselves to praise him or at the very least acknowledge the error of their alternative methodology of hadith relatism, but will still secretly consult his works in order to a) either use information that they can later leverage against him (which they have failed to do thus far), or b) to boost their own credentials within the hadith relativist camp (which is essentially plagiarism). There is a reason why his hadith works are instant classics. Had they been written even as late as 150 years ago, his books and ideas would have been already incorporated in most Islamic seminaries across the world.

ft. Shaykh Saeed al-Kamali An important topic Sh. Saeed touches on, people spending more time arguing and bickering over something than acting upon it—case in example: hadith of Nuzul (descent)

Protip for English speaking Arabic learners: Don’t expect everything to be translatable word for word across the two languages. This is particularly the case when it comes to حروف الجر Some basic examples: EXHIBIT I - In English, you can say “I entered the house”, and you can say “I entered in the house” - In Arabic, you can say دخلتُ الدارَ and دخلتُ في الدارِ - In English, you can say “I exited the house”, and you can say “I exited from the house” - In Arabic, you can say خرجتُ من الدارِ, but you cannot say خرجتُ الدارَ EXHIBIT II - In English, you say “I was angry with him” - In Arabic, you say غضبتُ عليه EXHIBIT III In English, you can forgive the sin and the person. But Arabic, for the word غفر، the sin is maf’ul whereas the person must have lam, like غفر اللهُ الذنبَ لزيد. You cannot say غفر الله زيدا EXHIBIT IV In Arabic, similar words in terms of meaning might be used different. You say غفر الله لك, but then you would say عفا الله عنك - you cannot say غفر الله عنك or عفا الله لك. Then for a word like سامح, the person can be maf’ul, so سامحك الله This is called صِلَة, ie agents that are attached to the verb are the only way the verb in question is used. Furthermore, some صِلَات assign the verb to a specific meaning. For example: ذهب بـ = أذهب رغب عن = أعرض دخل على = زار ضرب في = سار To learn these variations, you just need extensive lessons on Arabic Adab. Learning sarf and nahw isn’t enough, though these are important as well. Importantly, differentiate between حروف الجر used in a regular form and used as صِلَة for a verb.

Honey, can you take me for a holiday to the Emirates? It is such an Islamic country! https://x.com/jimNjue_/status/1923033536811987157

A 3-Part Online Course with Moulana Dr Zeeshan Chaudri Dates: Sundays – 22nd June, 29th June & 6th July 2025 Time: 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM (UK Time) Audience: Alimiyyah students & graduates 🎓 Course Fee: £20 This focused online course is designed to enhance the research capabilities of students and graduates of the Alimiyyah programme, empowering them to engage critically with Islamic texts and academic discourse.k Led by Moulana Dr Zeeshan Chaudri, who brings both traditional scholarship and academic expertise, this course will provide a deeper understanding of research frameworks, methodologies, and the tools necessary for advanced Islamic studies. What You’ll Learn: -The role and purpose of research in Islamic scholarship Classical vs. contemporary methodologies -How to engage critically and analytically with texts Academic writing, structuring arguments, and referencing -Practical insights into academic publishing and further studies.

👆🏼For reference, this is 6pm UK time.

Free Introductory Webinar: Discover the Depths of Nahj al-Burda With Ustadh Mustafa al-Qabbani Join us for a free online webinar introducing our upcoming course on Ahmed Shawqi’s Nahj al-Burda — a modern classic in praise of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), rich with eloquent vocabulary, complex grammar, and stunning rhetorical beauty (balāgha). Led by Ustadh Mustafa al-Qabbani, this webinar will explore the poem’s significance as a decolonial literary revival. In this webinar, you’ll learn: • Why Nahj al-Burda matters in modern Arabic and Islamic thought • How this course will help deepen your command of Arabic • What to expect from the full course in terms of content and approach Whether you’re a student of Arabic or simply curious, this is the perfect opportunity to learn more — and ask your questions directly. Date: 14th of May Time: 8:00 PM Makkah Time Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89645115608?pwd=7brDs8tP3DmpjRrgPMGrfbAEhwg0Us.1 Meeting ID: 896 4511 5608 Passcode: 782706

5. Why do you not mention that A'ishah رضي الله عنها said...? Anyone who cites this - as most from that camp do, whether Barelwi or Deobandi - while ignoring what Abdullah ibn Umar said and the fact that he refused to speak to his own son for preventing women from attending the mosque, is being seriously disingenuous. Also, those who want to cite Ibn Umar never entering the mosque in Madinah through Bab 'l-Nisa should also be cognizant of his position on the absolute permissibility of women attending the mosque. 6. Women are prohibited from visiting the graves - this is the fatwa in the Hanafi School. Both Haskafi and Ibn Abidin said to the contrary: وَلَا بَأْسَ... بِزِيَارَةِ الْقُبُورِ وَلَوْ لِلنِّسَاءِ وَالْأَصَحُّ أَنَّ الرُّخْصَةَ ثَابِتَةٌ لَهُنَّ Ibn Abidin weakened the other view as well. Shurunbulali and Tahtawi preferred the same view as Haskafi and Ibn Abidin. Asrar should not project his cultural preferences onto the Hanafi School. I am not denying the existence of other views in the school. What I do object to is this "my way or highway" approach exhibited by Asrar. 7. Shurunbulali says in Maraqi al-Falah that the voice of a woman is awrah. This is one interpretation of the ahadith that speak of a woman not delivering the Adhan, not raising her voice in Talbiyah, or those that instruct her to clap the back of her hand when pointing out an error of the Imam in Salah (which is ironic given the ban these lot place on women attending the mosque). The other interpretation to these ahadith is that this is due to fitnah, not that the voice is awrah. Ibn Abidin alludes to this view in the school - an issue that the early Imams are ostensibly silent on hence the dispute: وَفِي شَرْحِ الْمُنْيَةِ الْأَشْبَهُ أَنَّ صَوْتَهَا لَيْسَ بِعَوْرَةٍ، وَإِنَّمَا يُؤَدِّي إلَى الْفِتْنَةِ كَمَا عَلَّلَ بِهِ صَاحِبُ الْهِدَايَةِ وَغَيْرُهُ فِي مَسْأَلَةِ التَّلْبِيَةِ وَلَعَلَّهُنَّ إنَّمَا مُنِعْنَ مِنْ رَفْعِ الصَّوْتِ بِالتَّسْبِيحِ فِي الصَّلَاةِ لِهَذَا الْمَعْنَى وَلَا يَلْزَمُ مِنْ حُرْمَةِ رَفْعِ صَوْتِهَا بِحَضْرَةِ الْأَجَانِبِ أَنْ يَكُونَ عَوْرَةً كَمَا قَدَّمْنَاهُ Personally, this does seem to be the better and more plausible view and women speaking to men is replete in the Hadith corpus and the Sirah, not to mention the Quran itself and the biographies of the Imams of the Madhhab. In Majma' 'l-Anhur, Damad Efendi also had reservations of the voice of a woman beign awrah in the Hanafi School: أَقُولُ: وَفِيهِ كَلَامٌ؛ لِأَنَّ صَوْتَهَا مُطْلَقًا لَيْسَ بِعَوْرَةٍ، وَإِلَّا يَسْتَلْزِمُ أَنْ يُكْرَهَ تَكَلُّمُهَا مَعَ الْأَجْنَبِيِّ وَلَيْسَ كَذَلِكَ، بَلْ يُكْرَهُ رَفْعُ صَوْتِهَا تَدَبَّرْ Ibn Amir Haj offered the same view, as recorded by Siraj Ibn Nujaym: الأشبه أنه ليس بعورة وإنما يؤدي إلى الفتنة وهو الذي ينبغي اعتماده Commentating on Tumurtashi's ولا تلبي جهرا, Haskafi offered the same view - it is not awrah: بل تسمع نفسها دفعا للفتنة، وما قيل إن صوتها عورة ضعيف Conclusion: While he is trying to educate his audience towards good, Asrar should try not to misrepresent the school or dismiss other scholarly views.

3. Why don't you mention that the worst rows for the men are the back rows? a. This is when it is does with the explicit intention of wanting to be close to the opposite gender. It does not mean men who come later, or who happen to have joined the salah and are in the last row. b. To the contrary, Imam Nawawi in his commentary on Sahih Muslim said the the 'reverse' for women (i.e., that their last row being the best and the first row being the worst) is only applicable when they are together with men and are not cut off from them. If they are completely separate, then their first row would be the best for them as well, just like the first row of the men: أما صفوف النساء فالمراد بالحديث صفوف النساء اللواتي يصلين مع الرجال ، وأما إذا صلين متميزات لا مع الرجال فهن كالرجال خير صفوفهن أولها وشرها آخرها c. We know for a fact that there were even men in the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم who attended the congregation who could not even cover their privates properly, due to poverty. There was no prohibition on them attending Salah, nor was there a prohibition on the women behind them from attending. In fact, the Prophet did not even erect a barrier. Instead, he told the women to arise from prostration a few seconds later than the men, as Imam Muslim and others record: حدثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة حدثنا وكيع عن سفيان عن أبي حازم عن سهل بن سعد قال لقد رأيت الرجال عاقدي أزرهم في أعناقهم مثل الصبيان من ضيق الأزر خلف النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال قائل يا معشر النساء لا ترفعن رءوسكن حتى يرفع الرجال This was conveniently missed by Asrar, just as it is missed by those who insist on a physical barrier. You can have your barrier - just don't make it the be-all end-all of mosque best practice. 4. Why did you not mention that Prophet encouraged the women to pray at home, that they get the reward of the congregation at home, but when they attend the mosque they only get one reward? a. I have no idea what the source of the specific items he mentioned here is. b. I would have raised the question here on whether he recommends women to attend the mosques in Makkah and Madinah, but then I realised he himself does not perform Salah behind the Imams there and only pretends to do so: "I do NOT pray behind Wahabis or any deviants. One sentence in the lecture was quoted where I say 'and they will see me praying behind the imam...' by which I meant that when I go Makkah and Madinah, ostensibly I do stand behind the imam as to not cause fitnah. This is clear from the context of my lecture where I mention that rather than sitting in the hotel lobby during jamat time it is better to attend the masjid. I alaways pray after with my own jamat in the haramayn sharifayn." (Sunniport)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kriX4ZR1Qus This was a very poor video by Asrar Rashid. I'm not one to relitigate the entire discussion on ikhtilat - the paper and counter by Muntasir Zaman and Zeeshan Chaudry is sufficient in this regard. What I do want to point it here is a slew of factual errors, lack of knowledge, or expedient omission of other facts by Asrar, whose comments from the video are paraphrased here in italics and underlined: 1. Why don't you mention that the women has a separate entrance into al-Masjid al-Nabawi? This is a common argument to prevent women coming to the mosque, as no separate door would have been been designated for them. This argument fails and falls apart on several of counts: a. Many a time, even in new builds, a door isn't designated for them despite the capability of ity being installed. b. Nowhere does it say that it is a condition for a woman's attendance in the mosque that they must enter from a separate door. c. Ibn Umar is recorded to have never entered this door for the rest of his life. I mention his name for two reasons. One reason is that there are no records to my knowledge that this door was out of bounds for men when there were no women around. The second reason is to be mentioned later. d. There are no records of the Prophet ever instructing the Makkans to do the same for al-Masjid al-Haram, or any other mosque. In fact, his precise words for his own mosque were not even a command; rather, he said: لو تركنا هذا الباب للنساء (If we were to leave this door for the women.) e. Women entering the mosque building and the musalla area are two different things. Most mosque buildings nowadays are not the same as the Prophet's Mosque, where entry into the door would mean you would be standing in the musalla area. Therefore, Asrar's argument for most mosques in the West nowadays only works when in reference to the mosque building and not just the musalla area. f. Besides, the purported prohibition on "ikhtilat" is a universal one and not restricted to mosque or a mosque complex. If a separate door is a stipulation for the permissibility of a woman entering a building external to her home, it should also apply to Muslim shops, marketplaces, and other establishments. Nobody in the history of Islam has ever made such a stipulation. g. To the contrary, there are other fatawa that allow women to enter the mosque from the same door is men so long as the conditions of decency are upheld. The separate door for women was an ideal, not an obligation. 2. Why don't you mention that women would come with face veils? This is not even the default Hanafi position. Had it been such a categorical Sunnah as Asrar is making out, he would be implicitly accusing the Hanafi School of having gone against the Sunnah on this matter, with no Hanafi scholar in the history of the Madhhab having corrected the Imams of the school. That is a grave accusation to make.

أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو بَكْر أَحْمَد بْن سُلَيْمَان بْن عَلِي المقرئ, أَخْبَرَنَا عبيد اللَّه بْن مُحَمَّد البزاز, أَخْبَرَنَا جَعْفَر بْن مُحَمَّد بْن الْقَاسِمِ, أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو الْعَبَّاس الطوسي, أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّد بْن سَعْد, قَالَ: قُلْت لطفيلي مرة: ويلك! تأكل حرامًا؟! قَالَ: مَا أكلت قط إلا حلالًا. قُلْت: وكيف ذاك؟ قَالَ: لأني إِذَا دخلت دارًا لقوم قصدت بَاب النِّسَاء, فيقولون ههنا ههنا, فقولهم: ههنا هُوَ دعوة, فَمَا آكل إلا حلالًا - التطفيل للخطيب البغدادي

The reason Abu Talib’s goodness is emphasized in the Seerah despite the awful state of his passing is to pin down this point. Not even he made it to heaven with love and kindness alone, void of true faith. What makes you think anyone else can?

Every time some kind non-Muslim figure kicks the bucket, I’m once again reminded of the maniacal, casual perennialism gripping so many Muslims. Strange yet unsurprising.