Faisal Hassan

Your Quranic literacy only improves the more you actively engage with the Quran. - It only improves if you read the Quran with its meaning. - It only improves if you read books that quote Quranic verses in every discussion. - It only improves if you learn from teachers who constantly cite Quranic verses due to their intimate knowledge of Scripture. Until then, you can't expect Quranic literacy. You might know pork is prohibited, but that's because you've learnt that from your culture and upbringing, not because you've read the Quranic verse(s) explicitly telling you so. And there's a world of a difference between these two states of learning!

Abu al-'Abbas al-Qurtubi (d. 656) says that Islamic Law is built on wisdom and purpose, and that this purpose-built law is presupposed in the way scholars derive Fiqh and understand hadiths. To explain: when reading hadiths, you don't always find a reason behind why an instruction is given. Very often, you just find an instruction to do X or Y. But because the jurist knows the law is built on purpose, he tries to identify what the purpose behind that instruction might be, even if it's not stated explicitly in the hadith. And this is completely natural. We do this all the time in everyday conversations. For example, if someone said, "Don't ring me at 2 AM in the morning," he wouldn't have to state the reason for you to think that 2 AM is probably too late, and that you shouldn't call because he'll probably be asleep. You find many such examples in hadiths. E.g. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said that a judge should not rule while in the state of anger. The reason why he shouldn't rule in this state isn't mentioned explicitly, but you can safely assume that it's due to the effect anger has on one's mental capacity and consequently his ability to judge correctly. As a result, anything that has the same consequence and clouds one's judgement will take the same rule, and we can arrive at this conclusion even though that reason isn't stated in the hadith explicitly, because we understand that law isn't random and it serves a purpose. (al-Qurtubi, 'al-Mufhim lima Ashkala min Talkhis Kitab Muslim')

Dr. Ayman Saleh shares five common examples of people missing the purpose and function of religious practices: 1) Some of us strive to follow the prophetic practice of licking the fingers after eating but forget that one of its purposes is to avoid wasting food. It makes little sense, then, to get caught up in licking your fingers if you waste and throw large amounts of food in the trash. 2) Some men get caught up in keeping their lower garments above their ankles due to fear of pride (as stipulated in hadith), but we forget the meaning of humility and ridding ourselves of pride when interacting with others in every other aspect of our life. (According to majority of scholars, the prohibition of lower garments hanging below the ankles is directly tied to pride and arrogance, as per the context and custom in the time of revelation. In the absence of pride, it is no longer prohibited.) 3) Some of us are so focused on the outer form and method of salah that we forget the ultimate goal of maintaining concentration and remembrance of Allah (in the prayer) and abstaining from indecent and wrong acts (outside the prayer). 4) Some people make long public supplications entirely in Arabic when majority of the congregation don't understand what's being said nor what they are supplicating for while they all repeat 'ameen'. The purpose of the supplication is to communicate to Allah and ask Him directly from the heart. It only makes sense then to supplicate in the language people understand so they actually know what they are seeking. 5) Many people focus on reciting and memorising the Quran without understanding the meanings behind its words, let alone contemplating on its guidance, even though the purpose of any book is understanding, let alone one we consider revelation. (Dr. Ayman Saleh, 'Fawa'id Ta'lil al-Ahkam al-Shar'iyyah')

I was recently asked: What are the things you think the average believer should be doing that are actually implementable on a wide scale? Put another way, what are the things that every believer should have in order for the community to be an absolute unit? To this fantastic question, I say: Every believer should constantly maintain three things: 1) The five pillars of Islam 2) Being a decent human being 3) Reading a Quran translation regularly Now let's break this down: 1) The five pillars - (testification of faith, salah, fasting, zakah, and hajj) When we describe something as a 'pillar', what we mean is that it's the foundation upon which everything else rests. So the 'pillars of Islam' are those upon which the rest of one's Islam rests. For example, someone who performs salah five times throughout the day is in a constant state of remembering Allah multiple times a day. If he does this over an extended period of time, don't you think that'll naturally have an impact on the person and be reflected in other parts of their life? Absolutely! 2) Being a decent human being. This is an encompassing statement that applies to all relationships. It applies to your interaction with your family, friends, business partner, neighbour, spouse, and the average Joe on the street. It's to not backbite or speak ill of people. It is to 'want for your brother what you want for yourself.' At a fundamental level, we all truly know what it means to be a 'decent' human being. 3) Reading a Quran translation regularly. This is a mentally stimulating activity that is to engage with the Quran according to its actual purpose (i.e. its meaning and content!). Someone who is constantly reading a Quran translation is perpetually absorbing Allah's guidance and is shaping his perception of life, existence, and values. If an entire believing community is reading and studying Allah's guidance over their entire life (like the Companions) and constantly asking questions about it, don't you think that'll shape their understanding of what Allah truly wants from them? Now I'm not saying I'm some spiritual guru. I'm just a geezer. But if you think about the grassroots project naturally and through principal verses & hadiths, this is what you get. Everything else falls into place from these three things.

Many students who study the tradition attempt to simultaneously uphold three axioms that are together paradoxical: Axiom 1: Classical scholars must be respected. Axiom 2: Every opinion of a classical scholar is valid. Axiom 3: To declare the opinion of a classical scholar invalid is disrespectful. Each axiom has its justifications. After all, scholars were extremely intelligent and faithful to their cause; had dedicated themselves to understanding the religion; and have been followed for centuries, making their opinions worthy of consideration as valid representations of the religion. While accepting this, there is a paradox in upholding the three axioms simultaneously, which becomes clearer in the following scenarios: (i) A scholar holds an opinion for it to only later be dismissed and perhaps declared invalid by others (e.g. nabidh). (ii) The opinions of two scholars are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot both be correct simultaneously (e.g. each scholar rejects the view of the other and does not consider the opposing view valid). (iii) The opinion of one scholar itself entails disrespecting another scholar due to the way they expressed their disagreements (human relationships are complicated). Therefore, the only way to solve the paradox is to either renounce one of the axioms or qualify them in some way. Different camps go about this in different ways: (1) Some people fall off the rails and disagree with all three axioms, leading them to absurdly dismiss the entire tradition and start from scratch. (2) Others choose to discredit a large number of classical scholars, so they accept the axioms but heavily restrict their understanding of whom they accept as scholars--because for some reason they haven't yet figured out how to respect a scholar while disagreeing with him on a particular issue. (3) Some who respect and navigate the tradition recognise the paradox and may therefore disagree with axiom 2 (that every opinion of a classical scholar is valid); or qualify their understanding of axiom 3 (that disagreeing with a scholar is inherently disrespectful). Others, on the other hand, may still force themselves to maintain all three axioms through historical revisionism. However, historical revisionism comes with its own problems: (i) It is a gross misrepresentation of reality, especially when done with the sole purpose of maintaining the three axioms. (ii) It can lead to strong cognitive dissonance. (iii) It drastically affects one's perception of the trajectory and reception of opinions throughout both classical and post-classical historical periods. Therefore, historical revisionism is not an option. I believe there is a middle ground--as you see in camp 3 above--but it's a spectrum and difficult to pinpoint with precision. Broadly speaking, there should be an attitude of respect and humility towards the tradition, while recognising history and human relationships for what they are, and ultimately focusing our attention to the challenges of our age.

A common misconception many of us had as kids when learning Islam was that we can't ask questions. "Don't ask questions, and just accept what you're told." But this contradicts the nature of learning (and it's something I always speak about when I first teach!). Remember that learning is heavily tied to curiosity. You only learn things you're curious about and that piques your interest. And that curiosity is expressed through questions. It's your constant questions that indicate your deep-seated thirst for knowledge and understanding, not just your answers to questions! Questions are fine if you approach them correctly. If you have enough humility to recognise gaps in your knowledge, then your questions are fine. It's not questions themselves that are the problem. The problem is the attitude one might have towards questions and the things they don't know. So, ask away! That's the only way you learn.

48 HOURS remaining until the first session of the Forty-Hadiths Course! I've already created a Telegram channel & Discussion Group. We'll be covering 20 sessions over 10 weeks, InSha'Allah. Last call to register: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/40-hadiths-of-imam-nawawi-tickets-897797786347?aff=oddtdtcreator

The relationship between Fiqh (Law) and Hadith The science of Hadith can be summarised as follows: 1) The hadith corpus as a whole includes both reliable and unreliable reports. 2) The science of Hadith is a system that distinguishes those reliable reports and unreliable reports. 3) After distinguishing those reports, the Hadith system provides varying degrees of conviction for the reliability of each report. In summary, then, the science of Hadith is a system of probability. What this means is that you may be certain the content of a hadith is true. You may be certain it is false. You may have strong conviction it is true. You may have strong conviction it is false. ____ Now how does all this relate to deriving law (Fiqh)? The science of Fiqh is also a system of probability. Once you recognise that the science of Fiqh and Hadith are both systems of probability, they must now unite and fuse in a way that maintains the principles of probability. This results in the following, which I've summarised in seven points. The relationship between Fiqh and Hadith: 1) To firstly acknowledge that each reliable and unreliable report provides varying degrees of conviction. 2) To acknowledge that Fiqh is derived from various sources of knowledge, which include, but are not limited to, the transmission of reports. 3) To acknowledge that after determining a hadith's reliability, it can often be interpreted in various ways (which may be influenced by context or other sources of knowledge). 4) To acknowledge the difference between rejecting a report and not accepting its most apparent reading. 5) To acknowledge that rejecting a reliable report for reasons that do not provide conviction greater than the determination of its authenticity is to disregard the system of probability. 6) To acknowledge that accepting standalone unreliable reports simply because there is a chance they are transmitted accurately is to also disregard the system of probability. 7) to acknowledge that accepting the content of unreliable reports is different to accepting the attribution of unreliable reports to their source. (The content may be accepted for reasons beyond the individual report, because, as mentioned in point 2, Fiqh is derived from various sources of knowledge beyond the transmission of reports.) I hope this helps!