Faisal H - Notes

32:00 - Awni discusses the classical scholarly dispute on the legality of growing a beard. He argues that scholars differ even in trimming below the length of a hand fist, and argue that the 'lengthening' in the report simply refers to maintaining some form of a beard. In fact, some scholars argue that shaving is discouraged (makruh) rather than prohibited. To explain, the practice of the Prophet (peace be upon him) itself does not indicate obligation from a point of law, as mentioned in books of Usul. The Prophet (peace be upon him) performed many actions that are not considered obligatory, like the Sunnah prayers that follow the obligatory. Awni explains that if we were to assess the main report on the beard, the report contains an instruction to grow the beard and trim the mustache (with varying wording), and to oppose the Majus. Awni argues that those who argue for obligation argue it in two ways: (i) the report includes an instruction (amr), and instructions indicate obligation; and (ii) the report includes an instruction to oppose the Majus. Awni responds, however, that trimming (haff) the mustache is sunnah by agreement, yet it is also coupled in the report with an instruction (amr) and likewise the instruction to oppose the Majus. Therefore, either both instructions on the beard and mustache are obligatory (which Awni argues is not the case as he believes all scholars agree the instruction for the mustache is recommended), or both are recommended. As for opposing the Majus, this does not necessarily indicate obligation, as there are several other reports that mention this same concept (i.e. opposing the practice of other groups) which are likewise not taken to indicate obligation. E.g. the Prophet (peace be upon him) instructed to perform Salah in footwear and to oppose Jewish practice, yet it is not obligatory to perform Salah in footwear; and the Prophet (peace be upon him) encouraged the pre-dawn meal when fasting as a form of opposing Ahl al-Kitab, yet the pre-dawn meal is not obligatory. All that is required here is to demonstrate that the report on the beard is not conclusive (qat'i), and this is sufficient in demonstrating that the strictness on this topic is not warranted. Rather, today we make this the defining characteristic between the righteous and the shameless sinner (majin). Awni says he is aware of scholars in Egypt and North Africa who are committed to Allah and His religion who hold the view that growing the beard is not obligatory. The issue here is not disagreeing with their conclusion, as that is completely fine; the issue is disregarding their scholarship and piety as a result of that disagreement.

Sh. Hatim al-Awni - الخلاف الفقهي (part 3/3) https://t.me/Hatim_Al3uny/2842 06:05 - When discussing the idea of ease in law (Fiqh al-Taysir), Awni says this should neither be accepted nor rejected completely. Each ruling ought to be assessed on its own merit. If a view is unsound, then it is rejected regardless of whether it carries ease or difficulty. An opinion cannot be disregarded simply because it is Fiqh al-Taysir, as perhaps most of these opinions are valid. Otherwise, those who adopt Fiqh al-Taysir could equally claim that others adopt an approach of difficulty (Fiqh al-Tashdid) and dismiss their opinions on that basis. Q&A 25:50 - Awni says that some may assume that he is arguing that nabidh and musical instruments are both permitted, but this is not the case nor the point he is making. In fact, at the time of the recording (2009/2010), Awni says he believes both nabidh and musical instruments are prohibited. (F: he changed his view on musical instruments in around 2019, which he now argues to be permitted.) 27:50 - Everything in the music industry in the past likewise exists today. The scholarly discussion around music simply pertains to the legality of instruments themselves. As for vulgar speech, this is prohibited with or without instruments. As for promiscuous behaviour, this is prohibited with or without instruments. That is not the point of debate as nobody permits this. Those who permit instruments intend only to permit instruments when they are coupled with permitted speech. For example, the famous poem of 'Banat Su'ad' is permitted as it was recited in front of the Prophet (peace be upon him). If someone were to utter the same lines of poetry and then simply play a musical instrument in the background, then those who permit musical instruments would not prohibit that. As for prohibited lyrics, they are not permitted irrespective of whether they are accompanied by music or not.

01:07:00 - Dhahabi says that if we were to completely disregard a scholar everytime he made a mistake, then nobody would in reality be safe, irrespective of who they are. 01:08:00 - Qarafi argues that an invalid view is not permitted to issue a fatwa on, but the scholar himself is not sinful; rather, he is rewarded for his best effort. In other words, according to Qarafi, not only is the scholar not sinful for the invalid view, but he is rewarded for trying his best to reach the truth. Elsewhere, Qarafi argues that in each legal school, there are views that upon careful examination are not permitted to issue fatwa by them. In other words, he argues that nobody is free of error. 01:09:00 - Ibn Daqiq al-'Id says that an invalid view does not necessarily mean the one who adopts the view is to be given no consideration. (F: In other words, it is possible to argue a view is invalid while still respecting the person who adopts it.) 01:15:50 - Ahmad believed the permissibility of nabidh to be an invalid view in his Kitab al-Ashribah. Abu Hatim al-Razi says he mentioned scholars in Kufa who held the view of permissibility to Ahmad, and he replied that this is a mistaken view, though their moral integrity ('adalah) is not stripped as a result of this mistake. (al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil) Awni says that imagine if someone held this view today. How do you think he would be treated, and would his integrity be questioned? 01:17:00 - Awni shares a noteworthy quote from Ibn Qutaybah regarding the people of Kufa and nabidh. 01:20:30 - Ibrahim ibn Sa'd (d. 185) who permitted musical instruments was the [F: great] grandson of the companion Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf. Dhahabi says that Ibrahim ibn Sa'd held the view that instruments are permitted and did not find a reason for prohibition, and then says "so what." (F: Dhahabi says this in a book defending reliable hadith transmitters, which is noteworthy context.) Yusuf ibn Ya'qub ibn Abi Salamah al-Majishun (d. 185) was a jurist from Madinah. Ibn Ma'in declares him reliable, despite saying that he would go to his house for hadith, and there would be girls in a separate house or room (bayt) who would be there playing an instrument. As Khalili says, Yusuf ibn Ya'qub and his family were known to permit instruments (sama'), though they are reliable hadith transmitters and included as transmitters in Sahih collections. Khalili also mentions the same for Abd al-'Aziz ibn Abdillah ibn Abi Salamah al-Majishun (d. 165) - who was a contemporary and peer of Malik; the two of them were known to be the main jurists to issue fatwa in Madinah at the time. Khalili says Abd al-'Aziz permitted the 'ud instrument. 01:26:00 - Sometimes a scholar will have harsh words against a view that they consider invalid. In this case, there are three possibilities: (i) The harsh words are directed at the view rather than the person adopting the view, which is not an issue as there is a distinction between the two. (ii) It is directed at a person for whom the harshness is warranted, like someone arguing for an invalid view when he is not a person of learning. (iii) The harsh statement by the scholar is simply a mistake on his part, as scholars are not infallible.

Sh. Hatim al-Awni - الخلاف الفقهي (part 2/3) https://t.me/Hatim_Al3uny/2841 00:45 - Some scholars cite consensus on the prohibition of chess, but this is not an issue of 'umum al-balwa (i.e. an issue of widespread relevance and concern) for there to be an actual valid consensus. In fact, we find reports from early scholars like Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab and Ikrimah permitting chess. Ishaq Ibn Rahuwayh also argues that it is prohibited only when it involves gambling, and that otherwise it is discouraged (makruh). There are also other reports from the Salaf. These scholars obviously did not believe there to be a consensus for them to hold the view of permissibility. Ibn Abi Shaybah has a chapter in his Musannaf for those who prohibited chess. He does not mention any dispute on the issue besides that. However, Ibn Qutaybah in 'Uyun al-Akhbar shares an authentic transmission through his teacher Ishaq ibn Rahuwayh right to Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab arguing for permissibility. Therefore, it is not correct to simply gather reports from one book to arrive at a conclusion [of consensus] as it may not be comprehensive. 04:20 - An indication (qarinah) that an opinion is acceptable and valid - rather than an intrinsic proof (dalil) - is that it is held by the majority. Awni says that he is not aware of an opinion that three of the four Imams held at once which is not [at least] valid. E.g. performing salah in congregation in the mosque. Salah in congregation is an emphasised Sunnah according to Abu Hanifah and Malik. It is Fard Kifayah based on the main view of Shafi'i. Ahmad argues salah in congregation itself is obligatory but can be performed anywhere, and it is sunnah to do so in the mosque (based on the main view in the school). From Ahmad, there is also a related report mentioned by Ibn Abi Hatim (in his 'al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil') transmitted through his father, from Salih, from his father Ahmad. The report mentions that during the time of salah, Ali ibn al-Madini asked whether they should go to the mosque to pray. Ahmad replied that they are currently in a congregation, so they performed salah together where they were rather than in the mosque. Therefore, the practice of Ahmad also indicates that he did not believe performing salah in congregation in the mosque to be obligatory. Accordingly, from the four Imams, none actually argued that it is obligatory to perform salah in congregation in the mosque in particular - so Awni argues it cannot be said that this view is completely invalid. Awni says that if someone wanted to argue for another view, then principally that is not a problem, but the view of the majority should not be labelled invalid. 42:00 - To label something bid'ah is to condemn the act (and claim it contradicts something conclusive, i.e. qat'i). Therefore, to say there exists valid disagreement on an issue while labelling the view bid'ah is a contradiction because a valid disagreement cannot be condemned by definition. 45:45 - Ibn Qutaybah argues that one should be just and fair even when describing a view to be invalid or those who adopt it. Awni cites a relevant quote by him on the topic of nabidh. 53:00 - Awni shares examples from Ahmad expressing caution in associating people with bid'ah.

Sh. Hatim al-Awni - الخلاف الفقهي (part 1/3) - (personal notes) https://t.me/Hatim_Al3uny/2840 10:00 - The idea of scholarly disagreement itself should not be considered an issue, to the extent that even a scholar who errs in judgement is rewarded. 10:55 - There is a consensus that valid and acceptable scholarly disagreements exist (which is also cited by Qadi Iyad and Imam Nawawi). The Sahaba differed with one another in countless legal issues without imposing their opinions on one another. This is despite it being possible to have imposed their opinion on others, particularly those who held authority in different regions. The Sahaba disagreed in issues when they dispersed in different regions. The Tabi'un likewise differed, including the seven famous jurists of Madinah. No scholar condemned the opinions held by others except those particular conclusions they believed deserved condemnation. Imam Malik famously also did not impose his views when he had the opportunity to do so by the state. 42:00 - Imam Shafi'i said regarding the hadith on camel meat invalidating wudu' that if he considered the hadith authentic he would act on it. Bayhaqi and others argue that the hadith is authentic and quote Shafi'i's famous statement: "When a report is sound, it is the view I adopt" (إذا صحّ الحديثُ فهو مَذهبي) for this legal issue because Shafi'i stated this explicitly here. In other words, Shafi'i had no problem with the import (dalalah) of the hadith indicating invalidity of wudu', but just its authenticity (thubut). This is mentioned by Awni simply by way of example, rather than to prefer one view over the other. 44:05 - Awni cites another example from Shafi'i making the same contingent argument regarding a hadith, which later scholars acknowledged. Awni notes that it is also possible that if a hadith is authentic, one may dispute its import (dalalah) and argue for the same conclusion as someone who disputes its authenticity (thubut).

I also just shared a short thread on Sh. Hatim al-Awni's Ikhtilaf al-Muftin: https://x.com/i/status/2048875089622396946

Sh. Hatim al-Awni's thoughts on the nature of a majority view (jumhur) within a scholarly context. I stress 'scholarly', as he recognises its role for the non-specialist.

Starting now

Today's live session will be on Sh. Hatim al-Awni's 'Ikhtilaf al-Muftin', a work on how non-specialists should navigate scholarly differences, and a ton of other topics on Usul. InSha'Allah we'll start at 7:30 PM (UK), which is an hour from now: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/5485476404?pwd=PkizdqUQqDFbyO6RFaxItK3kXyvTho.1

In 2024, I took Sh. Abdullah al-Judai's course on Ifta' and shared these personal recordings with my lovely Usul al-Fiqh cohort. I'm sure some will find this interesting, so I share them here. Note: at the end of the recording on persistent twilight, I mentioned Sh. Judai's view on combining Maghrib and Isha before the period of persistent twilight, particularly when Isha gets very late. I said this is what he mentions in his paper on the topic, which is an error on my part - he rather mentioned this to me in person. In his paper, he only alluded to this and focused mainly on Isha after persistent twilight. (I may have a future live session on the topic where I explore this further.)

More details on content here: https://t.me/shaykhaljudai/795

'Can the Sunnah truly contradict the Quran?' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5Puk_3l6bo This is a video taken from my Usul al-Fiqh series, where I discuss the popular question on the relationship between the Quran and the Sunnah while citing several examples on the topic. I hope you find it informative. 🙏 Timestamps: 00:00 - How the Sunnah serves as an explanation (bayan) of the Quran 04:55 - Can the Sunnah actually contradict the Quran? 14:18 - A famous hadith on the creation of the earth, argued to be inauthentic by Bukhari