Massoud Vahedi

"... the qawaid [fiqhiyyah] are something that the eponymous imams of the legal schools implicitly, or even explicitly, used in order to arrive at their ahkam."

The irony of rejecting agreed upon matters from a tradition of 1400 years of scholarship spanning vast lands and diverse cultures, backgrounds, and languages on the grounds that that these scholars had biases is that this rejection is a product of biases.

"In Surah Yusuf, there are "signs for those who ask" about psychology. There are "signs for those who ask" about economics – there are wonders in it. There are "signs for those who ask" about physiognomy and understanding people's character. There are "signs for those who ask" about dreams and the interpretation of visions and narratives. There are "signs for those who ask" about ethics and the sciences of morality. There are "signs for those who ask" about prisoners. There are "signs for those who ask" about women and the schemes or intrigues of women. There are "signs for those who ask" about luxury and the people who live in luxury. Every time I read it, I read it with a different mindset and from a different perspective, and you will see that it is an ocean whose breadth and depth are beyond what can possibly be comprehended. It is impossible – even if all the scholars of the world were to gather, from the time Allah created the world until Allah brings the world to an end – for them to encompass all the knowledge contained in it. They would not be able to do so." - Sh. 'Abd al-Rahman al-Hajji

"Surah Yusuf is a miracle among all miracles. Glory be to Allah, it is an ocean! Allah says at the beginning of it: “Indeed, in Yusuf and his brothers are signs for THOSE WHO ASK.” The one who does NOT ask does not deserve it. The one who does not ask does not deserve that you present this noble knowledge to him. If someone does not search and is not eager, you do not even want to teach him, because someone who is not attentive will not take knowledge seriously. Thus, “signs for those who ask.” You will die, and generations will pass away, yet the wonders of Surah Yusuf will not come to an end. You might think it is simply one story. Look at how much of your life has already passed. Some of us have reached 40, 50, or more, and every day we read it and discover new things in it. There are also still countless fields of knowledge contained within it that no one can fully enumerate." - Sh. 'Abd al-Rahman al-Hajji CONT'D

Al-Malik al-Ẓāhir Baybars (d. 676 AH) held history and its scholars in particularly high regard. He is reported to have said: “Listening to history is more instructive than personal experience.”

"(المشقة تجلب التيسير) و (لا ضرر ولا ضرار) قاعدتان متقاربتان. ولكن قاعدة المشقة تجلب التيسير أوسع للمكلفين و قاعدة لا ضرر ولا ضرار أضيق. وربما تلتقيان في كثير من المسائل." - الشيخ عبد المحسن الزامل

There is something deeply troubling about the resurgence of pro-Umayyad thought in certain Arab intellectual circles. Beneath the stated desire to restore the former glory of the Muslim Ummah there can lie an element of Arab supremacism, accompanied by xenophobic undertones. Such thinking may reflect a latent assumption that the decline of the Islamic world was, at least in part, a consequence of the growing influence of non-Arab peoples who entered the faith, and that Islam somehow lost its distinctive vitality as it became increasingly shaped by them.

Ibn Taymiyyah observes that Heraclius and al-Najashi recognized the truth of Islam and the Prophethood of the Messenger of Allah 'alayhi al-Salam through distinct approaches. Al-Najashi’s recognition was grounded primarily in the message of the Qur’an and the moral and spiritual values it conveyed. Through reflection upon its teachings, he came to the conviction that the one who brought this message could only be a truthful Prophet. Heraclius, by contrast, approached the matter through an examination of the personality, character, and background of the Prophet 'alayhi al-Salam. By considering his established reputation, conduct, and circumstances, Heraclius concluded that an individual of such character and stature could not plausibly be a liar.

#الفائدة :(733) (فَوَائدُ مِنْ مَجَالسِ شَيْخِنَا أَبِي عَبْدِاللهِ فَتْحِي المَوْصِلْيّ حَفِظَهُ اللهُ). مقدمات علمية : حديثيّة وأصوليّة في تحسين الحديث بتعدد طرقه *المقدمة الأولى* : الحكم على الخبر بالصحة والقبول إنما يكون بحسب أمرين : بحسب صفات ناقليه ، وبحسب تعدد طرقه ؛ وبالتالي القول بعدم التصحيح أو التحسين بتعدد الطرق قادح في أصول الرواية في الدين ومصادم للعقل والعادة . *المقدمة الثانية* : أن طلب التعدد يقع في أخبار الناس واخبار الشرع ، فيطلب في الشهادة والرواية ؛ قال تعالى : { أَن تَضِلَّ إِحۡدَىٰهُمَا فَتُذَكِّرَ إِحۡدَىٰهُمَا ٱلۡأُخۡرَىٰۚ } . *المقدمة الثالثة* : أن التعدد في الرواية لا يقصد لذاته ؛ فلا يشترط له عدد ؛ إذ مقصوده أن يكون الكلام صدقا وليس كذبا ؛ وهذا القدر قد يحصل برواية الحديث من طريق آخر أو من عدة طرق أو قد لا يحصل المقصود بمجموعها ؛ بحيث تفيد تلك الطرق علما يمنع حصول التواطؤ على الكذب أو الخطأ . *المقدمة الرابعة* : أن مجيء الخبر من طرق متعددة ، إن كانت صحيحة فهي تزيد الخبر صحةً ، وإن كانت ضعيفة فهي تزيل احتمال الخطأ أو الكذب في الحديث ؛ فتقوي الحديث ؛ فإذا جاء الحديث من طرق متعددة لا تخلو من ضعف ؛ فإن القدر الجامع لاعتبارها في تقوية الحديث هو عدم احتمال التعمد في الكذب أو الخطأ من قبل الراوي ؛ وهذا معنى اشتراط العلماء في الحسن لغيره أن لا يكون الضعف شديدا ؛ فالخشية فقط من التواطؤ على الكذب والخطأ ؛ فاذا استبعد هذا التواطؤ صلح التعدد على أي وجه كان ، وقبل الضعف في أي نوع من أنواعه ما مالم يكن الراوي متهما بالكذب أو كانت روايته فيها مخالفة لرواية الثقات . *المقدمة الخامسة* : أن الخبر إذا جاء بطرق تصلح للاعتضاد وأخرى لا تصلح ؛ لا يكون ما لا يصلح مانعاً من الاحتجاج بما يصلح ؛ فالقاعدة في الباب هي التفصيل والتحقيق ؛ فالأمر يحتاج هنا إلى تنقيح مناط ما يصلح لتقوية الخبر به ؛ إذ الخبر ينقله الصادق والكاذب ؛ لكن لا يقبل إلا من رواية الصادق . *المقدمة السادسة* : أن الأعتبار بالرواية أو الاحتجاج بها من الأمور النسبية ؛ فقد لا يصلح الاحتجاج برواية الراوي في حال الإنفراد ؛ ولكن قد تصلح للاعتبار مع وجود العاضد ؛ فالعلة تكون في إنفراده واحتمال خطئه ، وهذه العلة تزول بمجيء الحديث من طرق متعددة . *المقدمة السابعة* : ومن يتأمل كلام العلماء من النقاد المتقدمين ومن المحققين المتأخرين يلحظ أن الحديث الضعيف يتقوى بشروط ثلاثة : الشرط الأول : أن يأتي الحديث من طرق أخرى ضعفها ليس شديداً ؛ بمعنى ليس فيها من يكون متهما أو من تخالف روايته رواية الثقات العدول احترازاً عن الكذب والخطأ من الراوي ؛ وهذا ظاهر في تعريف الإمام الترمذي للحديث الحسن : ( كل حديث يُروى لا يكون في إسناده من يتَّهم بالكذب، ولا يكون الحديث شاذًّا، ويُروى من غير وجه نحو ذاك ) ؛ فاحترز عن من يتهم بالكذب ، ومن كان في حديثه الوهم والغلط . الشرط الثاني : تعدد طريق الحديث حقيقةً ؛ فلا ترجع الطرق إلى مصدر واحد ؛ وإنما يكون سند هذا غير سند هذا ، بحيث تكون الروايات مختلفة والمخارج متعددة ، ولهذا لما عرّف أبو سليمان الخطابي الحسن في معالم السنن قال : ( هو ما عُرف مخرجه واشتهر رجاله ) ؛ فكأنّ الخطابي احترز بقوله ( ما عرف مخرجه ) عن الحديث المنكر ، والترمذي احترج عن الحديث الشاذ ، واحترز ابن الجوزي عن الضعف الشديد بقوله في تعريف الحسن : ( الحديث الذي فيه ضعف قريب محتمل ) . الشرط الثالث : أن لا يخالف الحديث أصلا ثابتا من الكتاب والسنة ؛ لأن اليقين لا يرفع بغلبة الظن ؛ وإنما بيقين مثله ؛ فإفادة الحديث للصحة بتعدد الطرق وهي ضعيفة لا تقاوم الأصل الثابت في الشريعة ؛ لأن ما يصلح للاعتضاد بمجموعه لا يقوى على دفع الصحيح الثابت في نفسه ؛ بل مخالفة الحديث المروي بأسانيد كلها ضعيفة لأصل ثابت دليل على عدم ثبوت ذلك الحديث في نفسه ولو تعددت طرقه ؛ لأنه بحكم العادة أن الدواعي إلى نقل ما به تحفظ الأصول موجودة ؛ وما خالف أصلا فالداعي إلى نقله من أهل الصحاح قائم ؛ فحيث لم ينقل إلا بطرق ضعيفة دلّ على عدم صحته في نفس الأمر ؛ بل هذا من قبيل عموم البلوى في النقل ، والدواعي إلى نقل ما ورد في باب عموم البلوى قوية ومتعيّنة ؛ وفي هذا المعنى يقول شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية : ( لا يعلم حديث واحد يخالف العقل، أو السمع الصحيح، إلا وهو عند أهل العلم ضعيف، بل موضوع، بل لا يعلم حديث صحيح عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في الأمر والنهي أجمع المسلمون على تركه إلا أن يكون له حديث صحيح يدل على أنه منسوخ ) .

In the Qur’an, the word sa‘i (سَعْي) does not always literally mean “running.” In most instances, it refers more broadly to hastening or striving to do good deeds (al-mubādarah ilā al-khayr). There are, however, a few verses where sa‘i is used in the context of physically coming or moving quickly: 1. Surah Yā-Sīn, 36:20: وَجَاءَ مِنْ أَقْصَى الْمَدِينَةِ رَجُلٌ يَسْعَىٰ “And a man came rushing from the farthest end of the city.” 2. Surah ‘Abasa, 80:8: وَأَمَّا مَنْ جَاءَكَ يَسْعَىٰ “But as for the one who came to you striving eagerly…” - Shaykh Salih al-Shamrani

On the topic of AI, many have seen recently that AI companies are buying rare books to feed to their models and then they destroy the books so that anyone who wants access to that knowledge must go through them. This is also happening with Arabic texts, and it is essential that those who have the means and the know-how preserve rare books. Those who have the knowledge of what books must be purchased and preserved should make the case to the wider ummah to fund the acquisition of those texts, followed by making the texts available to the public.

In his critical work al-Radd ʿalā man ittabaʿa ghayr al-madhāhib al-arbaʿa, the great scholar Ibn Rajab complains about how cunning amateurs in his time were falsely claiming to be eminent jurists and qualified to perform independent Ijtihad. But as Ibn Rajab contended, a cursory look at their actual qualifications revealed that they hardly even completed the bare basics; they were actually ignoramuses and neophytes. The arguments that he advances in his work apply a fortiori to our own age. What would Ibn Rajab say if he witnessed what is being said and claimed in our time?! How quickly would he have silenced many speakers today who claim to be sophisticated in their knowledge, yet they hardly know anything of what they claim to be qualified in?! Many people who speak of ijtihad, the use of the maqasid, and "sophisticated research" today are in fact neophytes who would have received an even harsher rebuke from Ibn Rajab, had he been alive today. All that glitters is not gold.

New motion dropped: Islam does not have clear answers on the economy, so Mamdani and Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed are forced to "push forward" with the "necessary ijtihad".

Paul Krause, identifying the tensions of the liberal vision: "If there is a God and a Moral Order, liberalism runs into a problem. Hence the dream of a world without God, without religion, without moral demands. If group feeling outweighs individual hedonistic pleasure, liberalism runs into a problem. Hence the dream of atomistic individualism and the “freeing” of humans from all the bonds of community, tribality, and religious identity. Liberalism’s own self-conception and relation with the world is one of internal retreat and reconstruction from within before energetic enforcement on the outside. Liberalism shelters itself in its own empire of the mind where it constructs its own vision and understanding of the world and the good life then projects it out onto the world to make it reality. Here, of course, it follows the path laid out by Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes. The only way to make the liberal world a reality is to build it by force so that the “empire of man” can be consummated and we will no longer fear harm and pain. If liberalism’s understanding of the good life and the world is in err, which it can never allow as an axiomatic principle, then its entire worldview is in err. Liberalism, therefore, has constructed an alternate reality for itself and remains militantly steadfast in its self-constructed utopia which must become the utopia of tomorrow—that “future apparent good” which we strive to achieve. Of course, irony is lost on liberals because for liberals, it is always their way or the highway. Liberalism, despite all its talk of diversity and pluralism and difference, cannot live with diversity, pluralism, or difference because it threatens to produce conflict and conflict is bad. Therefore liberalism inevitably wields force to maintain the modus vivendi of a universally accepted consensus to prevent the realities of the world from roaring up in ecstasy. Liberals always find a target of blame for the ills of the present but never look at their own worldview as possibly faulty. And this, too, we see with liberals of all stripes opining the loss of the universal consensus and becoming apoplectic that there might be alternatives to their worldview." - Liberalism and "Alternative Realities"

قال ابن القيم: "خبر الواحد بحسب الدليل الدال عليه: ١- فتارة يجزم بكذبه لقيام دليل كذبه، ٢- وتارة يظن كذبه إذا كان دليل كذبه ظنيا ، ٣- وتارة يتوقف فيه فلا يترجح صدقه ولا كذبه إذا لم يقم دليل أحدهما ، ٤- وتارة يترجح صدقه ولا يجزم به ، ٥- وتارة يجزم بصدقه جزما لا يبقى معه شك ...

There is a distinct point where you know that you have read enough in a subject that you are researching, and you can transition from reading to writing. You can't read everything. But you have to read enough to develop a proper "feel" of the topic area you are looking at to write about it correctly and confidently. In many cases, only you can decide when exactly that threshold has been reached, and it is time to start writing.

Ibn Taymiyyah was arrested 7 times during his life. The controversies that sparked most of his prison sentences related to some of his theological views (e.g. those espoused in his book al-Wasitiyyah), legal positions (e.g. shadd al-rihal to the grave of the Prophet 'alayhi al-Salam, divorce), and comments regarding certain personalities (e.g. Ibn 'Arabi).

They told him: "When you finally get your work published, be humble." When he finally got published:

It is often said that when the two canonical Hanbali texts, al-Muntahā and al-Iqnāʿ, differ, the ruling in al-Muntahā is always given preference. This, however, is an oversimplification. Although al-Muntahā is generally regarded as the more refined work, there are cases where the position found in al-Iqnāʿ is stronger. For example, if al-Muntahā only indicates a ruling by implication (mafhum), while al-Iqnāʿ states it explicitly, the latter may be preferred. Similarly, if the two works differ but leading Hanbali authorities, such as al-Marʿī or al-Mardāwī, support the view found in al-Iqnāʿ, this may also justify giving preference to al-Iqnāʿ. - summarized from Shaykh Hamad al-Hamad

Fiqh and hadith are complementary disciplines that together form a single, integrated whole. While they may be distinguished conceptually for the purposes of study, they are inseparable in practice and function in mutual harmony. Restricting oneself to one at the expense of the other inevitably leads to imbalance, allowing errors and deficiencies to emerge in both understanding and application.