Roots Of Knowledge ROK 😊
Kanalga Telegram’da o‘tish
1 926
Obunachilar
-124 soatlar
Ma'lumot yo'q7 kunlar
+1130 kunlar
Ma'lumot yuklanmoqda...
O'xshash kanallar
Taglar buluti
Kirish va chiqish esdaliklari
---
---
---
---
---
---
Obunachilarni jalb qilish
Iyul '26
Iyul '26
+27
1 kanalda
Iyun '26
+58
0 kanalda
Get PRO
May '26
+61
3 kanalda
Get PRO
Aprel '26
+34
0 kanalda
Get PRO
Mart '26
+22
0 kanalda
Get PRO
Fevral '26
+25
0 kanalda
Get PRO
Yanvar '26
+72
2 kanalda
Get PRO
Dekabr '25
+38
0 kanalda
Get PRO
Noyabr '25
+34
1 kanalda
Get PRO
Oktabr '25
+57
5 kanalda
Get PRO
Sentabr '25
+43
2 kanalda
Get PRO
Avgust '25
+36
1 kanalda
Get PRO
Iyul '25
+37
0 kanalda
Get PRO
Iyun '25
+49
0 kanalda
Get PRO
May '25
+39
0 kanalda
Get PRO
Aprel '25
+63
2 kanalda
Get PRO
Mart '25
+30
0 kanalda
Get PRO
Fevral '25
+32
0 kanalda
Get PRO
Yanvar '25
+55
0 kanalda
Get PRO
Dekabr '24
+85
2 kanalda
Get PRO
Noyabr '24
+50
0 kanalda
Get PRO
Oktabr '24
+61
1 kanalda
Get PRO
Sentabr '24
+54
0 kanalda
Get PRO
Avgust '24
+73
0 kanalda
Get PRO
Iyul '24
+91
0 kanalda
Get PRO
Iyun '24
+76
1 kanalda
Get PRO
May '24
+73
0 kanalda
Get PRO
Aprel '24
+105
1 kanalda
Get PRO
Mart '24
+75
1 kanalda
Get PRO
Fevral '24
+74
0 kanalda
Get PRO
Yanvar '24
+80
1 kanalda
Get PRO
Dekabr '23
+777
0 kanalda
| Sana | Obunachilarni jalb qilish | Esdaliklar | Kanallar | |
| 27 Iyul | +1 | |||
| 26 Iyul | 0 | |||
| 25 Iyul | +1 | |||
| 24 Iyul | 0 | |||
| 23 Iyul | 0 | |||
| 22 Iyul | +2 | |||
| 21 Iyul | 0 | |||
| 20 Iyul | +1 | |||
| 19 Iyul | +1 | |||
| 18 Iyul | +4 | |||
| 17 Iyul | +3 | |||
| 16 Iyul | 0 | |||
| 15 Iyul | +2 | |||
| 14 Iyul | +3 | |||
| 13 Iyul | +1 | |||
| 12 Iyul | 0 | |||
| 11 Iyul | +1 | |||
| 10 Iyul | +1 | |||
| 09 Iyul | +1 | |||
| 08 Iyul | +1 | |||
| 07 Iyul | +1 | |||
| 06 Iyul | +1 | |||
| 05 Iyul | +2 | |||
| 04 Iyul | 0 | |||
| 03 Iyul | 0 | |||
| 02 Iyul | 0 | |||
| 01 Iyul | 0 |
Kanal postlari
| 2 | Saeed al-Nursi writes:
"When metaphor falls from the hand of knowledge into the hand of ignorance, it turns into literal truth ('reality') and opens the door to superstitions."
Beautifully sums up the problem with the crisis of lack of breadth and depth in understanding linguistic expressions in the Quran and Sunnah.
If it were not for the scholars of Usool and Balagha, I believe the Quran would have become a toy in the hands of misguided ones. Probably ending up like the scripture of other faiths that once held authentic teachings from Allah.
Those who criticise hadith and find it hard to accept certain meanings. This, in my understanding, mostly boils down to distorted meanings, even if that distortion comes through the translations. It gets worse when untrained individuals passionately push only a single meaning of a certain matter, even though the early generation had differences amongst themselves. This shows up in at least two distinct ways.
The first is taking a description too literally. Imagine someone adamant that the Earth is flat, based on the Quran describing it as something "spread out." Some scholars historically read this description at face value, not because the language demanded it, but because nothing in their context contradicted it. The mistake wasn't a failure of Tadhwaq so much as a failure to revisit a literal reading once better understanding became available; what should concern us is when people cling to that literal reading even after the linguistic and scientific case against it is clear, insisting all other meanings must be discarded.
The second, more serious way, is stretching a qualified statement into an absolute one. Take the narration: "There is no Iman for the one who has no sense of trust." This is a familiar construction in hadith. It describes an incompleteness of faith, not its absence.
Untrained readers routinely miss that distinction and push it to a much harsher conclusion: that a dishonest person cannot be a believer at all, a move that edges toward excommunicating fellow Muslims from the faith itself, something the wording never actually supports.
This lack of Tadhawwuq, the ability to taste linguistic nuance, is what results in the religion being subjugated to one's limited understanding.
Of course, translations have exposed those untrained in Classical Arabic to meanings that create a warped image of the Quran and Sunnah that's hard to make sense of.
The only solution is for serious students of knowledge to take the responsibility of providing explanations and discussing the limitations of translations. | 31 |
| 3 | https://youtu.be/uTBYEaf1dao?is=OIaNHVc9lzmDqeQY | 102 |
| 4 | من جدّ وجد!
هكذا سمعتُ من أحد أساتذتنا مرارا، حتى كتبته على غلاف كتابي، ولكن بقي في الكتاب ولم يصدّقه قلبي إلا بعد مرور عقد من عمري. فالعربية، كغيرها من لغات الإنسان، لا تُتقَن إلا بكثرة السماع والقراءة والمحادثة والكتابة. لم تسمع أذناي قطّ بمن أجاد العربية من غير أهلها، ولم يجهد نفسه في طلبها. كأنّ الله أراد أن يكون السبيل إليها هو الهدف؛ لتعظُم اللغة في حياته.
ولكن الأمر بلغ قمته من الصعوبة عند كثير من طلبة المدارس الدينية في العصر الراهن. فكم من طالب أو طالبة يلتحق بإحدى المدارس طلْق الوجه، مشمِّرا للعلم، كأن قلبه يطير شوقا إليه! ثم يُهال عليه من القواعد ما يُهال، فيحفظ هذا ويكتب ذلك، حتى تفتر همّته ويعجز بنانه. ثم يُنكّس رأسه، ويقلّب كفّيه ندما على ما أنفق من وقت وجهد، ويأخذ في التساؤل مع نفسه: هل أخطأت في الالتحاق بدراسة العربية؟ أم أنا ضعيف العقل لا أقوى على تسلّق هذا الجبل؟ فيترك الدراسة ولا يلتفت إليها بعد، ويبقى في نفسه طعم مرّ كلما تذكّر العربية.
ولا ينبغي أن يكون الأمر هكذا؛ فإن الناس متفاوتون في الفهم وإدراك المعلومات، وإن المنهج في الدراسة ليس منزَلا من السماء حتى لا يجوز تعديله أو استبداله بمنهج آخر، بل هو اختراع إنساني يخضع لعقل دون عقل. فإن أفاد قوما، فليس معنى ذلك أنه يفيد كافة الطلبة، وفوق كل منهج منهج.
ومن عواقب هذا الجمود في التمسك بمناهج بعينها أنه أدّى إلى أن كره كثير من الناس تعلّم اللغة العربية في المدارس، بل جرّهم ذلك إلى اتهام أنفسهم بالتخلف، لا في منهج اللغة فحسب، بل في الأصول والقرآن والحديث والفقه أيضا.
والمنهج القويم يشتمل على إتقان ناحيتين: الأولى المواد المتدرّجة، والثانية طريقة التدريس. وكلتا الناحيتين تفتقر إلى عناية شديدة من المدرسين المسؤولين، الذين كثيرا ما يتمسكون بقولهم: "إنا وجدنا كبارنا على هذا"، فتوارثوا الطريقة كابرا عن كابر دون مراجعة. والحق أن تغيّر الظروف وأحوال الناس يؤثر لا محالة في المناهج، فتحتاج دوما إلى إعادة النظر. لا سيما إذا قصر زمن الدراسة وتقاعد الهمم.
فإذا ظفر الطالب بهاتين الناحيتين، أي مدرسٍ متقنٍ يُلقّن الطلاب المادة درسا فدرسا، والتدرجِ المناسبِ لمستواهم، لم يبق عليهم إلا الجدّ من أنفسهم. أما إن كان غير ذلك، أتعب الطالبُ نفسه، ولم يحصل في نهاية المطاف إلا على معلومات غير متّسقة. | 198 |
| 5 | I once discussed this with someone who rejected hadith on these grounds. I asked him, 'What guarantee do you have that the words of the Quran, in Arabic, mean exactly what we claim they mean?' If you say it's because the meanings were known to the people of that time, someone can easily respond that the first generation may have known the meanings, but language isn't static, language today doesn't necessarily hold the same meanings it did a thousand years ago. Which means you have to accept that the meanings of the words were reported, just like hadith, and documented at a later stage, many years after revelation. He had no real answer to this. If hadith can be dismissed for being transmitted after the fact, so can the meanings of the words he used in his argument.
Encounters like this rarely change minds in the moment, but they show how shallow the original claim was to begin with. It's easy to hear someone who sounds like they know what they're talking about, who's read a few works by orientalists, and mistake that for a thorough, solid argument. These voices gain a following and plant seeds of doubt in the hearts of their listeners. The problem compounds when those listeners go looking for a response to the so-called argument, and end up in a back-and-forth that traps them in an endless spider's web of confusion.
The only way out is to go back to the beginning, not to chase down every claim with a rebuttal, but to build the foundation that was missing in the first place. Sit with a teacher. Learn usul [foundations] before furu' [secondary matters]. Let the knowledge grow the way it's meant to, instead of trying to patch doubt with more information consumed the same disordered way it arrived. | 280 |
| 6 | Growing Doubts Online About Islam Without Knowing
The internet is fertile ground for doubts and confusion, with very few signs of caution for the average person. Jumping into advanced discussions without having the proper foundations is one of the quickest ways to plant your mind in a pit of doubts.
Healthy knowledge has to organically grow in the heart of a student and progressively develop to fully reach fruition. Once that happens, engaging in discussions on advanced topics of Aqeeda, Hadith, Fiqh, or Quran becomes far easier to navigate — especially when discussing or debating with others, because you're able to see the layers of knowledge that lead up to the point of contention.
The problem is when you're blind to the premise and struggle to comprehend the layers that lead up to a conclusion. You can easily end up dismissing a concept, or worse, building a conspiracy theory around it, simply because you failed to understand the depth of the argument.
Understanding a concept isn't hard in and of itself. Ask AI to explain how the brain works, and it will break it down step by step, complete with illustrations, until it feels like you've grasped it completely. But no amount of that explanation qualifies you to perform brain surgery, that takes years of biology, anatomy, chemistry, and hands-on experience. The same is true of Aqeeda, Fiqh, or Hadith: being able to follow an explanation is not the same as having the grounding to judge, apply, or discuss it.
This is the typical situation when someone tries to criticise something they think they've understood about Islam, using it as ammunition to push their agenda. The average lay-person struggles to find an answer and rushes online to find a satisfying response.
One of the earliest examples I remember was someone challenging Muslims to explain the "grammatical errors" in the Quran. Because I had studied grammar, I knew the question's framing was flawed from the start, Arabic grammar was a post-Quranic attempt by Muslims to codify the patterns in the structure of sentences, not an absolute science.
Imagine an amazing generation of chefs who cooked the most sophisticated, delicious dishes ever made. Then they die, and people try their best to reverse-engineer their recipes. No matter how detailed the recipes and theories they churn out, none of it is greater than the chefs themselves. And if the chefs happened to have done something that goes against the codified recipe book, we'd always say the chefs are greater than the book. The Quran will always be superior to the grammarians' work.
The same pattern shows up closer to home. A growing trend among uneducated influencers is dismissing the authority of hadith or the status of Ijma. Very few of them have taken the time to actually study how evidence works, especially the history and development of transmission and collection.
Hadith are, in essence, the vessel of transmission, giving context to the Quran. Just as the Quran was transmitted by men and women and we accept that transmission, the Hadith are reports of what the Prophet ﷺ said, did, and approved of. When the Prophet ﷺ passed away, the religion of Islam was complete. People knew there were five salah times even though it's not explicitly mentioned in the Quran. People knew that Zakat was 2.5% of productive wealth even though the exact details aren't in the Quran. People knew that marriage was a solemn agreement between a couple involving an offer and acceptance, even though the Quran doesn't mention it.
The Prophet ﷺ is described as the one who explained the revelation. This explanation carries such weight that every Muslim has an obligation to obey him ﷺ in fact, those who don't obey him have not obeyed Allah. If we can't rely on the reports of hadith, there is no way to obey the Messenger for those who came after the first generation of Muslims. | 267 |
| 7 | https://youtu.be/d6ryIdsoP-I?is=W74UDgMf14ARTi_y | 286 |
| 8 |  fill in the form if youre interested in coming on as guest | 336 |
| 9 | "Which view do we take?"
It's very common for students to ask, while studying Qudoori or Hidayah, "Which view do we take?"
This is naturally what any student who wants to act on the ruling would ask. However, the books being studied are not designed to give the view adopted by later Hanafis.
The concept of the official position in the Hanafi school is not black-and-white and requires consideration of a whole host of factors. Qudoori is a collection of the most authentic representations of Imam Abu Hanifa and the views of his direct students, whether those are statements they actually made or views extrapolated from those statements at a secondary level.
Later scholars came who began to give verdicts using these recorded texts as a basis for their conclusions. This is where you find more than one scholar reaching different conclusions. And these aren't fringe curiosities, they show how the same principle, or even the same hadith, can be read differently depending on the jurist applying it. Is a cat's saliva a source of impurity if mixed into a bucket of water, or not? Does water dripping from inside grapes, without any squeezing, count as a purifier? If someone wears ankle-length shoes with socks covering the ankles, does that suffice the same as a single-material leather sock?
At the time a jurist gave a verdict, that verdict functioned as the official position, and was acted upon by scholars for years until another scholar's view came to be considered the official one instead.
The Hanafi jurists that came after them would then survey these views across the years and prefer one over the others, citing it as the official position based on the evidences presented.
Sometimes these "official" positions diverged from the early texts, such as Qudoori, or what's known as the Zahir Riwaya (the official early recorded views of Abu Hanifa and his students). These views were also, on many occasions, shaped by changes in social norms, such as unfair abuse of a ruling, or by shifts in scientific understanding.
Without knowing the context behind later verdicts, and without being able to rationalise them within the school's principles, it's very difficult to take every "official" view as universal. In fact, not knowing the reasoning underpinning such views leads to the exact opposite of what Fiqh is meant to achieve, a deep understanding of the Shariah in every time and place. Due to generational differences, it's not possible to get all the jurists in one room and discuss their differences. If that were achievable, we would have bridged many of the gaps and understood the exact points of Ikhtilaf.
So when students ask me for the official position, I tell them Qudoori and Hidayah aren't the place for that. The purpose of these two books is for students to build in students a firm foundation in the various views of the founders, and in the proofs and arguments for and against them.
Of course, short texts written by later Hanafis for children were designed differently, to list the views considered official for their time. These books draw on a spectrum of views collected over the years, whether from the core books like Qudoori, commentaries such as Hidayah, or even individual fatwa works.
The problem is that beginners reading these works aren't able to distinguish Imam Abu Hanifa's own views from the views of a later judge. This can impede a student from developing a gradual layered understanding of the Masaail as they require uneducating oneself from everything and reorganising it. This is because these texts aren't considered authoritative in and of themselves.
Understanding the official view requires further study under trained experts and reading works that are dedicated to Usool Fiqh and Fatwa and analysing detailed fatwas of contemporary scholars. | 454 |
| 10 | Hidayah lessons will take place on weekdays after magrib uk time inshallah please check google classroom | 370 |
| 11 | Arabic Podcast is back 🎉
If you're interested, fill in the form
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSedFWKUecMyp9hoYLYDYscM4DR9MmUWQARl9iBNAYJor9urrQ/viewform?usp=header | 398 |
| 12 | 1.To the steadfast believers
" Don’t be deterred by the rumors. That is just Shaytan behind the scenes, trying to project fear onto you through his allies, the enemy."
2. To the hypocrites and doubters
"The person going around spreading this panic is just a puppet of Shaytan, and he is only exposing the fear striking his own heart first."
3. As a timeless principle:
"Shaytan paralyzes his own followers with fear to prevent them from ever stepping forward or standing up for the truth."
Imagine five Arabic words with six angles. Multiple, perfectly valid renderings, all placed comfortably inside a single verse, whereas most English translations write it into a single, static sentence.
This is exactly what gets lost when a translation is mistaken for the Quran itself, rather than treated for what it actually is, a small pool that leads to an ocean. | 392 |
| 13 | Why Translations Are Incomplete and not Enough
Translations of the Quran only give you a fraction of a verse; they can never encompass it fully. I have always repeated this to my students, and I will continue to do so. People who believe it is enough to just read a translation are effectively veiled from the true depth of the Quran. They will, of course, grasp the core message of the truthfulness of Islam and its purpose, but they will fail to see how the verses hold multiple, synchronised meanings, like the cogs in a watch, all working together to produce a greater, multi-dimensional meaning. I know it is not easy to understand this unless you have actually tasted it.
Just a quick disclaimer: I don't intend to open the door to baseless, "out-there" esoteric interpretations. Every single one of these dimensions is strictly based in classical academic discourse and disciplines.
To see what this multi-dimensional reality looks like in practice, look at how Allah says:
إِنَّمَا ذَٰلِكُمُ ٱلشَّيۡطَٰنُ يُخَوِّفُ أَوْلِيَآءَهُۥ [آل عمران: ١٧٥]
“That is only Shaytan who terrifies his allies...”
In their tafsirs, al-Alusi and Ibn Ashoor highlight six distinct angles of discussion packed into just these few words:
1. Who is "that" (dhalikum) referring to? Is it the physical person spreading rumours or the statement itself?
2. Why call him Shaytan instead of Iblees? Is it a proper noun, or a description of his devilish behavior?
3. Whose allies (awliya'ahu) are they? Are they Shaytan's actual allies, or someone else's?
4. Is there an omitted word? Should we read an implied phrase like "the statement of" Shaytan?
5. Is it literal or figurative? Is Shaytan physically doing this, or is it attributed to him because he inspired it?
6. Who is the ultimate audience being addressed? The believers who went to battle, or the ones who stayed behind?
When you unpack these questions, the verse suddenly opens up into a spectrum of valid, concurrent meanings.
For instance, Shaytan might be the descriptive title of Iblees, as he is the ultimate source of this trait. Or it could be describing the human scaremonger who was actively deterring the believers, branding him a shaytan because of his actions.
Similarly, the "allies" could mean Shaytan's own forces, the enemy army, whom he magnifies in the believers' hearts to terrify them. On the other hand, the Muslims who hesitated and stayed behind from battle could be the ones being labeled "his allies" as a severe rebuke, because by giving in to fear, they aligned with his agenda.
It's also possible that there is a hidden, implied word here: "That is only [the statement of] Shaytan..." because the pronoun dhalikum naturally points back to the discouraging rumours uttered, which are referred to in the previous verses. If we take it to mean the literal words of the human scaremonger, it is still figuratively attributed to Iblees, since he is the one who ultimately engineered the whisperings behind the scenes.
Depending on how you map the grammar of these five words, you get entirely different dimensions of the same verse:
For the first part
إِنَّمَا ذَٰلِكُمُ ٱلشَّيۡطَٰنُ
"That is only Shaytan (Iblees)..."
"That person is acting just like a shaytan..."
"That is only the propaganda of Shaytan..."
And for the second part
يُخَوِّفُ أَوْلِيَآءَهُۥ
"...who frightens his own allies [those who follow him]."
"...who frightens you through his allies [the enemy army]."
"...who puts the fear of his allies into your hearts."
So, what is the ultimate takeaway from these five words?
Historically, scaremongers were moving through the ranks, trying to strike terror into the hearts of the Muslim soldiers before they went to battle. By leaving the wording fluid, Allah addresses every layer of the psychological warfare happening on the ground: | 381 |
| 14 | 'Other' discussions and oddities in the books of tafsir
For anyone who is into reading, you know that writers have a tendency to go on a tangent. But you see this especially in the books of tafsir, where scholars will discuss the oddest topics under a particular, totally different chapter.
This is something I find fascinating; it gives me a real insight into the mind of the writer and where his thoughts take him. One of the most common places this happens is in tafsir, where a scholar will digress from one verse and just start discussing a seemingly random topic of politics, maybe an anecdote, or even a topic related to a completely different discipline. The mind of the writer is just filled with such vast knowledge and reading that he naturally makes connections between subjects, topics, and events seemlessly.
Take Imam Qurtubi, for example. Under the verse where the followers of Musa were told to say 'Hittah', which was a specific utterance to gain forgiveness, they began to alter the pronunciation out of mockery. Right there, Qurtubi writes that the scholars have differed on whether it is permissible for someone to quote a narration from the Prophet (peace be upon him) in their own words. After summarising his research, he simply ends it by saying Allah knows best and returns straight back to the verse. This form of dipping into multiple disciplines and giving the reader a taste of another topic is definitely something that keeps me glued to the book.
Tahir ibn Ashur highlights this as very problematic, especially when it takes the primary focus away from the verses towards something else. When I read his critique, I remembered my days in madrassa when sometimes a teacher would go off on a tangent regarding a contemporary issue under the principle:
الشيء بالشيء يذكر
Or as we say: "While we are on the subject..."
An expert in Nahw can sometimes make you forget you're even reading the Quran, and a Muhaddith can make you think that the Quran can't be understood without discussing all the ins and outs of chains and narrators. Sticking to the topic is probably one of the hardest things for a mufassir to do, especially when there is so much to talk about, even if it's not closely connected to the verses. Sadly, if unchecked, a tafsir lesson which is supposed to bring people closer to Allah can end up as a template for bringing people closer to other objectives and ideas.
However, this can sometimes become a tool for the writer to vent personal views, whether or not it enhances the verse's meaning, as there are no clear boundaries on what constitutes 'Tafsir'. Starting a tafsir and trying to explain the significance of the dot under the letter 'Ba' and saying that it is the essence of the entire Quran is an oddity.
This is why I feel students find it so hard to read a tafsir cover to cover; the 'other discussions' just become overwhelming. Identifying what the actual tafsir of the verse is from all the extra information becomes a blur. But once the main understanding of the verse is clearly explained, reading al-Razi, Abu Bakr bin al-Arabi, or even Ruh al-Ma'ani becomes extremely enjoyable, and those extra discussions really add to one's knowledge. | 355 |
| 15 | A belief system founded on a square circle
One of the things I've noticed while reading Shaykh Mustafa Sabri's Mawqif al-Aql is how the status of the Aql, the rational faculty, can be manipulated and still seem flawless to the average person, just enough to rationalise a baseless agenda.
It's like having the answer already in your head, along with a few digits, and then inventing the calculation backwards so the answer looks like it was arrived at honestly.
Muslims understood from the early years that the only way to argue a point properly was to master the art of articulation and thinking. Just as everything physical in this world follows predictable patterns and rules, so too do the rules of thinking and rationality. They aren't up for grabs.
Imagination is different. Making things up in your mind is endless, it doesn't have to tie itself to any logic. You can invent a square circle in your head and build a whole movie around it. You can get people to join you, laugh about it, cry about it, give you their feedback, and all of it will be based on rules you invented yourself.
Now imagine growing up inside that environment. You're told, day in and day out, that this is simply how the world works. Then one day you notice things don't add up. You bring it up to the people around you, and instead of answering the inconsistency, they mock you, or drag you down some other thought-road that never actually resolves what you pointed out, it just buries it under more disconnected thoughts.
This is exactly what the Prophets of Allah, peace be upon them, had to face. They used reason to show people that the very pattern of thought governing their worship was severely flawed, full of square circles, dressed up to look sound. Like a spider's web, it looks perfect and strong from the inside, but it only takes one person standing outside it to swipe it with their hand and watch how easily it collapses.
That's why there's a need for men and women who train themselves not just to think rationally, but to spot flawed reasoning in other people and other belief systems, especially the philosophers, who have a habit of handing people their own version of "thought," built on broken systems, and calling it reason.
Shaykh Mustafa Sabri makes the point that Western philosophers built their frameworks either on the Christian doctrine of the Son of God, or on pure materialism, and used either one to produce invented calculations about reality. He traces the cracks this leaves in their thinking down to six main faults:
1. Elevating empiricism over pure reason - restricting yourself to what the limited senses can catch, and calling that the whole of knowledge.
2. The "disease of doubt" - Sabri's term for the systematic doubt Descartes pushed as a starting method.
3. Isolating causality to the material world – claiming causality governs matter but has no bearing on the metaphysical.
4. Measuring the Creator by the created – reducing God to the standards and limits of the created world.
5. Violating logical necessity – deciding square circles are fine to build belief around, the same move Descartes makes when he claims God can do the logically impossible.
6. Leaning on blind nature and chance to explain what can't otherwise be explained – the idea that underpins a lot of atheist reasoning.
Every one of these, in the end, is the same trick as the math analogy I opened with: decide on the answer first, then reverse-engineer a calculation sophisticated enough to make it look earned. | 509 |
| 16 |  This is what the average madrasa student who is halfway through the course must be able to read and understand, or else their Arabic level is weak.
It's from a collection of kids books called Madarij al-Qirat | 666 |
| 17 | Alhamdulilah, Islam has not left us without guidance, and its teaching addresses this exact problem directly. Five pieces of guidance stand out:
1. Leave what makes you doubtful, and take what is certain. Avoid drawing conclusions about people or texts based on unreliable or unverified information.
2. Verify information before spreading it to others. This is the direct antidote to everything above: the responsibility doesn't end at hearing something; it begins there.
3. Leave what doesn't concern you. Much of this distortion spreads simply because people involve themselves in matters that were never theirs to comment on.
4. Give your brothers and sisters the benefit of the doubt. Where the evidence is ambiguous. When the evidence is unclear, don't let rumours dictate your character. by rumour.
5. Speak to people according to what they can understand. Even accurate information, delivered without regard for the listener's capacity to receive it, can be distorted the moment it leaves your mouth.
Whether it's a scholar's character or a school of law's actual position, the pattern is the same: distance from the original source is where distortion enters. The only real safeguard is to go back to the source yourself wherever you can and, where you can't, to hold what you've been told with the caution it deserves. | 540 |
| 18 | The Problem With Secondhand Information
You either know something yourself, or you know what someone told you about it. The moment you're putting your trust in the second kind, you inherit the responsibility of verifying whether what you've been told is accurate and whether it's the whole truth.
When it's about a person, this problem becomes especially delicate, as it claims that so-and-so said or did this. The problem is that hearing about someone secondhand can quietly construct a distorted image of them in your mind, either inflating them into something more than they really are or, the opposite, tarnishing their character and reputation. The latter is what we call backbiting and slander.
I remember the first time I heard about a particular scholar, back when I was studying. The image formed in my mind was based on what others said and became exaggerated to the point of making him seem almost superhuman in certain ways. That image bubble burst the moment I actually met him a few times and realised he was human, like everyone else, and that most of what I heard was not accurate.
The same distortion happens with ideas and texts, and it's arguably more consequential, because it can shape what people believe about an entire school of thought or what a scholar actually says. I remember hearing statements like Abu Hanifa only knew 17 Hadith, that Imam Malik prayed with his hands to the side due to impaired arms, that Imam Ahmed didn't have a Fiqh School because he was weak in Fiqh, or that all four schools of Fiqh unanimously agree that cutting the beard short is sinful. It took me a while to try to uneducate myself from those claims after speaking to scholars from various backgrounds and reading the original material.
Those who haven't studied Arabic, or read the original books themselves, are permanently limited to whatever secondhand sources they can access. I've heard graduates quote Fath al-Bari without having read it. I've heard people critique Ibn Taymiyyah without having read his works in the original Arabic. I've heard people characterise the Hanafi school without having opened a single one of its original sources.
This puts them at a real disadvantage, and worse, if they don't recognise the limitation, they have no way of knowing how far their understanding has drifted from the reality of the matter.
Secondhand sources, by their nature, are prone to four recurring failures:
1. Misunderstanding: the summariser simply got it wrong.
2. Decontextualisation: a point is lifted out of the argument or circumstance that gave it its true meaning.
3. Extreme exaggeration: a modest position hardens into a caricature by the time it's repeated.
4. Bias of the source: the person relaying the information has their agenda, consciously or not, shaping what they chose to include.
Errors are always possible even when reading a text directly in its original language, but secondhand transmission compounds the problem. Every additional link in the chain is another opportunity for human error to creep in, and those errors accumulate rather than cancel out.
This brings me to the challenge of our day, social media. It can be said that it has created near-perfect conditions for distorted information on steroids. A claim about a person or a text can now travel through hundreds of retellings within hours, each one slightly reshaped, before anyone involved has had the chance to check the original source. Speed, distance from the source, and the absence of any real accountability all work together to make secondhand distortion worse than it has ever been. | 677 |
| 19 |  Matn yo'q... | 457 |
| 20 | The Grand Puzzle of Commentaries
Sometimes it can seem as though authors of classical Islamic literature were writing as if their work was just one piece in a grand puzzle. But that isn't really the case.
If you went back in time, you'd find that a scholar simply saw a need for a particular topic to be discussed or felt a text needed a commentary. At the time, that work represented the most up-to-date writing in that field. Then another scholar came along and, whether he knew about the previous work or not, wrote another commentary or a super-commentary. Fast-forward a few centuries, and you find a whole library of works written around just one classical text.
Students often become overwhelmed by this huge list of books, feeling like they have to read every single one as if each is indispensable.
From experience, most books in a subject usually fall into 3 categories:
1. An original textbook (matn)
2. A commentary or set of footnotes (sharh) aimed at making sense of a condensed text
3. A book that surveys a series of works and adds context
When an original text is studied thoroughly, it usually reduces the need for a student to rely heavily on commentaries or footnotes. When I say "thoroughly," I mean at the level of assessment level 3 in modern education terms. That means the student isn't just grasping the facts of the text, but can apply the concepts and analyze the various viewpoints and theories of different scholars. Once you hit that level, the main benefit of reading commentaries is simply learning what other scholars thought about the text.
I remember one of my teachers advising us to study and re-read the original text multiple times and even considering this to be better than spending time reading commentaries.
A good rule of thumb for mastering a text is that a student can easily, and in their own words, summarise it, provide its context, and apply its principles to modern times.
On the other hand, slowly, explaining a subject text-by-text, which is the common method in madrasas, helps students build deep familiarity and understand the subject more systematically. Commentaries in that setting help students further their journey. But because of how and when they were written, commentaries aren't written in a neat, progressive order, though some are naturally much easier for students to read than others.
Because of this jumbled library of works, a student who wants to become proficient in, let's say Fiqh, has to spend years at the feet of scholars so that these seemingly disconnected arguments slowly start to make sense and show a hidden pattern.
If someone today wanted to write a series of commentaries on Hanafi Fiqh, I'd suggest keeping the following points in mind:
Level 1
> Go through a classical authoritative primer such as Mukhtasar al-Quduri.
> Recognize that most students are non-Arabs and require elaboration of key words right at the start.
> Explain the unwritten concepts behind each chapter that exist behind the scenes, which the author expects students to already be familiar with.
> Give a brief reasoning or rationale behind each ruling.
Level 2
> Bring detailed arguments for and against the views mentioned.
> List the views of later jurists and explain why they held those views.
> Identify who, when, and why a certain view was adopted as the official position.
> Bring modern-day case studies, helping the student navigate real-world application.
Level 3
> Study and evaluate contemporary positions of fatwa from a variety of Hanafi jurists on modern issues.
> Look at surveys and the impact of ideas, technology, and medicine on the modern world, showing how these factors impact and revisit the viewpoints of jurists. | 520 |
