Faisal Hassan

The topic of legal parameters around maddhab adherence, taqlid and the like is completely different to the best pedagogy for studying Law. The two often get conflated. When I'm asked how a student should formally approach Law in any systematic fashion, I always encourage studying a specific madhhab, as the madhhab not only provides you a set curriculum, but also teaches you how to properly engage with Law; how different laws within a chapter serve to compliment one another; and the idea of consistency across related chapters. The school is intended to train you to think like a jurist. Is it theoretically possible to learn that through a different route? Technically, yes, but it's very very unlikely and therefore simply not practical advice. Most of those who have not gone through this study pattern unfortunately don't have much juristic expertise... and there's a reason for that.

Anything that can influence your conclusion on Law (Fiqh) is a discussion pertinent to Legal Theory (Usul al-Fiqh). I often think about this when it comes to regional traditions people adopt today. A person's choice to restrict their pool of opinions only to what scholars of one region adopt (whether that's the Indian subcontinent, Saudi, Morocco or Egypt) must ask themselves the question of why they are actually bound by that region. That is a question of Legal Theory. When Sh. Abu Ghuddah says he has around 100 teachers all from different regions and traditions and that he takes from all of them without restriction... in reality that's a conclusion from Usul al-Fiqh (and one that reminds me of Imam Shafi'i's perception of the regional traditions of his age). A person must ask themselves in the context of Law: Why are they choosing to restrict or expand their pool of opinions in the way that they are, and if they choose to do so personally, is it justifiable to impose that on others?

To share a list of Fiqh/Usul works by Sh. Hatim al-Awni after my last post: 1) اختلافُ المُفتِين، والموقفُ المطلوب تجاهه مِن عمومِ المسلمين - Ikhtilaf al-Muftin - a book on how a non-specialist should navigate scholarly differences, though naturally includes topics of ijtihad and taqlid, the boundaries of valid and invalid views, and a ton of other legal topics like Ijma' and inductive appeals to Usul 2) مناهجُ التفقّه المعاصرة - Manahij al-Tafaqquh al-Mu'asirah - a paper on contemporary approaches to Fiqh, with brief history of early regional traditions 3) ضوابطُ فهمِ كلامِ أهلِ العلم - Dawabit Fahm Kalam Ahl al-'Ilm - while the title may not indicate it, this is actually a nice work on textual interpretation and the elasticity of language (dalalat al-alfadh) more broadly, with important citations you may not find elsewhere 4) دُعاءُ الخَتمِ في التراويح - اختلاف، وأدلّة، وترجيح - Du'a al-Khatm fi al-Tarawih - touches heavily on the nature of regional practice ('amal) and its evidentiary appeal through a case study 5) شرحُ الحديث النبويّ - دراسةٌ في التاريخِ للعلم والتأصيلِ له، وتقويم المصنّفات فيه والتدريب عليه - Sharh al-Hadith al-Nabawi - this is a very large work (~800 pages) touching on a range of topics, from the nature of hadith transmission, a step-by-step process of hadith interpretation, language, and legal case studies (on poetry, hanging lower garments and more) 6) النظرُ المَقاصِديّ وضَوابطُه، وأثرُه في إثباتِ الرواية الحديثيّة وتأويلها - al-Nadhar al-Maqasidi - a fantastic work on the nature of Qiyas and Law serving actual purpose and benefit, including numerous case studies (a very insightful book and one of my favourites from the author!) 7) تكوينُ مَلَكةِ التفسير - Takwin Malakah al-Tafsir - this is a step-by-step guide on how to engage with tafsir, though naturally includes Usuli discussions like Ijma' 8) المُحْكَماتُ - صِمامُ أمنِ الأمّة وأساسُ الثبات - al-Muhkamat - while this is not a strict work on Usul, it speaks on the nature of grades of probability and certainty in conclusions (something the author focuses on a lot in other works), and the need to build concrete foundations of faith (Most of these books can be found on the author's website: https://www.dr-alawni.com/books.php) Beyond this, the author has a list of Fiqh/Usul articles on his website: https://www.dr-alawni.com/articles.php?cat=7 While I'd love to share a comprehensive list of Usul references scattered across the author's works, I fear this post will get really cluttered by doing so. I hope you find the above useful, and may Allah bless you! ❤️🙏

The contemporary Sh. Hatim al-Awni is one of the most underappreciated scholars for his contributions of Fiqh and Usul. I say this as someone very stingy in his praise. Read any article or book on Law you find from the man.

"Is wiping the face after supplicating a prophetic recommendation?" I would like to first point out that the main encouragement with respect to supplication is to actually supplicate and regularly speak to God in a state of humility. The Prophet (peace be upon him) describes supplication as an act of worship, as the act by its nature involves humbling oneself before God and to recognise His sovereignty. As for anything else like wiping the face, this is secondary to the act itself and, as shall we get to, should not be a point of condemnation. To summarise the topic: there are some inauthentic hadiths on wiping the face after supplication. Some later scholars argued that these weak reports collectively strengthen one another to form an act with sound prophetic basis, while others argued that they remain inauthentic and do not fulfil the conditions of reliability. An additional argument to support the latter is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) supplicated extensively on numerous occasions and across a wide range of reports. One would therefore expect wiping the face to be recorded more than isolated weak routes were it indeed authentic, but since this is not the case, the mention of wiping the face in the questionable reports can appropriately be identified as a mistake. In other words, there is an expectation of greater proliferation of its practice were it authentic, an argument known as 'umum al-balwa. This is unless it is argued that the Prophet (peace be upon him) only wiped his face on the odd occasion, which again only points to its secondary importance. Having said that, the practice of wiping the face was adopted by some scholars in the early centuries, including al-Hasan al-Basri, Ma'mar ibn Rashid, and Ishaq ibn Rahuwayh. The tabi'i Yahya ibn Sa'id says that some people in his time would describe those in the past, saying that they would supplicate and wipe their face in order to take back the supplication and blessing. The idea being portrayed here is that some would see this as a personal expression of picking up blessing after extending one's hands towards God in supplication, and then wiping the hands on one's face thereafter. Some scholars like Ibn Rushd al-Jadd likened this to the Prophet (peace be upon him) reciting the final Quranic chapters of protection before sleeping (i.e. Surah Ikhlas, Falaq and Nas), and then blowing into his hands and wiping his face and body. In other words, there is an outward manifestation of the supplication for protection, and this is then internalised by rubbing the face and body. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was asked a few times about wiping the face after supplication. While he himself would not practice it, he says it is reported by al-Hasan al-Basri. In another report, Imam Ahmad supplicated alongside a man, and when they completed the supplication, the man wiped his face while Imam Ahmad did not. The report makes no mention of rebuke from Imam Ahmad himself, indicating that he found no issue in the practice itself. In summary, wiping the face after supplication is not an issue worthy of condemnation (inkar). This is a secondary issue, and those who do so are either: (i) following what has been transmitted and considered by some to be authentic, even if many argued otherwise; or (ii) viewing it simply as a personal expression of collecting blessing after extending their hands towards God in the way described. And Allah knows best.

"From the beauty of a person's submission to God is to leave that which does not concern him." مِن حُسنِ إسلامِ المرءِ تركُه ما لا يَعنيه. A nice piece of timeless wisdom that appears to be popular in the early believing community and also universally recognised. __ (It is likewise attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) but comes through a disconnected route (mursal). I'm sure he would approve of its message in any case.)

Here's the famous hadith scholar Sh. Abu Ghuddah (d. 1997) making the same point. He says the famous miraculous events at the birth of the Prophet (peace be upon him) are baseless reports, even if they are in Sirah works.

Not everything in a Sirah book is actually reliable, and neither did authors intend it to be. For example, the report of the Prophet (peace be upon him) wanting to throw himself off a mountain towards the beginning of revelation and then being stopped and consoled by Angel Jibril is not authentic. This report comes from the famous junior tabi'i Zuhri without stating his source (قال: بلغنا). In other words, it is a disconnected report, and disconnected reports (marasil) from Zuhri are known to be considerably unreliable by early scholars of hadith.

Every single year that passes, I look back and think: if I had a conversation with myself from last year, I'd have so many new things to teach. And this happens every year. 365 days is a long time. If you're learning just one new thing everyday, that's 365 new pieces of information. If you're learning ten new things everyday, that's 3650 new things you didn't know last year. It's all incremental! This is why the heavyweight seniors in their 60s onwards have so much to share. How can you not have so much to share when you've been stacking knowledge upon knowledge for decades?

Is commemorating the birth date of the Prophet (peace be upon him) an issue? Simply taking the date of the Prophet's (peace be upon him) birth as an opportunity to remind people about his life and biography (i.e. Sirah) is not inherently a problem, provided it is not considered an intrinsic part of prophetic guidance. Doing so is similar to seizing the opportunity to remind people of Badr on 17th Ramadan (the date of the battle); or the emigration to Madinah at the new Hijri year; or to remind people of 'Arafah in their hometown on 9th Dhu al-Hijjah (a practice known as Ta'rif which is also found by Companions despite it not having direct prophetic roots). As for concerns around the way the day may be commemorated, these have little to do with the commemoration itself rather than the way it is done, and the learned in the community would be responsible to address that. To conceptualise the commemoration in this way bypasses any claims of a reprehensible addition to prophetic guidance (i.e. bid'ah), as nothing is inherently being claimed to be added to God's guidance. It also bypasses any concern regarding the correct date of the Prophet's (peace be upon him) birth - a point of disagreement - as the date itself is truly inconsequential to the reminder and to seizing its opportunity. Does that mean you have to commemorate the day or that you must consider it a core point of identity until the cows come home? No. It isn't an intrinsic part of prophetic guidance and despite its permissibility, one's attitude to the issue should reflect that. And Allah knows best.

Women's attendance of mosques - a summary of the issue: It is important to acknowledge that the default ruling of women attending the mosque, as demonstrated in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in both action and statement, is permissibility. This is indicated in the report of the Prophet (peace be upon him) saying, "Do not prevent the women of God from God's places of worship." (Bukhari and Muslim) When Abdullah ibn Umar relayed this statement to one of his sons, his son argued that he will prevent them, so Ibn Umar rebuked him strongly saying that he just quoted to him the words of the Messenger (peace be upon him) yet he is still saying he will prohibit them. (Muslim) One of the wives of Umar ibn al-Khattab would attend the Fajr and Isha prayer. When asked why she attends despite knowing her husband does not like it, she said she knows why Umar does not stop her from going, and that is due to the statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him). (Bukhari) Now if someone acknowledges that the default ruling in the time of revelation, as explicitly stated by the Prophet (peace be upon him), is permissibility of women attending the mosque, then the only question is whether there is any strong reason to depart from this default status - in a way that considers both short-term and long-term harms in preventing women attending mosques, and that is actually consistent with how women engage in society and occupy spaces in every other domain. Otherwise, one is simply altering the ruling set out by the Messenger of God (peace be upon him). Furthermore, changing the default ruling of permissibility based on some preventative measure (Sadd al-Dhari'ah) is a ruling from necessity, as it is effectively altering something permitted by Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him) - something which requires great caution (and its application is restricted based on the principles of necessity). To copy-and-paste a fatwa in the past here is also not appropriate, as that fatwa is not speaking about our context, time, or region. Just as those in the past spoke of their context, we must speak of ours, and that is permissibility of women attending mosques in accordance with the default permission from the very time of revelation. As for the famous statement of Aishah (may God be pleased with her), not only is her statement not an explicit prohibition of women attending the mosque (rather than it is a rebuke of the actions of some women in attendance), but the other Companions also did not view it to be a reason to prevent women from attending the mosque. In other words, if some women happen to be doing something they should not be doing, then simply address that action (with reminders of correct etiquette and modesty) rather than a blanket prohibition that was also not legislated by the Messenger of God (peace and blessings upon him). Arguing for absolute prohibition for all women on account of a wrong by some is not only inappropriate (and a misapplication of prohibitions through preventative measures - i.e. Sadd al-Dhari'ah), but it also reflects a superficial assessment of anyone looking at long-term consequences of their community. When women exist in every space of society - and go to restaurants, city centers, or have an ordinary stroll in the park - it makes little sense to say: "You can go to all these places... but not the place you serve God." That is simply inconsistent and sounds silly to anyone reasonable. Finally, it is important to remember that just as men experience the need to attend the mosque and become connected with God through reminders, sermons, and Quranic engagement, women experience the same need. Believers cannot aspire to have women who are learned and have a relationship with God if they are prohibited from the very places that serve to develop that?

I uploaded a video on women's mosque attendance and hadiths on permissibility. https://youtu.be/whwk2y1n5lw?si=53OTTF7DXc7FytvF This is an excerpt from my Usul al-Fiqh series where I was addressing baseless arguments of prohibition from Sadd al-Dhari'ah (a preventive measure). I hope you enjoy! 🙏❤️ Timestamps 00:00 - Women's attendance of mosques 03:57 - Addressing the famous report of Aishah 05:32 - The face covering (niqab) and related arguments

In an interesting episode of Law from the last century: The Egyptian jurist Sh. Muhammad Abu Zahrah (d. 1974) - famously known for his biographies of notable classical imams - caused a stir in 1972 when he came out with a controversial view at a Fiqh conference, saying that he kept this conclusion to himself for two decades and has only announced it now! Sh. Qaradawi (d. 2022) - who actually disagreed with Sh. Abu Zahrah's view - says that he reflected on this for a while, and he asked himself: from a psychological perspective, why might anyone keep a view to themselves for such a long period and not mention it in any lesson, lecture, book, or article? He goes a step further and says: how many bold views must exist that a person keeps to themselves, such that the views die alongside them, never escaping the person's lips and consequently never being heard nor ever transmitted from them? Sh. Qaradawi says it is for this reason that when speaking about ijtihad, he stresses the importance of building an environment in which scholarly viewpoints can be heard and expressed, while recognising that a scholar might get things wrong (as scholars are human and can make mistakes), and that it is only this way that scholarship is able to develop. (في وَداع الأعلام، للقرضاوي)

Who was the legend Ibn Hazm (d. 456/1064)? Ibn Hazm hailed from Andalusia in a wealthy family. He was notably a Dhahiri jurist with a heavy literalist bent. While this naturally resulted in strange legal conclusions, Ibn Hazm was otherwise an intelligent and outspoken personality, willing to reflect on things outside the box. Since he was not part of the dominant legal traditions of his time, he was willing to freely criticise popular views he believed were absurd - often very harshly! As a result, there are contrasting attitudes towards Ibn Hazm even among contemporaries. Some believe that his views should be dismissed entirely and given no consideration, though in scholarly contexts this is not really an appropriate attitude to adopt. A trained jurist would rather assess each disagreement on its own merit, and if it happens to be unsound then it would be judged unsound, but the ideas and thoughts would not be rejected wholesale. Ibn Hazm was a scholar, no doubt. He appears to have never left Andalusia, yet still managed to gather a large body of knowledge across a wide range of sciences: including Literature; Poetry; Philosophy; Comparative Religion; History; Law; and Hadith. Being the controversial and outspoken figure he was, he was exiled from his city and his books were called to be burnt. Nevertheless, he still managed to retrieve his books as he committed much to memory. He is described as recalling this in his famous lines of poetry - where he essentially says: you may be able to burn my books, but you will never burn the knowledge within me; it shall come with me wherever I go, and likewise join me in my grave. Despite the efforts against Ibn Hazm, his books still exist almost a millennium later, representing a large body of knowledge across sciences and a distinct legal tradition. While Ibn Hazm's legal works including his famous al-Muhalla can sometimes be insightful and a source for classical law, his legal writing is really only recommended for advanced students for two reasons: (i) he can teach a false sense of confidence to beginners in his legal conclusions, due to his commitments and legal disposition, and (ii) he can be quite harsh in his criticism when that harshness is not warranted, which may not develop the best attitude in readers. Beyond that, Ibn Hazm is famously known for his book on love and romance: Tawq al-Hamamah (also translated into English as: The Ring of the Dove). This appears to be an early work of Ibn Hazm sharing insight into the world of 5th-century Andalusia. In this work, Ibn Hazm philosophises about love and shares personal anecdotes, stating that he will only cite reliable incidents either he himself has witnessed or that have been relayed to him by trustworthy individuals. The work can also be characterised as a book of love psychology, as Ibn Hazm explores the nature of love and its causes. Its manuscript (which is actually a summary of the original rather than its complete form) appears to have been found and popularised back in 1914 by the Western academy, and has been translated into several languages including English; Russian; Italian; French; Spanish; Dutch; and Turkish. May Allah bless Ibn Hazm and show him mercy. He was certainly a colourful character! ❤️🙏

The legend Ibn Hazm (d. 456) is an interesting figure... On the one hand, he's notorious for his harsh criticisms in his writing. On the other hand, he's authored a book on love and romance! 😂 I would've loved to spend time with him! رحمه الله

An interesting historical point regarding outspoken scholars in the past is the impact their temperament may have had in them being vocal about their views. Scholars like Ibn Hazm (d. 456), Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728), and Suyuti (d. 911) were notably outspoken and tolerated social backlash on account of that. Each had a daring quality and boldness about them that allowed them to freely share their views. This point on temperaments is also noted by contemporaries like Sh. Yasir al-Matrafi (in his book on Ibn Taymiyyah) and Sh. Abdullah al-Daghistani (in his edition of Suyuti's ijtihad works). It is also why when discussing ijtihad, some emphasise the need to possess a degree of institutional independence to ensure they are free to express themselves.

It is the nature of legal principles and methodology (i.e. Usul) that they can be reasoned entirely through first principles, and then packaged to a non-specialist audience using both rational and universal arguments and without necessarily have to appeal to Arabic terminology. However, when these Usul are not truly understood by those appealing to them - or simply studied descriptively rather than prescriptively - they end up becoming Arabic buzzwords or a defense mechanism for legal doctrine by presenting them as inexplicable concepts of law derivation. In other words, they conveniently become fairy-dust arguments for Law that serve no practicality besides vague appeals. A nice litmus test I would share on this is: can you explain each concept to a non-specialist using universal language? This is also something I had in mind when teaching the Usul al-Fiqh course. I often recall the teaching attributed to the famous Richard Feynman: if you can't explain something in simple terms, you probably don't understand it.

Very nice to see this from the Syrian legend Sh. Mustafa al-Zarqa (d. 1999)! Sh. al-Zarqa says, after sharing his permissive view on a topic, that there will be some who find his conclusion here strange... as though anything that indicates flexibility and ease in their life is abnormal... as though the purpose of Law is not truly achieved except by imposing hardship and difficult, when in reality this is an easy-going and undemanding Law that is built on the principle of ease and removal of hardship.

Abu Hurayrah reported that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "God will raise the rank of a righteous servant in Paradise and he will say, 'My Lord, how did I receive this?' He will reply, 'By your child seeking your forgiveness.'" (Ahmad and Ibn Majah)