Thread by @IbnMosharraf

Yeah, Shaybani and Mawardi never existed. It was only Ibn Taymiyyah who made it all up.

Number one reason why I despise Academics.

https://twitter.com/AbbasiRushain/status/1363302252207869956

Did rulers often do their own thing with little regard for the Ulema and the Shariah?

Yes. But that was never linear and there was always a push to Islamicize the barebones legal code that rulers implemented.

One of the modernist misconceptions is we had "systems".

The loose collection of Muslim communities at large were "governed" by the Ulema, if we can call it that.

Rulers derived legitimacy from how much they implemented Shariah and how they supported the Ulema in their endeavors.

That was the basis of the political legitimacy of Medieval Muslim rulers.

Even seemingly un-Islamic laws were justified with religious doctrines. Take for example fratricide.

The justification was loose but it had religious basis nonetheless.

If there is another claimant to the title of Caliph, he is to be killed to prevent Fitnah.

Whether that's an acceptable reason or not is debatable. But it had religious basis nonetheless.

This guy, Khalil Adnani and Javed T Hashmi are utter Zindiqs and known distorters of the tradition.

I caution Muslims to take whatever they say with a pinch of salt.

Now regarding the Ashari distinction of Kalam Nafsi and Kalam Lafzi.

This distinction doesn't suggest that words don't convey the intended meaning. The Quranic texts are to be understood within context.

And when it comes to the Shariah, there is no Ikhtilaf among the Asharis—

Quran forms the foundation of Islamic Governance regardless of what shape it takes.

This Khalil Adnani is an utter utter scum to use that to infer that Fuqaha and Qadhi didn't care about what the Quran had to say regarding Governance.

And as usual it's the dumbass Decolonial circles who accuse Abdal Hakim Murad of being a racist and an Evolla fan lending credence to this garbage theory.

The height of arrogance is something to behold.

If Allah gives me time, I will fully explain how classical (Ashari) Fuqaha derived Governance from the Quran and Sunnah.

Khalil Adnani, Javed T Hashmi, Mustafa Akyol and all the other Academics have a clear agenda to distort our tradition.

I again advise caution to the lay Muslim to not take anything they say at face value.

Just because they are Academics at prestigious Universities it doesn't mean that they are objective or research driven.

They have a specific (corrupt) worldview and they will reach for whatever evidence they can find, distort it and claim legitimacy for their Zandiqa.

Both Religious and Political laws were always flexible as needed. Ikhtilaf is called a divine blessing for a reason.

What does that mean?

A. They adopted to a set of circumstances within the bounds of the Shariah.

B. They were never explicitly in opposition to the Nas.

Fuqaha, both within the Ashari-Maturidi and the Athari traditions stayed within the bounds of Shariah.

People who assume that Atharis were quick to implement Hudd punishments have no idea of what they are talking about.

And the assumption that Asharis and Maturidis preferred their Aql over Nas is a gross distortion. Something unfortunately exacerbated by our Salafi brethren.

Fiqh isn't child's play. Having a PhD over a specific topic does not make you an expert on the whole field.

Asharis and Maturidis used Aql and Qiyas in areas of Mutashabihat or issues the Quran and Sunnah did not explicitly address.

It was never a default approach. To cherry pick certain aspects of their legal theory for your garbage theories is the height of distortion.

I urge brothers on both the Ashari and the Athari camp to not waste time in refuting each other. One will always be Ahlul Bidah to the other and that's something we need to accept.

However the need of the hour is cooperation between the Ahlus Sunnah against these Zindiqs.

These are the kind of Zindiqs Mustafa Sabri and Zahid Kawthari faced in their lifetime.