On the Mālikī school’s position on bringing children to the mosque. [1] What is the Mālikī view on bringing children to the mosque?

The position of the school—as mentioned by Bihrām (d. 805), al-Tatāʾī (d. 942), al-Sanhūrī (d. 1015), al-Zarqānī (d. 1099), and other commentators of Khalīl’s primer—is that it is permissible (jāʾiz) to bring young children to the mosques.

They then highlight two caveats:

This mistaken belief that women would go out with the “absolute minimum” or that no “moral policing” could have prevented them from doing so is based on (i) the hypothetical understanding that since it is allowed, it would have undoubtedly occurred, and (ii) governing bodies are religiously mandated to implement the “muʿtamad” positions only. This is simply incorrect. Let me explain [🧵]: Out of the four Sunnī schools mentioned in the image, three (allegedly) represent the prevalent view of the jurists of the school regarding the personal showing of ʿawrah from the perspective of the individual who is accountable for his/her actions.

In simpler terms, if you reveal the ʿawrah to someone you shouldn’t, will you be accountable for that in the afterlife? If so, what will be the level of that accountability? That’s a discussion on personal legal ruling (ḥukm sharʿī) with no outer interference.

This discussion of the “absolute minimum,” however, does not categorically dictate the public scene and the showing of skin “historically” or in any time frame, as the governing body of Muslims can easily exercise the right to implement the covering of the entire body as valid opinions within these schools.

Each of the four Sunnī schools mentioned has the opinion of covering the entire body due to being ʿawrah, even for slave-girls (or “un-free” women):

This is inaccurate from both aspects:

[1] The view of al-Ghazzālī.

[2] The Ahmadi Reinterpretation.

https://twitter.com/abdul_now/status/1754616502349652418

[1] To understand the statement of al-Ghazzālī in al-Iqtiṣād, it is necessary to understand the context. When he mentions this, he is refuting those who deny matters that are only known through legal consensus (ijmāʿ). He disagrees with those who deny the authority of consensus in such matters and then presents a hypothetical situation to explain his point.

He explains that if someone were to claim that there is a difference between a prophet (nabī) and a messenger (rasūl), and consequentially the verse that mentions the “last of the prophets” [33:40] or the ḥadīth that mentions “there will be no prophet (nabī) after me” must be understood as indicating only the finality of prophethood (nubuwwah) and not the finality of messengership (risālah), he would be opposing the ijmāʿ that categorically negates the possibility of excluding messengership (risālah) from the verse’s signification. Therefore, they would not be exempted from being deemed outside the fold of Islam.

al-Ghazzālī’s argument is that the intellect (ʿaql), in and of itself, does not negate the possibility of the continuity of messengership (risalah) to be understood from the verse/ḥadīth as they only explicitly/directly mention (nubuwwah). A denier of the legality of ijmāʿ may argue, as he suggests, that the signification in the verse/ḥadīth is general (ʿāmm) and there is still—if we continue to speak strictly from a rational point of view—a possibility for the generality (ʿumūm) of prophethood (nubuwwah) to be open to specification (takhṣīṣ).

He continues to mention that all of this is hysterical speech (hadhayān) and must not be taken into consideration. However, it should be noted here that it is this phenomenon—i.e., specification (khuṣūṣ) of the generality (ʿumūm)—regarding which he says that it is “not unlikely” (fa lā yabʿud takhṣīṣ al-ʿāmm).

🧵| Is it Allowed to Keep Away From a Muslim for More Than Three Days if They Harm You? [Thread]
The famous ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ clearly says that it is not allowed for a Muslim to keep away from his/her Muslim brother/sister “for more than three days.” [al-Bukhārī & Muslim]

But what if that person causes harm to you?

Experts of ḥadīth and fiqh have expounded on this and explained the correct understanding of this predicament. Contrary to the misconception some people have, they have clarified that the ḥadīth does not include the scenario of a Muslim causing harm to another Muslim. The harms they have mentioned are not limited to religious matters but also include worldly matters.

Here are some excerpts from their writings:

🧵 | Jihād, Warfare with non-Muslims & Mālikī Scholars This thread comprises the views of traditional Mālikī scholars from the 6th to the 14th Islamic centuries, from various parts of the world, on the permissibility of engaging in physical combat with non-Muslims.

Through the quotes of these Mālikī scholars from their respective writings, you may also be able to gain more clarity on whether such combat falls under the legal definition of “jihād” or not according them.

It is important to note that this thread is solely for academic purposes and does not serve any other objective than to provide exposure to the issue at hand.

This is a 3-volume work called ‘al-Bayān al-Jalī’ (“The Clear Explanation”) of the Lebanese Shīʿī scholar ʿAlī al-Badrī, wherein he proposes that almost 2,000 Qurʾānic verses revealed about ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib.

A few thoughts on the academic integrity of the work/author [🧵]: The work is embellished with a foreword by al-Sayyid Muḥammad Ḥusayn Murtaḍā, a known scholar, researcher and a senior Ḥawzah instructor from Temnine El Tahta, Lebanon. This reinforces the confidence and expectations for readers: We’re not reading an anonymous author’s work.

Ibn al-Humām’s mention of the obligation (wujūb) here is not regarding following a school of jurisprudence (madhhab) per se. In fact, he is speaking on a layman’s following of any scholar who can exercise independent reasoning (ijtihād). [🧵]

https://twitter.com/mhuseinqadri/status/1683004807471067136

Let me quote the parts before the mentioned passage so Ibn al-Humām’s words are understood with context/more correctly:

“No consideration is to be given to the [thought of] validity or invalidity of a legal ruling that occurs in a layman’s heart. Based on this, if he were to ask… https://t.co/vhAZylbgCGtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728) on laymen declaring Muslim scholars outside the fold of Islam:

“The scholars [ʿulamā‘] of Islam who engage in speculative theology [mutakallimūn] in this world, with their independent reasonings: it is not allowed to deem any one of them to be… …outside the fold of Islam due to a mistake they’ve made in their theology [kalām]... for allowing laymen [juhhāl] to deem the scholars of Muslims outside the fold of Islam is from the greatest evil actions [munkarāt].

The source of this [mindset] are the Khārijīs & Rāfiḍīs…

It seems that from time to time, I come across an idiot bent on hurling personal insults at me, inspiring me to practice some hijā’ poetry on them.

Today’s idiot is Wesam (@AlmahdiWesam)—he claims I’m ignorant [jāhil], while he himself doesn’t even know naḥw from ṣarf [wāfir]: https://t.co/nOnPJnJRss

https://twitter.com/AlmahdiWesam/status/1644189896846745600

https://twitter.com/fahd_ibn_ala/status/1662326185932595201

🧵The ʿAyn-Letter Ḥadīth on Knowledge & Its Transmission The ḥadīth marvel of his time, ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Kattānī (d. 1382) narrates a quite unique patterned (musalsal) narration from his father ʿAbd al-Kabīr al-Kattānī (d. 1333)—mentioning that he heard this narration from his father’s mouth multiple times.

🧵ʿAbd al-ʿAlī “Baḥr al-ʿUlūm” al-Laknawī (d. 1225)—The Uṣūlī of the Indian Subcontinent: The author of Fawātiḥ al-Raḥamūt and other masterpieces, ʿAbd al-ʿAlī al-Laknawī (d. 1225), was known in his teenage years as the one who would have arduous discussions with his teacher, Kamāl al-Dīn al-Fatḥbūrī (d. 1175).

“Seeking earnings is obligatory just as seeking knowledge is obligatory.”
—Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan (d. 189) Ibn Mawdūd (d. 683), the famous Iraqi expert of jurisprudence, says in his ‘al-Ikhtiyār’ after quoting Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan:

“That is correct, because Ibn Masʿūd has narrated from the Prophet ﷺ that he said, ‘Seeking earnings is mandatory upon every Muslim.’”

Can the “ḥūr” mentioned in the Qur’ān refer to “white grapes” or “raisins,” and not female living beings as commonly understood by Muslims? [🧵] For quite some time, commentators like Nicholas D. Kristof (@NickKristof), Irshad Manji (@IrshadManji), etc. have claimed that the Qur’ānic word “ḥūr” [حُور] refers to “grapes” or “raisins” and not actual female beings. Other devotees, like @ImtiazMadmood, just follow them.

Our words can show the resilience of our minds—but they also have the ability to heal and harm. When speaking our thoughts, we should observe and command them with both knowledge [ʿilm] and wisdom [ḥikmāh]. (1/5) Many can possess knowledge, or even the right to it, but very few can possess wisdom—ḥikmah. It is only the perfect balance of the two, to which our consciences acquiesce, that allows us to construct meaningful expressions, with both style and substance. (2/5)

Since Sh. @SN_Makkah is foregoing it, I’ll explain it to the ones who are still curious. The pronunciation of the titles of Arabic works in the video is beyond ridiculous. It says a lot about the person’s level of Arabic. Let me explain… [🧵]

https://twitter.com/sn_makkah/status/1636728567978442753

[1] Throughout the video, he keeps messing up the noun + adjective constructs. It seems like he is completely oblivious of this. He keeps saying:
• “Kitāb al-Asāsī”
• “Naḥw al-Wāḍiḥ”
• “Durūs al-Naḥwiyyah”
• “Naḥw al-Wāfī”
• “Balāgah al-Wāḍiḥ” etc. twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

There are countless discussions on wealth [māl] and the understanding that is conflicts with the concept of “abstinence” [zuhd], and therefore harms or weakens a Muslim’s piety/spirituality.

Here are some quotes of scholars who state/argue that there is no such conflict: [🧵] [1] al-Ghazzālī (d. 505): In al-Iḥyā’, he clearly states: “It is sometimes assumed that a person who leaves wealth [tārik al-māl] is a pious/abstinent person [zāhid]. That’s not correct.” He also adds that not taking wealth and displaying simplicity can also be done by a poser.

You’ve completely misunderstood what was said. The “majority” [jumhūr] in that tweet is not suggesting that “different madhhabs can be selected democratically!”

Instead, it is referring to the two famous tracks of studying ʿilm al-uṣūl:

https://twitter.com/muslimbibliophi/status/1634254845925552129

[1] The Mutakallim Track: Writings such as al-Iḥkām, al-Muntahā, etc. were written in line with this track. This track is also popularly called “the majority track” [ṭarīqah al-jumhūr].

[2] The Faqīh Track: Writings such al-Manār and its commentaries mostly cover this track.

Does “makrūh” refer to a bad & evil thing? We read in translations of Islamic texts that certain actions/things are deemed “makrūh” [مكروه]. The Arabic word is often translated as “disliked” or “abominable.” But what does that really mean?

“Whenever there’s a Muslim country or region afflicted by a trial, ignorant religious speakers come out, swearing upon God and claiming that the trial didn’t occur except due to sins! Oh, Allāh has indeed condemned ignorance! (1/4)

https://twitter.com/Al3uny/status/1622639221600034817

These are the people who speak untruth about God, the ones distant from His pleasure! In place of being compassionate to the afflicted, they consider their tribulation to be a justifiable punishment for them because of their sins! (2/4)

The Ḥāfiẓ & the Crowning of Parents in the Hereafter [🧵] One of the most popular narrations [aḥādīth] repeated as a merit/virtue for a person who has memorized the entire Qur’ān—known as a “ḥāfiẓ”—is the narration in which the Prophet ﷺ promised that the parents of this ḥāfiẓ will be crowned in the hereafter.

Is the word “ḥalqah” or “ḥalaqah”? The word “ḥalaqah” is very popular among students of knowledge. It refers to a “study circle” or a “group of students.” Most pronounce it as “ḥalaqah” [حَلَقة] (w/ a fatḥ of the lām) while some people call it a “ḥalqah” [حَلْقة] (w/ a sukūn of the lām). Which one is correct?