Sh. Yāsīn al-Fādānī (d. 1410) with Sh. Zayn al-Dīn al-Fānshūrī (d. 1418)

RT @fahd_ibn_ala: Some people will cry and seethe, but the legacy of al-Nawawī will continue forever. I visited several book fairs, mosques…

RT @fahd_ibn_ala: Bringing this back because our Lā-Madhhabī friends hate it but they’ll be too afraid to talk smack about Ibn Qudāmah. Ta…

RT @fahd_ibn_ala: The Ḥanbalī jurist al-Buhūtī (d. 1051) deems the night of the 15th of Shaʿbān from the nights in which it is recommended…

RT @fahd_ibn_ala: The Prophet’s ﷺ Love for Fasting in Shaʿbān Fasting during Shaʿbān was strongly emphasized by the Prophet ﷺ in a ḥadīth…

@walpat1418 “They never liked me anyway! Mushriks!”

One of the benefits of MT/X is the realization that idiots and extremists actually exist. Being around students and scholars all day misleads you into believing that everyone has intelligence.

Humility alone will not help you learn, and definitely not master the sciences. That comes with with boundless determination, selfless guidance and exhaustive methods. Find those three, then be humble.

Asfar prints completely ruin the buying vs. downloading debate.

One can only imagine how dreadful it’d be for a girl to be married to one of the online champions of “debating,” who can’t breathe without calling one of the early Muslim scholars a disbeliever. Maybe if they were sane, being overweight may have been slightly less intolerable.

Some people will cry and seethe, but the legacy of al-Nawawī will continue forever. I visited several book fairs, mosques and institutes around the world in the past few months—and thousands of people of knowledge are still buying and reading his works, all praying for him.

Bringing this back because our Lā-Madhhabī friends hate it but they’ll be too afraid to talk smack about Ibn Qudāmah. Taqlīd is deviance? It’s shirk? Ibn Qudāmah allowed this “shirk” then.

The Ḥanbalī jurist al-Buhūtī (d. 1051) deems the night of the 15th of Shaʿbān from the nights in which it is recommended for a Muslim to engage in worship through the entire night, like the night of ʿĪd. After mentioning the virtue of worshiping throughout the ʿĪd night, he adds, “In the same meaning is the night of the 15th of Shaʿbān, as mentioned by Ibn Rajab in al-Laṭāʾif.”¹

The Prophet’s ﷺ Love for Fasting in Shaʿbān Fasting during Shaʿbān was strongly emphasized by the Prophet ﷺ in a ḥadīth narrated by Aḥmad and al-Nasāʾī. When asked about his fasts in this month, he replied, “That is a month between Rajab and Ramaḍān that people overlook. It is a month in which deeds are raised to the Lord of the worlds, so I would love for my deeds to be taken up to [God] while I am fasting.”

😂

You’re making up things now. No one’s denying the chronistic difference. Obviously that exists. However, what does not exist is, like your claim, that their ijtihād was based on “direct knowledge” which is different than “human framework.” That is an idiotic dichotomy based on false assumptions, and bears no benefit in this discussion. When a person (ṣaḥābī) receives knowledge directly and his independent reasoning (jtihād) makes him disagree with another person (ṣaḥābī) who also receives knowledge directly but his independent reasoning (ijtihād) makes him disagree—then that’s both “direct knowledge” and “human framework.” You can have the same level of transmission and still have different views and schools due to ijtihād, regardless of which era you belong to. Ijtihād will always be a “human framework,” no matter which era it was in. Your statement “madhahib interpret, not replace, their practice” is complete nonsense as well. Go pick up a book on the subject and read the definitions of ijtihād with a scholar. There’s no distinction of “direct knowledge” vs. “human framework” in defining ijtihād. In fact, these aren’t even actual scholarly expressions, they’re made up by you.

@dhahiriathari I’m not missing anything, in fact you do not have a good understanding of taqlīd, ijtihād and tamadhhub. The differences among the companions were based on ijtihād. The “direct knowledge” vs. “human framework” dichotomy you believe in is incorrect. There’s no such thing.

The original post is speaking on laymen of our times dismissing madhhabs, and deeming them misguidance. Anyways, your entire premise is based on a false dichotomy. The ṣaḥābīs did have differences of opinion, they had schools, not all of them received knowledge directly and not all of them reached the level of ijtihād—which renders the “direct” or “human framework” narrative pointless in the original discussion.

@dhahiriathari Apples and oranges. Following a school (madhhab) doesn’t necessitate that you’re not following a ṣaḥābī.

@MD_MOJAMMIL_ No, I not forming democratic government. Your truth seeking & showing skill very bad.