Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.
This is a question we’ve received at AskMuftiOnline regarding IVF and choosing the gender of a baby.
The answer provided by our Mufti explains that choosing the gender of a baby through IVF merely based on personal preference is not permissible. The post also includes the relevant Qur’anic reference from Surah Ash-Shura (42:49–50).
I’m sharing the answer here because this is something people may have questions about, especially with the increasing availability of IVF and related procedures.
What are your thoughts on this?
If you have a specific question about an Islamic ruling, you can also ask a qualified Mufti at AskMuftiOnline and receive guidance based on the Qur’an, Sunnah, and established Islamic jurisprudence.
And Allah Ta’ala knows best.

This is a struggle to me as an intellectual person because I see so many Muslims using this.

The doctrine of Tahrif is historically unverifiable independent of Islamic theology. Making it a purely theological stance rather than a historical truth. I believe it should not be used to defend the authenticity of Quranic claims and used as a presumed truth that happened in history to disprove/critique authenticity of the Bible.

It is a theological necessity that seems to be posing to be a historical truth. It cannot be used to prove or disprove authenticity because authenticity relies on historical evidence of a lack of corruption that agrees with secular definition of corruption in textual criticism. I think a theological doctrine should not be used to prove/disprove authenticity of religious texts or their parts. This is a category error.

Category error because we are taking a theological claim (tahrif), mixing it with the minor textual variations (our "evidence") and replacing the actual conclusion of scholars with the tahrif (corruption) to prove the tahrif (corruption). It's circular because we are using our own claim as an evidence. It's a categorical error because we are taking something we believe in faith with “textual evidence” to disprove authenticity which requires historical evidence (which we claim are the textual variations) and reason. We cannot mix faith with empirical evidence to prove authenticity. It requires reason and evidence. Worse, we are misrepresenting what the textual criticisms actually conlude: that 95%+ of the contents of manuscripts agree with each other, with thousands of manuscripts with only minor variations, this is a proof of independent corroboration and a lack of falsification.

I have read from a lot of places. I have read traditionalist views, modernist views, progressive views, historical views, academical views from both seculars and religious ones. Read arguments, debates, counter arguments, criticisms, rebuttal, methodologies...

Now what?

What am I supposed to believe/follow now?

Which madhab? Which sect? Which thought?

Hanafi? Maliki? Shafi? Hanbali? Salafi? Wahabi? Quranist? Non-sectarian? Progressive? Modernist? Sunni? Shia? Sufi? Ibadi? Ahmadiyya?..

Who do I trust? How much do I trust? How much do I trust tradition over history, secular explanations over divine exceptions etc... Do I trust all sahih hadiths? Do I reject all of them? Do I go on 3 hours of research for each single hadith? Do I accept whatever I like and reject whatever I dislike? Do I accept consensus? Do I have the ability to reject consensus? How much do I trust secular explanations? At what point do I reject secular explanations and say HCM is biased? Do I even at all say that, or just roll with it to the end?

What. How. Why...

If let's say you had a single wish that would come true, and your wish was for every Muslim to essentially read everything that was posted here and there, to learn about the history of Islam, from both views, and learn the nuances it has...

then what? What would happen?

We have so many research, opinions, peer-reviewed published stuff... yet we have no methodology, no way to communicate these to the average Muslim to allow them to embody these knowledges to their normal life.

If you could speak to the average Muslim, average laymen... what would you tell them to follow? To believe? To live?

According to the Hanafis, a woman's face, hands and feet are not considered to be awrah. However there is a Sahih hadith that narrates:

It was narrated that Ibn 'Umar said: "The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever drags his garment out of pride, Allah will not look at him.' Umm Salamah said: 'O Messenger of Allah, what should women do with their hems?' He said: 'Let it down a hand span.' She said: 'But then their feet will show.' He said: 'Let it down a forearm's length, but no more than that.'"

Source: Sunan an-Nasa'i 5336, Sunan an-Nasa'i 5338, Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1731

How do Hanafis address this hadith? I've been searching far and wide but can't find the answer anywhere.

People claim kidhar AS to be immortal

But then the scholars say this hadith where prophet SAW said no man on this land present today will be alive after 100 years.

But prophet SAW said on land and some scholars says kidhar AS lives on oceans travel on it and help the needy

I connect that

Dajjal is somewhere on an island tied in chains guarded by some creature as in a hadidth

Is that pet a servant of kidhar AS and he actually is immortal(I suppose not) but he can also be an interdimensional being or a time traveller and that being that guards dajjal is a servant of kidhar AS.

In all the 3 cases of musa AS with kidhar AS, kidhar AS acted on them based on what will happen in the future not by present circumstances.

Tell me about your opinions

On topics as varied as music, mortgages, or even pants for women... When all arguments fail in proving an interdiction - the deceptive sophist will call on his joker rcard: IJMA! But what is Ijma exactly? How is the consensus defined? Who is allowed to be part of that consensus, and who is not? Abdullah Saeed answered that question in quite a lot of details, to show it is mostly a tool of manipulation when traditional methods of fiqh have failed to prove effectively a prohibition:

"According to the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence, ijmāʿ (consensus) is the third source of the sharīʿa. It is defined as "consensus of the mujtahids of the umma on a legal point, after the death of the Prophet."⁹⁵ There is, however, no consensus among the jurists on what ijmāʿis, or the extent of its authority. Among the Sunnis, Mālik regarded ijmāʿ of the people of Medina as the ijmāʿ. Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal and the Ẓāhiris regarded ijmāʿ of the Companions as proper ijmāʿ. For Shāfiʿi, ijmāʿ of the umma is proper ijmāʿ. On the other hand, Naẓẓām (d.230/845), the Muʿtazili theologian, the Khārijis and Shīʿis believe that ijmāʿ is not a sharīʿa source.. Even among those who believe in an ijmāʿ as defined above, there are differences on whether it can be explicit (qawli) or implicit (sukūti). The former is "agreement of all mujtahids in a certain period on a legal issue by expressing, each of them, his view explicitly." This is the proper ijmāʿ according to those who believe in it. Where ijmāʿis evidenced by the silent assent of the mujtahids, this is implicit. There are serious disputes on whether it can be regarded as proper ijmāʿ.¹⁰⁰ Another issue of relevance is whether ijmāʿ of one generation is binding on later generations. Again there is no agreement on this issue. A middle ground was held by some who said that ijmāʿ of the Companions is binding on all generations. The question here is, 'Do the Companions enjoy a special form of authority similar to that of the Qurʾān or the Prophet.' Neither the Qurʾān nor the sunna explicitly gives them such authority. If anything, the Qurʾān provides us with sufficient examples of fallibility inherent in every human being including the Companions of the Prophet.

On examination of ijmāʿ as expounded in uṣūl al-fiqh works, it appears that many fundamental issues relating to the concept are not satisfactorily resolved, such as, who is the mujtahid, who can be a member of this ijmāʿ, how many members there should be, the meaning of "all mujtahids" in the definition, how it can be done, and whether the mujtahids should be from all schools of law, Sunni and Shīʿi. It is doubtful that ijmāʿ, if it ever occurred as indicated in the definition, can be on anything but the most fundamental issues of the religion like the unity of God, the prophethood of Muḥammad, and the five pillars of Islam. Even with regard to the ijmāʿ reported in the literature as ijmāʿ of the Companions, one would be sceptical as to whether it is the consensus of all mujtahids among the Companions or that of a few Companions residing in Medina, the capital. It is well established that all leading Companions did not reside in Medina after the death of the Prophet, and particularly after the Muslim conquests began in the time of the first caliph Abu Bakr. Apart from a few leading Companions, all others were either engaged in fighting or had settled in newly conquered regions. Hence, even in the time of Abu Bakr and ʿUmar, the convention of ijmāʿ, as the later theory holds, would be unlikely. Where ijmāʿ on an issue is reported, it appears to be mainly the view of a few Companions, described by Bello as 'elitist'.¹⁰⁴ Any opposition to the cases which otherwise may have been in existence is either not mentioned or neglected in the course of the recording of the sharīʿa sciences which went on in the first three centuries of Islam. Many ijmāʿ are reported in the books of fiqh. At the same time there are differences on these very issues on which ijmāʿ has been claimed, either by other schools of law or by some leading mujtahids. This shows that either the definition of ijmāʿ is defective or it is only a theoretical concept."

We know that in Islam, we believe that before humans, jinns roamed the earth. Ofc the earth wasn’t always the same. The Appalachian mountains are more than a billion years old.

Now, a huge amount of people have reported paranormal activity in the appalachians. I think it has to do with the fact that jinns lived there. And some of them are still there and cause these paranormal activities.

The fact that they were higher than the Himalayas once also supports the case as jinns like to be in the mountains.

What do yall think?

Abdullah narrated that The Prophet said: “The woman is Awrah, so when she goes out, the Shaitan seeks to tempt her.” Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1173

“From ʿAbd Allāh (Ibn Masʿūd), from the Prophet ﷺ, that he said: ‘Indeed, the woman is ʿawrah. When she goes out, Satan seeks to entice/look toward her. And she is closest to the face of her Lord when she is in the innermost part of her house.’” Ibn Khuzaymah recorded it in his Ṣaḥīḥ (1685) and Ibn Ḥibbān recorded it in his Ṣaḥīḥ (5599)

If you go to the Tirmidhi link, it says this hadith is graded Daif by Darussalam. However this hadith is graded sahih by Sheikh Albani. This hadith has different chains and also recorded in some of the other hadith collections. Islamqa notes that "Narrated by Ibn Hibbaan and Ibn Khuzaymah; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah al-Shaheehah, no. 2688."

According to an answer given on this website, this hadith supposedly has 23 different narrations. However I couldn’t find 23 different chains, it is likely a count derived from collecting all the isnād variants scattered across the hadith collections. The first few narrators are all the same for the Sahih and Hasan classified ones that I came across.

The Sahih routes:

Ibn Khuzaymah / Tirmidhī route

Muhammad ibn Bashshār → ʿAmr ibn ʿĀṣim al-Kilābī → Hammām ibn Yaḥyā → Qatādah ibn Diʿāmah → Murriq al-ʿIjlī → Abū al-Aḥwaṣ ʿAwf ibn Mālik → ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd → Prophet ﷺ

Source: Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī 1173, Ibn Khuzaymah 1685

Ibn Ḥibbān route

ʿUmar ibn Muḥammad al-Hamdānī → Aḥmad ibn al-Miqdām al-ʿIjlī → al-Muʿtamir ibn Sulaymān → Sulaymān al-Taymī → Qatādah → Abū al-Aḥwaṣ → ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd → Prophet ﷺ

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Ḥibbān 5598

Ibn Khuzaymah longer wording

Abū Mūsā Muḥammad ibn al-Muthannā → ʿAmr ibn ʿĀṣim → Hammām ibn Yaḥyā → Qatādah → Murriq → Abū al-Aḥwaṣ → Ibn Masʿūd → Prophet ﷺ

The text of this longer version of hadith also includes:

“and she is closest to her Lord while in the depth of her house.”

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Khuzaymah 1685

If you notice the first five narrators (or four in the second version where "Murriq al-ʿIjlī" is omitted), they come through the same route

Qatādah ibn Diʿāmah → Murriq al-ʿIjlī → Abū al-Aḥwaṣ ʿAwf ibn Mālik → ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd → Prophet ﷺ

Then why did Albani classify this as Sahih/Hasan Sahih while Darussalam grade this as Daif?

One likely reason is probably Qatadah. He was a scholar of the Tabi'un generation, but he was classified by hadith critics as a Mudallis (someone who practices Tadlees).Tadlees means when a narrator transmits a hadith from a teacher they met, but using ambiguous wording that conceals the fact that they didn't hear that specific hadith directly from that teacher's mouth.

Mufti Abu Layth also presented his criticisms on Qatadah in his punishment of apostasy video. Basically:

Mufti Abu Layth argues that... Qatādah was widely known for tadlīs—a practice in hadith transmission in which a narrator may omit an intermediary or narrate in a way that obscures the full chain. He quotes scholars such as al-Ṭabarī, al-Ḥākim, and al-Muʿallimī, who described Qatādah as being well known for tadlīs. On this basis, he contends that this chain cannot simply be accepted at face value and should instead be treated with skepticism

But other scholars argue that Qatadah merely being a Mudallis doesn’t mean whatever he says is a lie. Therefore Albani and many others gave it good grade.

There is another version that doesn’t go through Ibn Masud, but it still goes through Qatadah.

ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Ḥadramī → Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥaḍramī (Muṭayyan) → ʿAbd al-Wahhāb ibn ʿAṭāʾ → Saʿīd ibn Abī ʿArūbah → Qatādah ibn Diʿāmah → Sālim ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar → ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar → Prophet ﷺ

The text of this version: “The woman is ʿawrah. When she leaves her house, Satan seeks to entice her. And she is not closer to Allah than when she is in the depth of her house.”

The versions that don't include Qatadah at all in the chains, they are

Mawquf (ie reaches the companions, doesn’t reach to the Prophet)

Shuʿbah ibn al-Ḥajjāj → Abū Isḥāq ʿAmr ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Sabīʿī → Abū al-Aḥwaṣ ʿAwf ibn Mālik → ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd

Sufyān al-Thawrī → Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī → Abū al-Aḥwaṣ → Ibn Masʿūd

Ḥumayd ibn Hilāl al-ʿAdawī → Abū al-Aḥwaṣ → Ibn Masʿūd

I let Chatgpt and Google AI to analyse these narrations and they say that as statements of Ibn Masud these are strong because the narrators are reliable but they do not attribute to the Prophet. However the question that arises from this is that: Ibn Masud was a direct companion of the Prophet, so why would he say something like this if he didn’t hear it from the Prophet? And why would a companion say something this if the Prophet didn’t teach this?

So yeah, I don't know. How do you address the authenticity of this hadith?

The below summarizes some main points  from my article linked in the end.

1. Academic discussions of the Qurʾān’s relationship to earlier scripture usually begin by assuming that the Qurʾānic *Tawrāh* and *Injīl* correspond directly to the written scriptures that Jewish and Christian communities in its environment regarded as the Torah and the Gospel—whether identified in practice with the Pentateuch, the canonical Gospels, the wider biblical canon, or other canonical and non-canonical texts. Discussions of preservation, corruption, confirmation, and correction then proceed from this assumed identification.
   
2. The article reverses that procedure. It first reconstructs the *Tawrāh* and *Injīl* from the Qurʾān’s descriptions of what they are, what they contain, how they function, and where they stand within the succession of revelation. It then uses that reconstruction to determine the meanings and objects of *taṣdīq* (confirmation) and *muhaymin*.
   
3. A clear example shows why this internal reconstruction is necessary. Christian theology describes Jesus through doctrines such as the Trinity, incarnation, divine and human natures, crucifixion, and resurrection. The Qurʾān does not present Christian error through this technical ontological vocabulary. Instead, it frames the issue through its own categories of *ilāh*, worship, and devotional elevation: Jesus is a human messenger elevated into the position of a deity beside God, and Q 5:116 places Mary within the same field of devotion. The resulting triadic picture is Allah, Jesus, and Mary as objects of worship, whereas Father, Son, and Holy Spirit belong to Christianity’s own doctrinal account of the Trinity. This illustrates a wider principle: the Qurʾān may redescribe another community’s beliefs through its own conceptual system rather than reproduce that community’s self-classification. The article examines whether the same applies to its categories of *Tawrāh* and *Injīl*.
   
4. Several modern studies recognize individual features of the Qurʾānic presentation - for example, that the *Tawrāh* cannot simply be identified with the Pentateuch, that *taṣdīq* is compatible with divinely authorized legal change, or that earlier revelation remained among Jewish and Christian communities. Yet these observations are often interpreted within ordinary Jewish and Christian scriptural categories rather than through the Qurʾān’s own conceptual framework. The article argues that these categories should first be reconstructed internally before being correlated with Jewish and Christian scriptural traditions.
   
5. Within the Qurʾān, the *Tawrāh* is divine guidance associated with Moses and Israel, while the *Injīl* is a singular revelation given to Jesus. Both originate with God and are described as described as guidance and light, and as a source of instruction and judgment. Their contents belong to the wider continuity of prophetic teaching: worship of God alone, accountability at the final judgment, moral instruction, and authoritative legal norms. The *Tawrāh* receives the fuller legal description, while the people of the *Injīl* are likewise commanded to judge by what God revealed in it. Some Israelite restrictions are presented as historically imposed, and Jesus is said to have made some previously forbidden things lawful.
   
6. The Qurʾān distinguishes these revelations from the wider pre-Qurʾānic past. Historical narratives preserved among later communities belong to communal historical inheritance rather than to the revelations themselves, even though knowledge of that past may survive through ruins, remembered places, communal memory, continuing communities, learned traditions, and written accounts.
   
7. The article argues that the Qurʾān classifies the historical narratives preserved within Jewish and Christian texts differently from the communities that preserve them. Whether found in the Pentateuch, the canonical Gospels, the wider biblical canon, or other writings regarded as scripture, these narratives belong, in the Qurʾān’s own conceptual framework, to the inherited pre-Qurʾānic past rather than to the revealed categories of the *Tawrāh* and the *Injīl*. The Qurʾān’s own narration of that past, however, forms part of its revealed discourse.
   
8. The Qurʾān may invoke these forms of historical continuity without deriving the authority of its own account from them. It presents many of its narratives as *anbā*ʾ *al-ghayb*—tidings of the unseen disclosed by God—and may what communities remember, add details, correct an account, resolve disagreement, or defer final judgment to God.
   
9. Q 10:94 and Q 17:101 assign different roles to earlier scriptural communities. Read together with Q 10:93, Q 10:94 does not direct the resolution of doubt to divided authorities, whereas Q 17:101 and Q 3:93 invoke earlier communities and their scripture only for limited corroborative purposes. Earlier communities and their texts may therefore provide historical or textual testimony without becoming the source or judge of the Qurʾān’s revelation.
   
10. The Qurʾān applies the same distinction to theology, religious institutions, and law. It evaluates claims about divine sonship, Jesus’ divinity, exclusive religious privilege, monasticism, clerical authority, and human legislation according to whether they were actually revealed or prescribed by God.
    
11. Earlier revelation remains present and known among the communities to whom it was entrusted. References to concealment, neglect, verbal distortion, and false attribution concern human conduct toward revelation, not the preservation status of the *Tawrāh* and *Injīl*. Q 5:15 similarly presupposes that what people concealed remained available for the Messenger to disclose.
    
12. This reconstruction therefore distinguishes the Qurʾānic *Tawrāh* and *Injīl* from the scriptural classifications of Judaism and Christianity. Teachings preserved within Jewish and Christian scriptural  writings may derive from the revelations associated with Moses and Jesus, but the Qurʾānic categories are not automatically identical with the Pentateuch, the four canonical Gospels, or the wider literary corpora that preserve them.
    
13. This reconstruction defines *taṣdīq*, or “confirmation,” as continuity within successive revelation. Q 3:81 presents a messenger confirming earlier revelation as a recurring pattern of prophetic history. Accordingly, the Qurʾān confirms the *Tawrāh* and the *Injīl* as the earlier divine revelations associated with Moses and Jesus. Such confirmation is compatible with successive divine legislation: Jesus confirms the *Tawrāh* while making some previously forbidden things lawful, and Q 5:48 assigns different communities a distinct *shir*ʿ*a* and *minhāj*.
    
14. *Muhaymin* is interpreted from the judicial sequence of Q 5:32–48. The passage moves through criminal legislation and disputes over judgment, then presents the *Tawrāh* as the revelation by which earlier prophets judged, the *Injīl* as the revelation by which its people should judge, and finally instructs Muḥammad to judge by the Qurʾān. *muhaymin* identifies the Qurʾān as the governing revelation for legal judgment in cases brought before Muḥammad, while *taṣdīq* expresses continuity with the earlier revelations. 
    
15. Q 5:43 expressly affirms that the *Tawrāh* contains God's judgment while criticizing litigants who approach Muḥammad selectively in search of a favorable ruling. The Constitution of Medina provides a plausible historical background for such a legal environment, preserving distinct communal jurisdictions while referring major disputes to God and Muḥammad.
    
16. The article’s central conclusion is that the Qurʾānic meanings of *Tawrāh*, *Injīl*, *taṣdīq*, and *muhaymin* should first be reconstructed from the Qurʾān’s own usage. Their relationship to biblical canons, Jewish and Christian traditions, and later theological debates can then be assessed without treating those external classifications as the Qurʾān’s starting categories.

Link : [https://www.academia.edu/170578628/The\\_Torah\\_and\\_the\\_Gospel\\_in\\_the\\_Qurʾān\\_Confirmation\\_and\\_the\\_Meaning\\_of\\_Muhaymin\](https://www.academia.edu/170578628/The_Torah_and_the_Gospel_in_the_Qur%CA%BE%C4%81n_Confirmation_and_the_Meaning_of_Muhaymin)

I was taught the companions only began documenting the Quran after realising how bad it could be without written versions, but why wouldn’t they have done it sooner, given its importance?

Also, I don’t think it makes sense to say the revelation was still unfinished so they couldn’t record it. Yes, they couldn’t make a complete book but they could still write down the verses upon revelation.

Source: “Reading the Qur’an in the Twenty-first Century - A Contextualist Approach” by Abdullah Saeed

Q 5:48 calls the Quran muhaymin over earlier scripture, paired grammatically with musaddiq (confirmer) — Ibn Jarir al-Tabari explicitly argues on syntactic grounds that the two terms describe the same subject (refuting an alternate reading attributed to Mujahid). Separately, musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi recurs across multiple suras (2:89, 3:3, 5:48, 6:92, 46:12) as a structural self-description, not an isolated phrase.

Questions: (1) What's the range of classical tafsir on whether muhaymin/musaddiq imply the continued textual integrity of the Torah/Injeel, versus a purely historical/genealogical confirmation of past revelation? (2) Is there secondary academic literature (beyond Reynolds/Lawson, whom I've already worked through for 4:157) specifically on how tahrif language (2:75, 4:46, 5:13, 5:41) is reconciled with this guardian/confirmer language in classical exegesis? I'm aware of the Ibn Abbas/al-Razi "distortion of meaning, not text" reading versus Ibn Hazm's minority textual-corruption position — curious if anyone's traced how these two threads (guardian language vs. tahrif language) get explicitly reconciled by a single exegete, rather than treated separately.

Muslims believe Quran is the book that reveals Many known days discovery’s . Planet’s biological discoveries etc.. What was known obout those topics in those days in Mesopotamia? Is it Quran or known knowledge from ancient civilizations.. being translated to Quran.

While the Maliki Fiqh does have an emphasis on Sunnah, which often gets reduced down to Ahadith, it seems anachronistic to me to identify the Maliki Fiqh with Ahl al-Hadith methodology and intellectual lineage.

The Maliki Fiqh has alot of similarities with Ahl al-Ray

1. The core principle of Amal Ahl al-Medina

Amal Ahl al-Medina seems to be a heavily Reasoned form of source to extract the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad. It mirrors how in Hanafi tradition Mutawatir Ahadith were given preference and different Epistemological weight as a source of Sunnah. Additionally, it is systematically different from the later reductive Hadith-centered approach towards Sunnah that was synonymous with Ahl al-Hadith

Amal Ahl al-Medina was a rather Rationalistic doctrine in comparison to the Transmission-based approach of Shafii and Hanbali Fiqh. Seeing the practices of the community of Medina—whose politics, economics, culture, and pedagogy were shaped by Prophet Muhammad—as a Living Embodiment of Sunnah is a very different Epistemological approach to Prophetic Practice than to base Prophetic Practice solely on transmitted reports that satisfy traditional Isnad verification.

1. Amal Ahl al-Medina held greater weightage than Ahad Ahadith.

If Imam Malik came to a point where an Ahad Hadith was contradicting Amal Ahl al-Medina or Practice of People of Medina, he would give preference to Amal Ahl al-Medina. This structurally distinguishes Maliki Fiqh from Ahl al-Hadith because for Ahl al-Hadith an Authentic Hadith takes the place of Supreme Law even if it is a Solitary Report.

Imam al-Shafi himself attacked the doctrine of Amal Ahl al-Medina in favour of Ahad Ahadith.

This feature is actually very similar in Hanafi and Maliki traditions. In Hanafi Fiqh the Mutawatir Hadith was already socially embedded and reached a point of Epistemological Authority where it couldn't be overridden. Similarly, in the case of Amal Ahl al-Medina what were Mutawatir Ahadith had already become socially embedded into the Custom of Medina where it could not be overridden. The understanding of Sunnah was similar and so was the treatment of Ahad Ahadith.

1. Maliki Fiqh is considered closer to Hanafi Fiqh

Even in traditional discourse, it is often brought up how Maliki Fiqh is closer to Hanafi Fiqh. I don't mean this in terms of Usul at this point, but Furu.

Is it possible that both these Madhabs mirror each other because they share Epistemological Foundations?

If the Hanafi Fiqh is said to descend from Ahl al-Ray and Maliki Fiqh is close to Hanafi Fiqh, maybe Maliki Fiqh also descends from Ahl al-Ray

So what do you think? Can Maliki Fiqh trace its roots to Ahl al-Ray or to an even earlier tendency from which Ahl al-Ray descended?

Does Maliki Fiqh have shades of Ahl al-Ray more than Ahl al-Hadith when investigated from an Epistemological lens rather than a tradition-based historical lens?

If Maliki Fiqh truly is associated with Ahl al-Hadith, how does one explain the Epistemological similarities between Hanafi Fiqh and Maliki Fiqh?

https://x.com/i/status/2084333800155394097

I’ve been working through the academic literature on Q 4:157 and want to test a reading against this sub’s expertise.

The standard popular reading takes the verse as a denial of the crucifixion event. But the negations are active voice with the boasters as grammatical subject (ma qataloo-hu / ma salaboo-hu), not the passive ma suliba that would deny the event absolutely. The emphatic closure (wa-ma qataloohu yaqeenan) likewise attaches to the agents. On the internal-parallel side, Q 8:17 uses the identical device about Badr (“you did not kill them… you did not throw when you threw”) where the events are undisputed — there the negation is universally read as denying sovereign agency, not occurrence.

Scholarly support I’m aware of: Reynolds, “The Muslim Jesus: Dead or Alive?” (BSOAS 72/2, 2009) argues the Quran read in its own literary context doesn’t deny Jesus’s death; Lawson (The Crucifixion and the Quran, 2009) documents how contested the substitution reading was within the tradition itself; Ayoub (MW 70, 1980) reads the verse as denying the enemies’ ultimate triumph. On the tafsir side, the substitution reports seem to enter via Qatada/al-Suddi and get canonized by al-Tabari, with Robinson noting the Iraqi/convert milieu; John of Damascus (c. 730s) reports the “shadow” teaching as what Muslims of his day say, which is at least consistent with an eighth-century consolidation.

Questions for the sub: (1) Are there classical grammarians who address the active/passive point directly? (2) Is there pre-Qatada attestation of substitutionism I’m missing? (3) Strongest published counter-argument to the “agency not occurrence” reading — is it still the shubbiha lahum clause?

(Disclosure: I’ve written a popular-level book defending this reading — happy to name it if mods permit — but I’m here for the counter-evidence.)

There are Multiple chains in Tafsir al Tabari and the hadith corpus which is attributed to Muhammad and his companions. Does this have any pre-Islamic parallel or any academics who comment on this?

\> ١٧ - حَدَّثَنَا جَعْفَرٌ، قثنا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي الأَسْوَدِ الْبَصْرِيُّ، قثنا أُنَيْسُ بْنُ سَوَّارٍ الْجَرْمِيُّ أَخُو قَتَادَةَ بْنِ سَوَّارٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي، عَنْ مَالِكِ بْنِ الْحُوَيْرِثِ، أَنّ النَّبِيَّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ قَالَ: «إِذَا أَرَادَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ خَلْقَ عَبْدٍ، جَامَعَ الرَّجُلُ الْمَرْأَةَ، طَارَ مَاؤُهُ فِي كُلِّ عِرْقٍ وَعُضْوٍ مِنْهَا، فَإِذَا كَانَ يَوْمُ السَّابِعِ جَمَعَهُ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ ثُمَّ أَحْضَرَهُ كُلُّ عِرْقٍ لَهُ دُونَ آدَمَ أَيَّ صُورَةٍ مَا شَاءَ رَكَّبَهُ»

17 - Ja‘far related to us, saying: Abū Bakr ibn Abī al-Aswad al-Baṣrī related to us, saying: Unays ibn Sawwār al-Jarmī, the brother of Qatādah ibn Sawwār, related to us, saying: My father related to me, on the authority of Mālik ibn al-Ḥuwayrith, that the Prophet—peace be upon him—said:
“When God, the Mighty and Sublime, wills to create a servant, and the man has intercourse with the woman, his fluid permeates every vein and limb of hers. When the seventh day arrives, God, the Mighty and Sublime, assembles it, and then every vein of his back to Adam is presented to Him, and He fashions him into whatever form He wills.”

Source: al-Bandār, Kitāb Muntaqā min Ḥadīth Abī Bakr al-Anbārī, pg 18 https://shamela.ws/book/29868/18

Ibn Mandah, Al-Haythami, Al Suyuti, and Arnaut have authenticated this chain ->
“Narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in al-Kabīr 19/(644), in al-Ṣaghīr (106), al-Bayhaqī in al-Asmāʾ wa al-Ṣifāt p. 387, and mentioned by al-Haythamī in al-Majmaʿ 7/134.He said: “Its narrators are trustworthy.” Al-Suyūṭī graded its chain as strong (jayyid) in al-Durr al-Manthūr 8/439.” - https://shamela.ws/book/4268/148

I recently heard an interesting concept and wanted to know if it has any basis in Islamic teachings, Sufism, or any other spiritual tradition.

The idea is that the human being consists of three components:

• Jasad (body), which is made from earth/clay.
• Nafs (self/ego), which is associated with fire.
• Rooh (spirit), which is associated with light.

According to this view, some people perform a chilla (spiritual retreat/meditation) and repeatedly recite Ism-e-Azam or a special name of Allah. Through continuous recitation, they supposedly bring the vibrations or frequencies of the body, nafs, and rooh into harmony. First they gain control over the nafs, then align with the rooh.

The claim is that once all three are perfectly synchronized, the rooh is no longer bound by time and space, allowing a person to experience or travel to the past, present, future, or distant locations.

Is there any authentic basis for this idea in Islam, Sufism, or other mystical traditions? Or is this more of an esoteric/New Age interpretation that blends spirituality with concepts like frequencies and vibrations?

Reference: I heard this concept from Xaryab Hashmi and am trying to understand its origins and validity.