The Battle of Siffin took place in an area called Siffin, located in the Jazira region between Syria and Iraq. It was fought between the army of the fourth Rightly Guided Caliph, Amir al-Mu’minin Ali ibn Abi Talib, and the army of the Companion and Governor of Syria, Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (may Allah be pleased with them both), in the month of Safar in the year 37 AH, approximately a year after the Battle of the Camel. The battle ended with arbitration and a truce between the two sides in Ramadan of the same year (Al-Yaqubi, vol. 2, p. 188; see also Khalifa, p. 191).
Two days after the arbitration document was finalized, Amir al-Mu’minin Ali called his forces to return to Kufa after ordering the burial of the dead and the release of the captives. He returned to Kufa in the month of Rabi’ al-Awwal 37 AH, corresponding to July to August 657 CE.
The primary cause of the battle was that when Amir al-Mu’minin Ali ibn Abi Talib رضي الله عنه assumed the caliphate, Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan and the people of Syria refused to pledge allegiance to him as the Caliph of the Muslims until the murderers of the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, were brought to justice (may Allah be pleased with them all). Amir al-Mu’minin Ali ibn Abi Talib sent Jarir ibn Abdullah al-Bajali to Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan to invite him to pledge allegiance. When Jarir arrived in Syria, Muawiyah consulted Amr ibn al-As al-Sahmi, who advised him to gather the people of Syria and march towards Iraq to demand retribution for the killers of Uthman ibn Affan (Ibn al-Athir, Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, vol. 3, p. 161).
The battle ended between the two sides with the drafting of the arbitration document on Wednesday, the 13th of Safar, 53 AH, corresponding to July 31, 657 CE. The document was written by Abdullah ibn Rafi’, the scribe of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), and Umair ibn Ubad al-Kinani, the scribe of Muawiyah رضي الله عن. It stipulated that both disputing parties submit their matter to the judgment of the Qur’an. Two days after the document was completed, Amir al-Mu’minin Ali called his forces to return to Kufa after ordering the burial of the dead and the release of the captives. He returned to Kufa in the month of Rabi’ al-Awwal 37 AH, corresponding to July 657 CE.
Amir al-Mu’minin Ali ibn Abi Talib stood over the dead of both his forces and those of Muawiyah and said, “May Allah forgive you, may Allah forgive you,” to both sides (Caliphate of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Abdul Hamid, p. 250). Yazid ibn al-Asam narrated that when the peace was concluded between Ali and Muawiyah, Ali went out and walked among his dead and said, “These are in Paradise,” then he went out to the dead of Muawiyah and said, “These are in Paradise, and the matter will ultimately be between me and Muawiyah.” He used to say about them, “They are believers.” His statement (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the people of Siffin is nearly identical to his statement regarding the people of the Battle of the Camel (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/303, with a good chain). (point he is making is that the number of dead were small enough for Sayyidina, Ali رضي الله عنه to observe them, and make dua for them).
Some narrators and writers exaggerated the number of casualties on both sides. While some Muslim writers reported high figures, such as Imam al-Dhahabi in “Tarikh al-Islam,” quoting Imam Ibn Sirin, which requires further historical verification and foundational review, it is noteworthy that some Orientalists and those who sought to distort our history also exaggerated and inflated these figures. Ibn Abi Khaythama reported that the number of casualties in Siffin reached seventy thousand, including twenty-five thousand from Iraq and forty-five thousand from Syria. Similarly, the scholar Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned that the number of casualties in Siffin was seventy thousand or more.
There is no doubt that these numbers are not accurate; rather, they are imaginary figures. The actual fighting and mass confrontation lasted for three days, with pauses in fighting at night, except on Friday evening. The total fighting time was about thirty hours. The scholar Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (4/388) stated, “No matter how intense the fighting was, it could not surpass the severity of the Battle of Qadisiyyah, where the number of martyrs was eight thousand five hundred.” Therefore, it is difficult to rationally accept those narrations that mentioned large numbers (Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ali Muhammad al-Sallabi, p. 529).
The wise Muslim chooses the lesser of two evils and the greater of two goods. In that context, the choice is not about fleeting pleasure, but outcomes in the Hereafter. This was the case with Yusuf, who, when facing two evils, chose the lesser of the two. One brought discomfort in this life, while the other may have brought it in the next. Hence, he chose the former, preferring physical suffering to the displeasure of Allah.
“He said, ‘My Lord, prison is more beloved to me than what they invite me to.’” (Qur’an 12:33)
Abu Hayyan shares an important thought about this, writing:
“And ‘more beloved’ here does not carry its usual meaning of preference because he never loved what they were inviting him to at all. Rather, these were two evils, and he chose the lesser of the two. Even though one involved hardship and the other pleasure, the thought of the pleasure, due to the disobedience to Allah and the bad outcome it would bring, never crossed his mind. Instead, he chose to endure the hardship for the sake of Allah, showing patience in the face of adversity, awaiting relief, and being in constant presence with Allah, praying to Him for deliverance. He then entrusted his protection to Allah and surrendered to Him, as is the habit of the prophets and the righteous.” (Tafsir al-Bahr al-Muhit by Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi)
In these difficult days, be aware: ease and comfort are a mirage promised by silence in the face of thugs in the UK, the genocide in Palestine, and more. If you are a person of knowledge, don’t deceive yourself. In comfort lies the lie of silence, whereas in discomfort rests the truth: Allah’s pleasure.
Ten years ago, during the illegal overthrow of President Morsi, I wrote this:
“When I see scholars praying for oppressors and aiding them against the people, I feel a tremendous sickness and anger. Some of my former teachers have taken positions that are not only cowardly but soil the pure knowledge they claim to uphold. No matter how many ijaazas, your family lineage, your clothes, or mystic claims, if you can’t stand with the masses, if you can’t oppose the killing of civilians and the spreading of oppression, then, by Allah, those things will be a witness against you.”
Anyone who understands the greater evil of this moment cannot allow calculus to bridle their voice and mask their knowledge. Speak! Join Muslims who defend in protest this nation’s honor and know that discomfort is where the truth rests.
Imam al-Nasafi shares a splendid reflection on the following verse that may help us understand what we leave in the lives of those around us, as well as those who come in and out of our own lives. Some are like gold, while others are just foam—weak, shallow, and lacking fidelity. After October 7th, this verse has helped me reflect and gain clarity of my own conduct and others.
“He sends down water from the sky, causing valleys to flow according to their measure, and the torrent carries rising foam. And from that which they heat in the fire, seeking to make ornaments or utensils, comes a foam similar to it. Thus Allah compares truth and falsehood. As for the foam, it vanishes as scum; but what benefits people remains on the earth. Thus Allah sets forth examples.” Quran 13:17
Al-Nasafi writes,
“It is said that this is a parable that Allah has given about the truth and its people, and falsehood and its followers. He compared the truth and its people to the water that descends from the sky, filling the valleys of the people, bringing them life, and benefiting them in various ways. He also compared it to the metal that is used to craft jewelry and make different utensils and tools, which remains in the earth with a visible permanence, just as water retains its benefits and gems remain for extended periods.
Allah likened falsehood to the foam of a torrent, which is quickly gone, and to the scum that floats on metal when it is melted. The majority of scholars say that this is a parable that Allah, the Exalted, has given for the Quran, the hearts, truth, and falsehood. The water is the Quran that descended for the life of the soul, just as water is for the body, and the valleys are for the hearts. The phrase “according to its measure” refers to the capacity and openness of the heart. The scum represents the self’s whims and the devil’s whispers, while the clear, beneficial water is like the truth. Just as the foam vanishes, leaving the pure water, so do the self’s whims and the devil’s whispers disappear, leaving the truth as it is.
As for the adornment of gold and silver, it is a metaphor for noble conditions and virtuous morals. The utility of iron, copper, and lead is a metaphor for deeds that are extended by sincerity and prepared for salvation, as deeds bring reward and prevent punishment, just as some of these jewels are tools for earning and others are instruments for defense in war. As for the foam, it represents ostentation, faults, boredom, and laziness.”
Q: What is the ruling on gambling on sports and using gambling apps?
All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon our beloved Prophet Muhammad, his family, his companions, and all who follow them.
Islam & Recreation Islam permits recreation as long as it bring benefits and avoids harm. However, it’s crucial to follow the guidelines set by Sharia to protect our faith, well-being, wealth, time, and the safety of ourselves and others. The Prophet ﷺ was asked if he told jokes. He said, “Yes! But, I don’t lie.”
Bets & Apps Betting on sports outcomes, the number of goals, and similar events on social media and apps, where participants pay money and only the winner takes all, is clearly forbidden because it is a form of gambling, and doing it in apps, like Draft Kings, does not change the reality: It is gambling. Gambling i ls haram.
The Ruling of Gambling Gamblin is unanimously forbidden in Sharia. Allah commands us to avoid it in the Qur’an: “O you who believe, intoxicants, gambling, [sacrificing on] stone alters [to other than Allah], and divining arrows are but defilement from the work of Satan, so avoid it that you may be successful. Satan only wants to cause between you animosity and hatred through intoxicants and gambling and to avert you from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer. So will you not desist?” [Al-Ma’idah: 90-91]
Shariah Definition of Gambling Gambling is taking people’s money unjustly and is a major sin. Al-Qalyubi stated that gambling is forbidden and taking money through it is a major sin. It’s also forbidden to engage in any activity that leads to missing prayers or involves obscenity.
Earnings From Gambling Gambling earnings are considered impure and should be returned to their owners. If that’s not possible, they should be used for public benefits to rid themselves of the impurity and avoid its sin. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said: “No servant acquires wealth through unlawful means, then spends from it and it is blessed for him, or gives charity with it and it is accepted from him, or leaves it behind except that it will be his provision to the Fire. Indeed, Allah does not erase evil with evil, but He erases evil with good. Indeed, the impure does not erase the impure.” [Narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad]. This means unlawful wealth is not accepted by Allah for charity because of its impurity, and leaving it without repentance leads to punishment in the Hereafter.
A Systemic Impact The harms of gambling are evident from real-life incidents. It often leads to discord, strife, and hatred. The wisdom behind its prohibition is to prevent these negative outcomes. Gambling also affects family income and financial stability, leading to debt, family instability, and many marital problems. The harm and sin of gambling are confirmed both textually and rationally, and that is why Allah ﷻ describes it as {defilement from the work of Satan} in the Qur’an.
Question: I know you lived in Egypt. Is it true that Islam oppressed Christians there and destroyed their churches?
Answer: That is incorrect. Historians note that most of the ancient churches in Cairo were built during the era of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ, such as the Church of St. Mark in Alexandria between the years (39 AH) and (65 AH).
During the governorship of Muslim ibn Mukhlid over Egypt between the years (47 AH) and (68 AH), the first church in Fustat was built in the Haret Al-Rum. Additionally, Abdul Aziz ibn Marwan, when he established the city of Helwan, allowed the construction of a church there and permitted some bishops to build two monasteries.
The renowned historian Al-Maqrizi mentioned in his book ‘Al-Mawaiz wal-I’tibar bi Dhikr al-Khitat wal-Athar’ (4/374, Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyya) many examples of the churches of the People of the Book, then stated: [All the mentioned churches in Cairo were newly built during the Islamic era without any dispute.]
Churches that were destroyed by the overzealous were rebuilt by the state in coordination with religious scholars:
Abu Amr Al-Kindi narrated in his book ‘Al-Wulaat wal-Qudaat’ (p. 100, Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyya): [When Musa ibn Isa was appointed as the governor of Egypt by the Commander of the Faithful Harun Al-Rashid, he permitted the Christians to build the churches that Ali ibn Suleiman had demolished. All these churches were rebuilt with the consultation of Al-Layth ibn Saad and Abdullah ibn Lahi’ah, who said that it was part of the country’s development. They argued that most of the churches in Egypt were built during the Islamic era, in the time of the Companions and their followers.”
In our current era, there is a widespread discourse on the necessity for scholars of Islamic jurisprudence to challenge traditional jurists and the ancient methodologies established for the study of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and its principles (Usul al-Fiqh). This revival encompasses all matters related to deriving rulings, building upon, or applying those rulings, the conditions that ensure a rulings compliance, their specific subjects, that are derived using foundational principles, and systematically structured through human reasoning.
The proponents of this call for renewal, who widely discuss and publish on the subject, argue that such an endeavor is essential, citing several points:
Judicial Monopoly
One of their arguments is that jurists have monopolized the examination of Islamic legal matters since the inception of the discipline of fiqh. They have dominated the study of its texts and principles, the definition of legal terminologies, and the establishment of ijtihad (independent reasoning) rules to be followed when deriving legal rulings from their sources. Additionally, they have set the conditions for ijtihad and the methodology for interpreting religious texts. This monopoly by jurists, they argue, was neither appropriate nor permissible, as it usurped a general right. The examination of religious texts and the intellectual effort to understand and derive rulings from them is a right that belongs to every individual in the community, regardless of their level of expertise in Islamic sciences.
According to this perspective, these jurists are seen as having unjustly usurped a position that belongs to the community and have monopolized religious authority without legitimate grounds. They have obstructed people from exercising this right by establishing complex conditions and stringent qualifications for ijtihad that many scholars, let alone laypeople, find impossible to meet. These stringent conditions and qualifications required to be deemed a mujtahid (one who exercises ijtihad) have led to a disconnection between the study of religious texts and the broader Muslim community, that
has resulted in traditional jurists monopolizing the interpretation of Islamic law without contest.
Inflexibility & Arthritis
And there is more: Reformists not only accuse the classical Islamic jurists of monopolizing the right of religious interpretation but also of l rigidness and inflexibility. Ancient scholars adhere strictly to outdated principles and do not consider other methodologies, as they are unfamiliar with them. Their rigidity is further exacerbated by their opposition to anyone attempting ijtihad through different methods, labeling such individuals as deviant or misguided due to those traditional scholars’ ignorance and limited understanding of the true nature of religious matters.
Scripture is Limited & Limiting
In the context of sources and methods, reformers claim that the rules and principles used to derive legal rulings from the Quran and Sunnah are antiquated and irrelevant, as they were suitable for past times and outdated contexts. The conditions of contemporary society and its needs have significantly changed, making these old principles inadequate and irrelevant. Therefore, all such (ancient) frames should be discarded except for those that prove their relevance.
A Focus On Words
Furthermore, the traditional method employed by past jurists and scholars in deriving rulings from texts—focusing on the literal meanings of words and constructing rulings based on those meanings—is unproductive. This approach dulls the senses, stifles intellectual growth, and limits the understanding of religious matters to one narrow perspective, neglecting the broader range of potential insights because strictly adhering to the literal meanings of religious texts and ignoring their underlying purposes and wisdom prevents benefiting from the full scope of their guidance and applying them appropriately in contemporary contexts. This deprives us of significant knowledge and the benefits brought by religion.
Limiting Ijtihad
Reformists also blame classical scholars for limiting the employment of ijtihad, which those classica scholars restricted by invoking the principle of “blocking the means to harm (sadd al-dhara’i), with the intention of preventing those with insufficient scholarly expertise from engaging in ijtihad. This decision needs reevaluation, removing unnecessary restrictions that are not essential for ijtihad.
An Irrational Platitude
Reformists critique the claim by classical legisits that divine revelation (i.e., the Quran and Sunnah) encompasses all necessary legal rulings for all times. This assertion has proven inaccurate in practice, highlighting the necessity of ijtihad in every era. Thus, the absence of ijtihad in any period is evidence of intellectual and jurisprudential stagnation and rot. The use of analogical reasoning (qiyas) has often been misapplied, particularly in matters related to governance and public affairs, such as defining the roles and responsibilities of the ruler and the advisory council. This has led to legal outcomes that promote injustice, tyranny, and the abuse of power, contrasting with the intended principles of Islamic governance.
In summary, reformists claim that the traditional methodology of usul al-fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence), is disconnected from the realities of life, influenced by formal, ancient, logic, and overly restrictive of intellectual movement. This does not align with the current circumstances of Muslims. Ijtihad should be a quality possessed by all Muslims, allowing each individual to engage in intellectual effort according to their level of knowledge. This personal engagement ensures the correctness of the fatwas they follow, achieved through diligent search and study.
Ancient Fiqh Or Modern Fiqh
The old jurisprudence was based on limited knowledge of the nature of things, universal truths, and social laws. Contemporary Muslims have the potential to understand these aspects better due to the modern advancements and expansion in various sciences. This necessitates a review and rebuilding of Islamic jurisprudence based on contemporary knowledge and insights. New sciences, such as sociology and natural sciences, should be integrated into the study of usul al-fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence). These sciences can guide the mujtahid (jurisprudent) in fully comprehending the subjects of their ijtihad and uncovering aspects that may be overlooked without the aid of these sciences, while some lesser-emphasized principles of jurisprudence should be reconsidered for deriving legal rulings for new issues, as they have proven to be fertile and productive sources.
In short: These are the primary reasons for the necessity of renewal in the fundamentals of jurisprudence claimed by the reformists, as understood within my scope of knowledge.
A Response To These Claim & Praiseworthy Reform
It is undeniable that some of these reasons are genuine and stem from a deep understanding of Islamic jurisprudence and its conditions. Hence, I will address them in greater detail later in this text. Others, however, are baseless and often come from those who lack knowledge of Sharia and its methodologies. I will discuss them in the order they were mentioned and examine their validity.
First Reason: The Claim that Jurists Have Usurped the Right to Interpret Sharia, Which Belongs to the Entire Ummah
Anyone with even a basic understanding of Sharia sciences can see that this statement is nonsensical. How can the interpretation of Sharia be usurped as if it were a piece of land or similar tangible property? The interpretation of Sharia involves exerting effort and expending energy to acquire knowledge of Sharia, to understand its issues thoroughly, and to engage in ijtihad (independent reasoning). Who can prevent any of us from doing this, except for an unjust ruler or a tyrant oppressor? Many of these jurists themselves suffered greatly under such repression and injustice, as is well-documented in historical texts, and today, most of the great scholars of Islam, are underserved, ignored for exibitionlists and suffer from neglect and political abuse.
Furthermore, who exactly is meant by the term “jurists”? Are they the diligent and distinguished scholars of Islamic jurisprudence, or are they those who exploit religion for personal gain, flattering those in power, and bending religious texts to please them?
If by “jurists” these critics mean the diligent, prominent scholars of Islamic jurisprudence who are zealous in protecting the sanctities of Allah, then these scholars universally abhor blind imitation (taqlid). Some even declared it forbidden and considered it an innovation in the religion of Allah.
However, those who attack the scholars and esteemed jurists of the Ummah are not concerned with the truth of their accusations. Their aim is to confuse Muslims, undermine the respect and authority of scholars in the eyes of the people, weaken educational institutions, and create an environment where they can spread their own misguided ideas without opposition.
Consider the example of Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, who slandered Imam al-Shafi’i by claiming that he (Imam al-Shafi’i) collaborated with the Umayyads willingly and contentedly. This absurd accusation elicited laughter and ridicule among scholars who know that the Umayyad dynasty fell 18 years before Imam al-Shafi’i was born; the Umayyad state ended in 132 AH, while Imam al-Shafi’i was born in 150 AH. The baseless accusations made by these individuals against the leaders of Islam are akin to the slander propagated by Nasr Abu Zayd regarding Imam al-Shafi’i and the Umayyads. Such serious accusations require conclusive evidence, yet these critics base their allegations on their own diseased imaginations, driven by malice and a desire to please their masters. This is not the place to delve into this subject extensively, but I mention it to highlight the relevance of this issue to our current discussion. The attacks on the scholars of Islam and the false accusations leveled against them are part of the same phenomenon, regardless of the different forms, era and manifestations it may take.
As for the complaints about those who flatter and exploit religion for personal gain, if this is who the critics mean by “jurists,” then their criticism is misplaced. These individuals are not truly engaged in the scholarly examination of Sharia rulings; they are merely opportunists. It is important to note that those referred to as jurists in this context, who are characterized by flattery, are few in number, while the vast majority of scholars and jurists are genuine and dedicated to their craft. The Ummah should think well of them.
Second Reason: The Claim that Jurists Have Become Stagnant with Outdated Principles
Is there truly such a thing as outdated principles in Islamic jurisprudence and its foundations? How can they be described as outdated, and what evidence is there to support the claim that they are no longer suitable for developing new jurisprudential rulings?
I will address these issues in detail in the future, since this idea demands its own study..
Third Reason: The Claim that the Methodology of Past Jurists and Legal Theorists in Deriving Jurisprudential Rulings from Texts is Ineffective
This claim is overly broad when made in the context of specific accusation. The criticized methodology, according to these detractors, is essential for extracting rulings from texts and is unavoidable. Every form of speech, no matter how it is presented, conveys its intended meanings through the implications and connotations of its words. Understanding these requires knowledge of the linguistic context, the figurative use of language, and the circumstances under which certain expressions are used.
Understanding any text—whether divine or human—necessitates examining the indications, requirements, implications, and contexts of its words. Islamic legal texts from the Qur’an and Sunnah are interpreted according to established principles laid out by the scholars of the Ummah. These principles are documented in the books of usul al-fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence) and are classified under the study of linguistic indications.
While human texts are also interpreted in a similar manner, they are subject to the limitations of human nature, such as forgetfulness, ignorance, limited understanding, and the tendency to intend meanings that differ from the apparent words. Despite these limitations, the same principles apply to understanding human speech within the bounds of these human characteristics, and everyone recognizes the limitations imposed by human nature on interpreting speech.
Thus, any statement made about the jurists’ methods being ineffective is unfounded. The methodologies employed by the scholars of the Ummah are comprehensive and account for the complexities of language and context.
If examining Sharia terms and divine texts to understand their meanings is flawed, then by what means can we comprehend the contents of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, including their rulings, obligations, news, admonitions, and other aspects? If there is another method, what is it? If the claim is not that but rather that the jurists’ method is inadequate and should be replaced with a better one, then what is this superior method?
If the intent is to eliminate the authority of the text in favor of the authority of interests, what are these interests, and how do we recognize them? Every interest has a corresponding detriment. What benefits one person may harm another. As the saying goes, “One man’s misfortune is another man’s gain.” Whose interests and harms should be the standard for measuring benefits and detriments universally?
If it means disregarding the texts of revelation entirely, what would we become then? Abandoning the texts means following the directives of those who advocate for abandoning Allah’s revelations, essentially replacing divine guidance with the words of misguided individuals. What a catastrophe that would be.
Fourth Reason: The Claim that Literal Interpretation of Texts Prevents Utilization of Their Objectives
Firstly, literal interpretation of texts does not completely prevent consideration of their objectives. There is nuance here. Only the literalists (Zahirites) adhere strictly to the apparent meanings without regard for other causes and objectives. The rest of the scholars do consider these factors. They extract rulings from texts while considering the objectives, and each case is judged individually. I will discuss this further when addressing viable theories for jurisprudential application, Insha’Allah, and when discussing the features of renewal in the following chapter.
Fifth Reason: The Claim that the Conditions for Ijtihad are Excessive and Unnecessary
It is self-evident and a basic principle in the natural order that everything requires its prerequisites to be fulfilled. Anyone who claims that some of the conditions set by scholars for ijtihad (independent reasoning) are unnecessary must specify which conditions are being referred to. Once specified, these conditions can be re-evaluated, and we can attempt ijtihad without them. The truth of this matter will then become evident to all.
As for the argument that setting these conditions has led to the closure of the door of ijtihad, it is important to note that the conditions for ijtihad are not meant to prohibit it but to ensure the necessary level of competence. The conditions are essential for reaching the required level of expertise, not for preventing qualified individuals from engaging in ijtihad. In fact, the conditions for ijtihad have become more stringent over time due to the complexities of contemporary issues. I will elaborate on when I address how to balance interests, Insha’Allah.
Sixth Reason: The Claim that the Qur’an and Sunnah Contain All Necessary Jurisprudential Rulings
This statement has been affirmed by many scholars, including Al-Juwayni, who mentioned it in his book “Al-Burhan.” He said: “The definitive and conclusive opinion among us is that no incident is devoid of a ruling from Allah, derived from the principles of Sharia. The basis that applies to all incidents is qiyas (analogy) and the various forms of reasoning and inference related to it.” This statement of Imam al-Haramaim clarifies the meaning of the claim above: that the Quran and Sunnah are the sole evidence of rulings, that some people ridicule because they do not understand its significance or scope, but understand it in a shallow myopic way.
Imam Ibn Hazm also mentioned it in his book “Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam”: “There is no incident that someone can say, ‘This is obligatory,’ except we respond: ‘If you bring evidence of its obligation from the Qur’an, the authentic words of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), or consensus, or an explicit text, then obedience is mandatory. It is obligatory to follow such directives, and whoever denies this obligation is considered a disbeliever. If someone claims the obligation without any textual evidence or consensus, he is lying, and such a statement is not obligatory. Similarly, if someone declares something as forbidden, we say to him: if you bring evidence from the text or consensus prohibiting it, then it is indeed forbidden, and obedience is required. Whoever seeks to make it permissible in this case is sinful, lying, and disobedient. However, if there is no textual evidence or consensus prohibiting it, then it is not forbidden.”
I ask, Is there any action in the world that falls outside of this framework? It is clear that the textual evidence, explicit or implicit, encompasses every ruling that has occurred or will occur until the Day of Judgment. There is no scenario that falls outside these three types of rulings. By Allah’s grace, this is the correct understanding.
The foundation of the normative position is based on the hadith narrated by Thalaba Al-Hushni, which states: “Allah has imposed obligations, so do not neglect them; He has set limits, so do not transgress them; He has prohibited certain things, so do not violate them; and He has kept silent about some things out of mercy for you, not out of forgetfulness, so do not seek them out.”
Undoubtedly, anyone who reflects on the words of the scholars supporting this view: there are explicit scriptural injunctions, just as there are those that are inferred, will not see a contradiction between this view and the practice of ijtihad (independent reasoning). Ijtihad is used to derive these rulings from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, as is qiyas. Therefore, whoever thinks that this view prohibits ijtihad, and limits deriving religious rulings to the sacred texts exclusively, has a weak understanding.
The Seventh Reason: The Misapplication of Qiyas (Analogical Reasoning) in Matters of Governance
As I mentioned in the first section, the question is raised about how Qiyas (analogical reasoning) may have contributed to the emergence of unjust rulers who transgressed the limits set by Allah, oppressed the people, and spread corruption on earth, thereby leading to the destruction of both land and people through their immorality and tyranny.
If the intention is to suggest that jurists employing Qiyas paved the way for rulers to act tyrannically and oppressively, then this claim requires clear evidence. It does not seem that revolts such as that of jurists like Ibn al-Ash’ath or the stances of notable scholars and judges like al-Thawri, Tawus, al-Hasan al-Basri, al-Harith ibn Miskin, Ibn Abd al-Salam, Ibn al-Hajib, and al-Nawawi against the rulers of their time are unknown to those who have studied Islamic history.
However, if the intention is to suggest that early Islamic jurisprudence does not contain detailed legal rulings to regulate governance, impose restrictions on rulers to prevent injustice, ensure accountability, and uphold the public interest in accordance with the religion of Allah, then this is accurate. It appears that early jurists might have assumed that people would naturally choose the most pious and suitable leaders, and obviously, a righteous and pious person would not need external constraints as they would be self-restrained by their piety and righteousness.
If the people erred in their choice and the leader turned out not to be as they had believed, it would be the duty of the influential community members to depose him. This has indeed occurred repeatedly in Islamic history, though not always in the ideal manner prescribed by Sharia. The reliance of jurists on the piety and righteousness of leaders is evident in some of their legal opinions, which might have been suitable in the era those opinions were formulated. However, in the present time, this reliance must be re-evaluated due to the corruption of intentions and the malignancy of inner dispositions. Hence, on this issue, reform is warranted inline with the limits and norms laid out by the Shari’ah.
The Eighth Reason: The Necessity of Ijtihad for Every Muslim
Every Muslim should engage in ijtihad to the best of their ability. This was a call made persistently by Imam Ibn Hazm, who reiterated it in his book “Al-Ihkam,” expressing strong disapproval of blind imitation (taqlid) and those who advocate for it, and urging for the practice of ijtihad, which he considered essential for true understanding and application of Islamic principles. He emphasized that it is obligatory for every Muslim, male or female, regardless of their status, even if they are lay people to engage in ijtihad.
He explained how a layperson should practice ijtihad, stating: “If a layperson encounters a situation requiring a religious ruling, he should ask a scholar. If the scholar responds that this is the command of Allah and His Messenger, the layperson should accept it and is not required to investigate further. If the scholar says it is his own opinion or the opinion of a specific jurist, or becomes angry or remains silent, it is forbidden for the layperson to follow his ruling. The layperson must seek another scholar who will provide the ruling based on the commands of Allah and His Messenger. This ensures the layperson is following the true Islamic ruling and avoids any deviation.”
Shaykh Al-Fulani mentioned something similar in his book “Iqaz Himam Uli Al-Absar,” referring to Imam Ibn Daqiq al-Eid, who, during his final illness, wrote extensively against taqlid (blind imitation) and emphasized the importance of ijtihad.
The Ninth Reason: The Perceived Shortcomings of Usul al-Fiqh
Critics argue that the traditional methodology of usul al-fiqh inherited from previous generations does not meet contemporary needs because it was developed in isolation from real-life contexts and influenced by classical logic. This claim requires thorough examination and clear illustration of how qiyas (analogical reasoning) relates to real-life situations and how it can be adapted to address them effectively.
There is no doubt that there is a similarity between ancient logic and qiyas in terms of form and structure, but is this similarity sufficient to prove that qiyas fails to achieve its intended purpose? That needs investigation and proof.
The Tenth Reason: Limited Knowledge of Natural and Social Sciences in Classical Fiqh
This is an important consideration. If it is true that classical Islamic jurisprudence is based on limited knowledge of the nature of things, cosmic realities, and social laws, then it is necessary to review and identify the areas where this is evident.
The Eleventh Reason: The Rigidity and Constraints of Qiyas in Fiqh
Qiyas in fiqh is precise and bound by conditions that limit the scope of legal inquiry. These conditions are scientific and based on the nature of the subject matter. Anyone who has a better methodology should present it.
The Twelfth Reason: The Integration of New Sciences into Usul al-Fiqh
The emergence of new sciences should be incorporated into the study of usul al-fiqh to aid in more accurate and profound derivation of legal rulings. This is essential as it helps in bringing benefits and preventing harm, and in applying texts to contemporary issues correctly.
The Thirteenth Reason: The Reassessment of Certain Principles in Usul al-Fiqh
Some principles in usul al-fiqh have proven beneficial and therefore must be reassessed. This will be discussed further when addressing the theoretical frameworks that need reevaluation.
Twenty Discussion Questions on Reviving Usul al-Fiqh
What are the main arguments for the necessity of reviving Usul al-Fiqh in the contemporary era?
How have traditional jurists historically monopolized the interpretation and derivation of Islamic legal rulings?
In what ways do reformists argue that this monopoly is inappropriate or impermissible?
How do the conditions and qualifications for ijtihad set by classical scholars limit broader participation in Islamic jurisprudence?
What is the role of ijtihad in ensuring that Islamic legal rulings remain relevant to contemporary issues?
How do reformists critique the rigidity and inflexibility of traditional jurists’ methodologies?
What are the potential drawbacks of relying solely on literal interpretations of religious texts?
How can the integration of modern sciences, such as sociology and natural sciences, enhance the study of Usul al-Fiqh?
What are the challenges in adapting classical principles of Islamic jurisprudence to modern contexts?
How does the principle of “blocking the means to harm” (sadd al-dhara’i) impact the practice of ijtihad?
In what ways can new methodologies for interpreting Islamic legal texts be developed?
How can the concept of ijtihad be democratized to involve all Muslims, regardless of their level of expertise in Islamic sciences?
What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of a more flexible approach to deriving legal rulings from the Qur’an and Sunnah?
How can the objectives and wisdom behind religious texts be better understood and applied in contemporary contexts?
What evidence is there to support or refute the claim that classical jurists’ methodologies are outdated and ineffective?
How can traditional Usul al-Fiqh principles be re-evaluated to meet the needs of modern society?
What are the implications of the claim that divine revelation encompasses all necessary legal rulings for all times?
How has the misapplication of Qiyas contributed to issues of governance and public affairs in Islamic history?
What are the arguments for and against the necessity of ijtihad for every Muslim, as suggested by Imam Ibn Hazm?
How can the study of Usul al-Fiqh be reformed to incorporate contemporary knowledge and insights while maintaining fidelity to Islamic principles?
This unparalleled work in jurisprudence is blesssed with the narrations of our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family and companions) and by the efforts of its compiler, Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him). One of the signs of the excellence of the Muwatta’ is that Allah has granted it widespread acceptance among both the general public and scholars of Islam. Moreover, Allah’s complete blessing upon Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) is evident in the Muwatta’s organization, categorization, and comprehensiveness, recording the noble Sunnah according to various jurisprudential chapters.
Malik’s Depth & Humility
In the Muwatta’ – as narrated by Muhammad ibn al-Hasan – Malik said: “I visited Abu Ja’far in the morning when the sun had just risen, and he had descended from his bed to his carpet. He said to me: ‘You truly deserve all good and every honor.’ He continued to ask me questions until the call to the Dhuhr prayer, and then he said to me: ‘You are the most knowledgeable of people.’ I said: “No, by Allah, O Commander of the Faithful.” He said: “Yes, but you are hiding it. There is no one more knowledgeable than you today after the Commander of the Faithful, O Abu Abdullah”—this being the kunyah (nickname) of Imam Malik. “Write books for the people and avoid the strictness of Abdullah ibn Umar, the leniencies of Ibn Abbas, and the odd views of Ibn Mas’ud. Stick to the middle ground and what the ummah and the companions have agreed upon. If I live, I will write your books in gold and compel people to follow them.”
I said to him: “O Commander of the Faithful, do not do this, for the people have already accepted various opinions, heard hadiths, narrated traditions, and each group has adopted what they previously encountered and acted upon it, following the differences among the companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family and companions) and others. It would be difficult to turn them away from what they believe. So leave the people with what they have chosen and what the people of each land have selected for themselves.”
He said: “By my life, if you had agreed with me on this (to do what he said), I would have commanded it.”
In Al-Zurqani’s commentary on the Muwatta’, it is mentioned: Abu Mus’ab narrated that Abu Ja’far Al-Mansur said to Malik: “Write a book for the people that I can compel them to follow.”
Malik discussed this with him and Abu Ja’far al-Mansur said: “Write it, for there is no one more knowledgeable than you today.” So, Malik wrote the Muwatta’, but before he finished it, Abu Ja’far passed away.
The Meaning and Significance of Al-Muwatta
The term “Al-Muwatta’” means “the facilitated and simplified.” Imam Malik, upon his completion of the text, presented it to seventy jurists from among the scholars of Madinah, who all agreed on its authenticity, and thus it was named “Al-Muwatta’.
Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) compiled in Al-Muwatta’ the hadith of our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family and companions), the sayings of the Companions, the sayings of the Followers, and the consensus of the scholars of Madinah, as well as his ijtihads, his understanding of Usul al-Fiqh, the science of hadith and more.
The Importance of Al-Muwatta’ and the Difficulty of Combining Jurisprudence and Hadith
Writing hadith and compiling them into a book organized by jurisprudential chapters can only be undertaken by a jurist who understands the meanings of the noble hadiths, comprehends their contexts and objectives, and can distinguish between different wordings, as well as the depth, purpose and relationship hadith has with the Shari’ah, God’s law
Scholars, who combine expertise in hadith and jurisprudence, are rare compared to the many narrators and hadith preservers. Memorization is one thing, and jurisprudence is another—more distinguished, noble, important, and beneficial. Jurisprudence involves the precise understanding of texts from the Qur’an and Sunnah, whether through explicit wording, implication, indication, or metaphor, and applying them appropriately in various rulings without excess, deficiency, rashness, or rigidity.
These qualities were rare among scholars of the past, and are even rarer among contemporary scholars. It is a grave and compounded mistake to assume that merely memorizing hadith or owning and reading hadith books makes one a jurist knowledgeable in Islamic rulings and skilled in precise deduction.
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “How rare is jurisprudence among the people of hadith.”
The Merits of Al-Muwatta’
The Muwatta’ by Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) has numerous distinctive qualities that set it apart from other books of hadith.
These include:
First: The Muwatta’ was compiled by an eminent, pioneering jurist, hadith scholar, and mujtahid, recognized and followed by his contemporaries and later scholars for his unparalleled knowledge in both jurisprudence, hadith and the legal precedents before him.
The hadith scholar Ibn Abi Hatim narrated in “Al-Jarh wa Al-Ta’dil” from Ali ibn Al-Madini: “The hadith understandings of the jurists was more beloved to them than that of the scholars of hadith.”
Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: “Understanding hadith and its jurisprudence is more beloved to me than merely memorizing hadith.”
Ali ibn Al-Madini said: “The noblest knowledge is understanding the texts of hadith and knowing the conditions of the narrators.”
In “Tadrib Al-Rawi” by Al-Hafiz Al-Suyuti, Al-A’mash said: “A hadith circulated among the jurists is better than a hadith circulated among the elders.”
Second: Scholars unanimously praised and honored the Muwatta’, speaking highly of it. Here, I suffice with the words of the leader of the imams, the jurist, hadith scholar, and followed mujtahid, Imam Al-Shafi’i (may Allah be pleased with him), which is enough:
He said: “There is no book on the face of the earth after the Book of Allah that is more authentic than the book of Malik.”
In another version: “There is no book on earth that is closer to the Qur’an than the book of Malik.” In another version: “There is no book after the Book of Allah that is more correct than the Muwatta’ of Malik.” In another version: “There is no book after the Book of Allah that is more beneficial than the Muwatta’.”
The variety of these expressions indicates Imam Al-Shafi’i’s repeated praise for the Muwatta’ on multiple occasions.
This praise by Imam Al-Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) for the Muwatta’ was before the compilation of Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Al-Hafiz Al-Dhahabi and Ibn Al-Salah mentioned that he said this before these two Sahihs were authored.
Third: The Muwatta’ was authored in the mid-second century of the Hijra, making it a pioneer in its field, unmatched by any similar work. It is the first book of its kind, and being the first gives it distinction and merit. Imam Malik was the one who established the method of compiling hadith according to the chapters of jurisprudence, a methodology followed by later scholars like Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak, Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Sa’id ibn Mansur, Abu Dawud, Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, and others. For being the first, it is deserving of our high praise. A poet wrote:
“It is, by its precedence, deserving of distinction and worthy of our beautiful praise.”
Fourth: It was transmitted, in this context, from its author by a prominent, pioneering jurist, hadith scholar, and mujtahid, who was renowned for his knowledge in jurisprudence, hadith, and Arabic—Imam Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan Al-Shaybani. He was a student of the two imams, Abu Hanifa and Abu Yusuf, and the teacher of Imam Al-Shafi’i. He stayed with his teacher Malik for three years, listening to the book from him verbatim, absorbing his jurisprudence, knowledge, and narrations. His exceptional intelligence, acute awareness, and profound understanding made jurisprudence second nature to him.
He mastered the transmission of the Muwatta’ from his teacher Malik and added after narrating it his opinions on the issues, whether agreeing or disagreeing, and stated the views of his teacher, Imam Abu Hanifa, whether in agreement or disagreement, and sometimes the views of Imam Malik and other jurists.
In many chapters, he would explain the meaning of the hadith, its context, and his preferred or disliked aspects of the issue, often detailing the differences between his views and those of his teachers, Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik, clarifying the conditions and rulings of the matter.
I ask Allah Almighty to grant us understanding in religion, teach us interpretation, and provide us the means to act upon what we know. Ameen.
At this point, it has reached 36 lessons. My assumption is that I will, by Allah’s blessing, finish it in fifty lessons, Once that is done, I will add a drills and application section to certain lessons to help students move from theory to application.
Q: Is it true Imam Malik shied away from narrating hadith about Ali (رضي الله عنه) in the Muwatta because Malik feared the Umayyads?
A: That is incorrect for three reasons:
Historically inaccurate: Imam Malik started writing the Muwatta around 147 AH, finishing it around 158 AH. That was well after the Umayyads were gone. They fell around 132 AH. Sheikh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghudda – may Allah have mercy on him – writes: “Malik’s compilation of Al-Muwatta’ took place after the year 146 or 147 AH, and its completion was after the year 158 AH with certainty.”
Imam Malik was a student of Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq, who encouraged people to take Malik as an Imam. Imam al-Zawawi mentioned in his book “The Merits of Imam Malik – may Allah have mercy on him” that “some people from the people of Kufa entered upon Ja’far al-Sadiq during his illness, in which he passed away – may Allah have mercy on him – and they asked him to appoint a man for them after him whom they could return to regarding their religious matters. He said: ‘Adhere to the sayings of the people of Medina, for it purifies it as alkali purifies iron; adhere to the traditions of those who have passed; for I assure you that I am a follower, not an innovator. Adhere to the understanding of the people of Hijaz; adhere to the blessed Mu’min in Islam, who followed the traditions of the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him – as I have examined him and found him to be a knowledgeable and virtuous scholar, following him willingly, not inclining to desires nor belittling by necessity, and he narrates only from the virtuous companions of the Messenger of Allah – peace be upon him – for if you follow him, you will grasp your share of Islam, and if you oppose him, you will be misguided and doomed. Do you not say that I am filled with knowledge, not in need of anyone from the creatures, as I have taken from me everything they need, so that desires do not lead you to destruction, I warn you of Allah’s punishment on the Day of Resurrection, a day when neither wealth nor sons will be of any avail, except for those who come to Allah with a sound heart… They asked: Who is he? He said: Malik ibn Anas.”
Imam Malik narrated numerous hadiths from Ahl al-Bayt – may Allah honor them. For example, he often narrated hadiths from Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari through Ja’far ibn Muhammad from his father. He also narrated hadiths to Sayyidina Ali, Allah be pleased with him.
Here are several narrations from the Muwatta of Yahya from Ali, Allah be pleased with him:
1. He narrated – with an explicit statement – that he did not perform ablution from what touched fire. Malik reported to me that it reached him that Ali ibn Abi Talib and Abdullah ibn Abbas did not perform ablution from what touched fire. (Al-Muwatta 1/26 Hadith number: 52).
2. He narrated – as a Musnad hadith – the ruling of ablution from pre-seminal fluid. Yahya reported to me from Malik from Abu al-Nadr, the freed slave of Umar ibn Ubaydullah, from Sulayman ibn Yasar, from Muqdad ibn al-Aswad, that Ali ibn Abi Talib ordered him to ask the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, about a man who approached his family and then experienced pre-seminal fluid. Ali said: “I have a daughter of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and I am ashamed to ask him.” Muqdad said: “So, I asked the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, about it, and he said: ‘If one of you experiences that, let him wash his private parts with water and perform ablution for prayer.'” (Al-Muwatta 1/4, Hadith number 84).
3. He narrated in the chapter of Recitation in Prayer: Yahya reported to me from Malik from Nafi from Ibrahim ibn Abdullah ibn Hunayn from his father from Ali ibn Abi Talib that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, forbade wearing rough garments during prayer, wearing gold rings, and reciting the Quran while bowing. (Al-Muwatta 1/8, Hadith number 176).
4. He narrated – with an explicit statement – in the chapter of the Middle Prayer: Malik reported to me that it reached him that Ali ibn Abi Talib and Abdullah ibn Abbas used to say that the Middle Prayer is the Fajr prayer. Malik said: “The statement of Ali and Ibn Abbas is what I prefer in this matter.” (Al-Muwatta 1/139, Hadith number 316).
5. Mentioned in the Hadith of Umm Hani’ in (The Duha Prayer): Narrated to me by Malik from Abu al-Nadr, the freed slave of Umar ibn Ubayd Allah, that Abu Murrah, the freed slave of Aqil ibn Abi Talib, informed him that he heard Umm Hani’ bint Abi Talib saying: “I went to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, in the year of the conquest, and found him performing ghusl while Fatimah, his daughter, was covering him with a garment.” She said: “So I greeted him, and he said: ‘Who is this?’ I said: ‘Umm Hani’ bint Abi Talib.’ So he said: ‘Welcome, Umm Hani’.’ When he finished his ghusl, he stood and prayed eight rak’ahs, wrapped in one garment. Then he left. So I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, my maternal uncle Ali claims that he fought a man whom so-and-so hired.’ So the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: ‘We will pay him from what he was paid, O Umm Hani’.’ Umm Hani’ said: “That was the Duha prayer.” (Al-Muwatta 1/152 Hadith number 356).
6. Mentioned in (The Permissibility of Passing in Front of the Worshipper): Narrated to me by Malik that it reached him that Ali ibn Abi Talib said: “Nothing should cut off the prayer from what passes in front of the worshipper.” (Al-Muwatta 1/156 Hadith number 368).
7. Mentioned in (The Eid Prayer): Abu Ubaid said: “Then I witnessed the Eid prayer with Ali ibn Abi Talib and Uthman, who was restricted, and he came, prayed, then departed, and he delivered a sermon.” (Al-Muwatta 1/179).
8. Mentioned in (Standing at Funerals): Yahya narrated to me from Malik, from Yahya ibn Said, from Waqid ibn Amr ibn Sad ibn Muadh, from Nafi ibn Jubayr ibn Mut’im, from Mas’ud ibn al-Hakam, from Ali ibn Abi Talib, that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, used to stand at funerals, then he would sit afterward. (Al-Muwatta 1/232 Hadith number 551).
9. Mentioned in (The Chapter of Visiting Graves): Narrated to me by Malik, that it reached him that Ali ibn Abi Talib used to rest on graves and recline on them. Malik said: “We disapprove of sitting on graves, as we view it according to the schools of thought.” (Al-Muwatta 1/233 Hadith number 552).
10. Mentioned in (The Chapter of Reciting Quran During Hajj): Yahya narrated to me from Malik, from Ja’far ibn Muhammad, from his father, that al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad entered upon Ali ibn Abi Talib with water for him to perform ablution, and he had dough and dates ready for him. He said: “This is Uthman ibn Affan prohibiting connecting Hajj and Umrah together.” So Ali ibn Abi Talib went out, and traces of dough and dates were on his hands. He never forgot the traces of dough and dates on his arms until he met Uthman ibn Affan. Then he said: “Are you prohibiting connecting Hajj and Umrah?” Uthman said: “That is my opinion.” So Ali left angrily, saying: “Here I am, O Allah, here I am, with Hajj and Umrah combined.” (Al-Muwatta 1/336 Hadith number 742).
11. Mentioned in (The Chapter of Tawaf): Narrated to me by Malik, from Ja’far ibn Muhammad, from his father, that Ali ibn Abi Talib used to perform Tawaf with Hajj until the sun declined on the Day of Arafat, then he would perform the Tawaf. (Al-Muwatta 1/338 Hadith number 746).
12. Mentioned in (The Chapter of Sacrifice of the Haram Animals): Yahya narrated to me from Malik, from Ja’far ibn Muhammad, from his father, that Ali ibn Abi Talib said: “The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, sacrificed some of his sacrificial animals and others were sacrificed by others.” (Al-Muwatta 1/394 Hadith number 883).
13. Also mentioned in the Chapter of the Inheritance of Non-Muslims: Yahya narrated to me from Malik, from Ibn Shihab, from Ali ibn Husayn ibn Ali, from Umar ibn Uthman ibn Affan, from Usamah ibn Zayd, that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “A Muslim does not inherit from a disbeliever.” Malik narrated to me from Ibn Shihab, from Ali ibn Abi Talib, that he informed him: “Aqil and Talib inherited from Abu Talib, but Ali did not inherit from him.” He said: “So we left our share of the property.” (Al-Muwatta 2/519 Hadith numbers 1.82 and 1.83).
14. Mentioned in the Book of Marriage (Chapter on What is Disliked Regarding Marrying Two Sisters through the Right of Possession): Yahya narrated to me from Malik, from Ibn Shihab, from Qubaysah ibn Dhu’ayb, that a man asked Uthman ibn Affan about marrying two sisters through the right of possession, if it is permissible. Uthman said: “Allah made one lawful and the other unlawful. As for me, I do not like to do that.” He said: “So the man left him and met a man from the companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and asked him about that, and he said: ‘If I had any authority in the matter and found anyone doing that, I would punish him.’” Ibn Shihab said: “I think it was Ali ibn Abi Talib.” (Al-Muwatta 2/538 Hadith number 1122).
15. Mentioned in (The Chapter of Temporary Marriage): Yahya narrated to me from Malik, from Ibn Shihab, from Abdullah and al-Hasan, the sons of Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib, from their father, from Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, forbade temporary marriage on the day of Khaybar, and eating the meat of domesticated camels. (Al-Muwatta 2/548 Hadith number 1129).
Q: Why is the Muwatta not filled with narrations about Sayydina Ali, Allah bless him?
A: This is more geographical than political, and your question is framed wrong for a number of reasons. In short: Malik narrated what he had access to; all of the narrators in the Muwatta were from Medina except six or seven. For that reason, his narrations of the companions who lived outside of Medina were limited. Ali, Allah bless him, being one of them. Another example is. Abdullah bin Masud; Malik did not narrate a lot on his behalf. Harun Rashid asked Malik a similar question. The Imam responded that his geographical location limited him to the scholars he had access to.
When I was at Al-Azhar, my teacher taught me how to wrap the turban you see in this picture.
At first, I started wrapping it, hoping I could make it look nice from the start. However, that is not how it works. “If you want it to look nice, then start with the cloth looking disheveled. Work with it. Wrap it. Slowly, it will begin to look nice. Then, shape it, tighten it, and tuck it at the top. After that, you’ll see.”
What I learned from that was a lesson that stays with me to this day: things rarely start out perfect; it’s usually the opposite. But, with hard work, embracing the process, and staying focused, I could get close to my goal.
Most people don’t see things that way. They want quick success. But starting out with an unfinished product builds passion, conviction, appreciation, and maturity.
Embrace the wrinkly cloth, and each wrap as a step towards your goal. Break down success, and follow the steps that lead you to it. One day, your struggle will be a beautiful turban.
