Messages

peace Ayman, TS,

My Quranic understanding is the default role of the husband is as breadwinner/maintainer HOWEVER it can be modified depending on what the couple agree on prior to marriage and/or in the marriage contract. See here for references:
https://misconceptions-about-islam.com/misconception.php?id=40
http://www.quran434.com/wife-beating-islam.html#part2

If she wants to work and there is no financial reason to, then she needs to obtain her husband's permission to do so.

Instead of saying "she needs to obtain her husband's permission" I would clarify to "it depends on what was mutually agreed upon prior to marriage and/or in the marriage contract". If either party wants to deviate from that contract then they must seek permission from the other.

[specifies/obligates]

Article has been updated with a small clarification/correction:

"the hajj are months well known so whoever specifies/obligates the hajj within them..." 2:197

i.e. it is the person that determines this. Similar to what I said about when to end it, see article.

Updated article for this thread:
https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/salat-timings-Quran.html

I haven't studied in detail the "when" aspect. Here is a reasonable article that gives some good points: https://www.free-minds.org/blind_dating

I see little evidence for the traditional position with regards to timing/calendar, especially when considering this:
https://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9610235.0

I recommend: https://mypercept.co.uk/articles/meaning-hajj-Quran.html

I would say use whatever is more practicable wherever one is and what one has available to them.

peace,

I have researched this topic a lot, as I also have young children. Like most things there are pros/cons. Sometimes they vaccinate for conditions that there is a low risk of catching or sometimes it's not even present in your country, e.g. polio. However the chances of a significant/lasting side-effect of these immunisations is probably even lower. It is often claimed the quality of the vaccine research is excellent but once you look into it it is often not as good as it should be.
So you have to weigh up the benefits/risks for yourself. Fortunately there are things one can do to reduce risk of negative side-effects, e.g. have a healthy diet/lifestyle, space out the immunisations (e.g. only one on a given day, delay some till older), only select the ones which are most important, ensure targeted nutrition around the vaccination time e.g. Vit C, D, high antioxidant foods, drinking silica rich water (binds to heavy metals), and of course after doing your best put your trust in God and seek His protection.

The following was taken from the book called "Hanafi principles of testing hadith" by Shaykh Atabek Shukurov. It deals with classical hanafi principles, not modern hanafi version which is significantly influenced by Shafi principles.

You can see some of his interviews here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb2MOsjzetQ&ab_channel=LettheQuranSpeak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtwyWCa2-pQ&ab_channel=MuftiAbuLayth


The purpose of this post is just to show what was apparently done in the past. It seems pretty obvious from Traditional Islamic and historical sources that the elevated status of hadith took a while to establish itself and became dominant post-Shafi.

#####

Imam Abu Hanifa apparently had a much stricter criteria for ahadith/traditions, and made much more limited/cautious use of them in his rulings. Especially in comparison to later scholars and Imams of other madhabs e.g. Malik, Shafi, Hanbal.

In fact he rejected so many hadith that he was apparently accused in his lifetime of being a "hadith rejecter". He apparently clarified by saying he does not reject hadith but rejects incorrectly attributed hadith.

As such there was somewhat of a rivalry between him and muhadithin (scholars of hadith). For example, Bukhari (who came much later) famously does not take hadith from Abu Hanifa, or only does so indirectly.

His criteria for testing hadith, in brief:
1) does it go against Quran
2) does it go against established sunnah (precedent of prophet and companions)
3) if it is only one person narrating the hadith AND it affects everybody (i.e. a hadith that affects everybody should be much more well known than having one common narrator)
4) was the hadith ignored by the companions or following generation
5) does it go against the intellect
6) does it go against the senses/experience (empirical evidence)
7) if it relates to matters of theology (e.g. God and His attributes)
8] does it go against agreed upon principles of Islam

This is after having checked each narrator in the chain/isnad passes their narrator criteria (righteous, maturity, intellect, memory, Muslim, not known for innovation, acts upon their own narration etc).



Thought some might find this interesting.

Ok I got some clarification. I asked someone more knowledgeable in Arabic than myself. They said:

"It is important to fall back on the simplest explanation when interpreting what a pronoun refers to.
For example, a pronoun refers to the nearest noun that agrees with it in number and gender."

Having said that, the possibilities they listed are:

2:144 ...surely they who have been given the book certainly know that it (i.e. the book, or the turning towards AMAH, or AMAH itself) is the truth from their Lord. God is not unaware of what you do.

2:146 They who We have given the book recognise it (i.e. the book) like they recognise their children. Yet surely a group of them conceal the truth while they know.

2:149 Whence you travel, turn your face towards AMAH. Surely it (i.e. the turning of one's face towards AMAH, or AMAH itself) is the truth from your Lord. God is not unaware of what you do.

Thanks for providing examples. That actually gives us something to work with. I will look into them further, except for the demonstrative pronouns, since we are dealing with object pronouns. I prefer a like-for-like comparison.

Thanks for clarifying.

Your example in English is welcome but English doesn't really have grammatical gender. We are dealing with Arabic of Quran which does. As I said pronouns are used thousands of times in Quran thus checking viability of your position can be tested. My approach is to apply a robust and ideally falsifiable methodology.

I am happy for others to read and make up their own minds based on what we've discussed. Peace.

To make it even simpler:
I simply mean your position means a pronoun referring to something (e.g. a noun) not explicitly mentioned in context.

Reworded to:
I simply mean your position means a pronoun not referring to an explicit word/noun in context.

Yes it clarifies your position but it doesn't further your argument.

Perhaps I could have worded it better. I simply mean your position means a pronoun referring to something (e.g. a noun) not explicitly mentioned in context.
I provided a simple way for you to demonstrate viability of your position. I think it's a very good suggestion since pronouns are used thousands of times in Quran.

You claim 2:45 somehow supports your view but the feminine "ha" obviously refers to the closest preceding feminine noun which is "salat". Pronouns referring to the closest preceding noun is extremely common in Arabic (probably its most common usage) and likewise in every language in the world.

Thank you for clarifying, however I consider your view implausible. For it to even be an option, in my eyes, I'd have see several clear examples from Quran showing that pronouns can refer to concepts/ideas/situation (things unmentioned) and not words in context. Pronouns are used thousands of times in Quran, thus I would imagine if you struggle to find even one you will have to reject your view.

You may be interested to know that there is much variance when it comes to this issue of "it" which I discuss in the article.

But "wijhatun" is a feminine noun, the "it" in 2:144, 2:146 and 2:149 is in the masculine singular, i.e. it refers to a masculine noun. Thus I do not see how your view is possible unless I have misunderstood.

To clarify what word is the "it" referring to in 2:144, 2:146, 2:149?