A good reminder to those in distress:

“You are not a second earlier, nor a second later than where Allāh wants you to be in your life. You are exactly where He wants you to be...so trust Allāh’s timing.”

— Shared.

Imām al-Awzā’ī (رحمه الله) said:

“Hold fast to the narrations of the Salaf, even if people were to abandon you.

(And) beware of the opinions of the people, no matter how much they beautify it with their speech.”

— Stated in “Siyār a’lām an-Nubalā’” (7/120).

Forgive others as you would want Allāh to forgive you:

Imām ath-Thahabī says in the biography of Mas’ūd Ibn Muhammad Ibn ad-Dallāl al-Hamathānī (رحمه الله);

(مسعود بن محمد بن الدلال) الهمذاني، شيخ القلندرية.

ذكره شيخنا ابن البزوري في تاريخه، وقال: كان على قدم حسن، وكان كثيرا ما يقول: الماضي لا يذكر. فقيل إنه رؤي في المنام، فقيل له: ما فعل الله بك قال: أوقفني بين يديه، وقال لي: يا مسعود الماضي لا يذكر، انطلقوا به إلى الجنة.

“Our Shaykh Ibn al-Bazwarī mentioned in his Tārīkh (history book); He has a great legacy, and he would frequently say, ‘the past is not to be mentioned’ (meaning he would easily forgive others).

It has been reported that he was seen in a dream, so it was said to him, what did Allāh do with you? He replied; He made me stand in front of Him and then told me; O Mas’ūd, the past is not to be mentioned, so (Allāh ordered) take him to Paradise.”

— Refer to “Tārīkh al-Islām” (42/327).

There are 5 or 6 conditions in the Hanbalī madhab for the father using his child’s wealth.

Most scholars state a parent is allowed to take from his child ONLY if he’s in need. Ibn Qudāmah cites this from Abū Hanīfah, Mālik and Shāfi’ī (رحمهم الله).

But in Ahmad’s madhab, even if the parent is not in need, he can take under 5 conditions mentioned in “Dalīl at-Tālib” [1];

1. He doesn’t harm the child (by taking excessively).

2. He isn’t allowed to take it when one (father or child) of them is about to die (as this will change inheritance).

3. He doesn’t give it to another child (as the father can’t be unjust by giving to one child over another).

4. He possesses his child’s wealth via statement or intention.

5. That he takes what exists, so it’s not permitted to take something non-existent.

Imām Hajjāwī adds a 6th condition in Iqnā’ that the father has to be Muslim.

_____
Note: There’s a hadīth mentioned in Sunan an-Nasā’ī (4449) and Abū Dawūd (3528), stressing on the importance of parents, and the earnings that are best is what is earned with one’s own hands, and one’s child (and his wealth) is part of his earnings because he was the cause for his child to exist.

This proof is important to show that it’s not considered stealing according to Imām Ahmad, while the other 3 Imāms believe the child’s wealth is protected. What supports the view of the other 3 Imams is the hadīth “All of a Muslim is inviolable to another Muslim: his blood, his wealth and his honour.” [Agreed Upon]

Abū Dawūd also narrates: “The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said: The children of a man come from what he earns, rather they are his pleasantest earning; so enjoy from their property.” (3529)

Abū Dawūd said: Hammād Ibn Abī Sulaymān added in his version: “(Take only) when you need”, but this (addition) is munkar.

This addition supports the 3 Imāms, but if it is munkar as Abū Dawūd stated, then it cannot be used against Imām Ahmad.

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbalī (رحمه الله) said in “Latā’if al-Ma’ārif” (page 232):

“Most people’s fasting are full of shortcomings, charity helps to patch these up.”

#Ramadān | Sulaymān Ibn Mūsā reported Jābir Ibn ‘Abdillāh (رضي الله عنه) said:

“When you fast, then let your hearing, seeing, and tongue fast as well from lies and sins, and avoid harming your servants. Rather, you must have dignity and calmness on the day of your fasting. Do not make days you do not fast and days you fast as if they were the same.”

عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ بْنِ مُوسَى قَالَ قَالَ جَابِرٌ رضي الله عنه إذَا صُمْتَ فَلْيَصُمْ سَمْعُكَ وَبَصَرُكَ وَلِسَانُكَ عَنِ الْكَذِبِ وَالْمَآثِمِ وَدَعْ أَذَى الْخَادِمِ وَلْيَكُنْ عَلَيْكَ وَقَارٌ وَسَكِينَةٌ يَوْمَ صِيَامِكَ وَلَا تَجْعَلْ يَوْمَ فِطْرِكَ وَيَوْمَ صِيَامِكَ سَوَاءً

مصنف ابن أبي شيبة كتاب الصيام ما يؤمر به الصائم من قلة الكلام وتوقي الكذب

— Mentioned in “Mus‌annaf Ibn Abī Shaybah” (8880): The Book of Fasting: what the fasting person is commanded to do, such as speaking little and avoiding lying.

The biggest calamity has occurred in the science of hadīth yet we are heedless of it:

قال عثمان بن سعيد : من لم يجمع حديث شعبة وسفيان ومالك ، وحماد بن زيد ، وسفيان ابن عيينة ، فهو مفلس في الحديث -يريد أنه ما بلغ درجة الحفاظ .

وبلا ريب ، أن من جمع علم هؤلاء الخمسة ، وأحاط بسائر حديثهم ، وكتبه عاليا ونازلا ، وفهم علله ، فقد أحاط بشطر السنة النبوية ، بل بأكثر من ذلك ، وقد عدم في زماننا من ينهض بهذا ، وببعضه ، فنسأل الله المغفرة .

وأيضا فلو أراد أحد أن يتتبع حديث الثوري وحده ، ويكتبه بأسانيد نفسه على طولها ، ويبين صحيحه من سقيمه ، لكان يجيء " مسنده " في عشر مجلدات ، وإنما شأن المحدث اليوم الاعتناء بالدواوين الستة ، و " مسند " أحمد بن حنبل ، و " سنن " البيهقي ، وضبط متونها وأسانيدها ، ثم لا ينتفع بذلك حتى يتقي ربه ، ويدين بالحديث .

فعلى علم الحديث وعلمائه ليبك من كان باكيا ، فقد عاد الإسلام المحض غريبا كما بدأ فليسع امرؤ في فكاك رقبته من النار ، فلا حول ولا قوة إلا بالله .

ثم العلم ليس هو بكثرة الرواية ، ولكنه نور يقذفه الله في القلب ، وشرطه الاتباع ، والفرار من الهوى والابتداع . وفقنا الله وإياكم لطاعته .

Imām ath-Thahabī states in “Siyar A’lām an-Nubalā’” under the biography of ‘Uthmān ad-Dārimī;

“‘Uthmān Ibn Sa’īd said; Whoever hasn’t collected the hadīths of Shu’bah, Sufyān, Mālik, Hammād Ibn Zayd and Sufyān Ibn ‘Uyaynah, then he’s incompetant in hadīth.

He (i.e., ‘Uthmān Ibn Sa’īd) means he hasn’t reached the level of the huffāz, and there’s no doubt that whoever has collected the knowledge of these 5 and completely studied the rest of their hadīths, having written the short and long chains, whilst understanding their hidden defects, then he has encompassed 50% of the Prophetic Sunnah (عليه السلام), rather more than that.

And the one who delves into this is non-existent in our times, not even a portion of that, we ask Allāh for forgiveness.

Moreover, if someone wants to solely analyse the hadīths of Thawrī and write it down with its chains by itself in spite of its lengthiness, whilst clarifying what’s authentic and weak, his “Musnad” would become 10 volumes.

But (sadly) the Muhaddith in our time are solely preoccupied with the 6 compilations of hadīth, Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Sunan al-Bayhaqī, whilst perfecting its mutūn and chains of narration, however he won’t benefit from that until he fears his Lord and acts upon hadīth.

Let the weeping one cry over the science of hadīth and its scholars, since the complete pure Islām has become strange the same way it began, so one must ensure to save himself from hellfire, Lā hawla walā quwwata ilā billāh.

Also note that knowledge is not merely narrating alot of hadīths, but rather it’s a light (nūr) which Allāh causes to enter one’s heart, and the pre-requisite for that to happen is to follow (guidance) and flee from whims and innovations, may Allāh make us achieve success to obey Him (by following the guidance).”

It is advised for students of knowledge to read “Sifāt Rabbil-‘Ālamīn” by al-Hāfiz Ibn Muhibb as-Sāmit al-Hanbalī (only available in Arabic) to see what a true scholar of hadīth looks like, and how he authenticates and weakens narrations, and narrates from books and gatherings of hadīth that are unmentioned and unknown among us.

The ruling on wiping over thin socks:

Al-Kāsāni said: “If (the socks) are thin and let water through, then it is not permissible to wipe over them, according to scholarly consensus.”

[End quote from “Badā’i as-Sanā’i” (1/10)]

Imām an-Nawawī states that thin socks refers to socks which easily let water through to the feet.

Ibn al-Qattān al-Fāsi said: “All scholars are unanimously agreed that if the socks are not thick, it is not permissible to wipe over them.”

[End quote from “Al-Iqnā’ fī Masā’il al-Ijmā’” (no. 351)]

If the socks are thick and can be kept on the feet without being tied up, and it is possible to walk in them, then undoubtedly there is no significant difference between this type of socks and the khuffayn, because they are like the khuffayn. But if they are thin and cannot be kept on the feet without being tied, and it is not possible to walk far in them, then they are not like the khuffayn, and undoubtedly there is a significant difference between them and the khuffayn.

Imām Ahmad said: “It is not acceptable to wipe over the socks unless they are thick socks…The people only used to wipe over socks because for them they were equivalent to the khuffayn, so they took the place of the khuffayn on a man’s feet, and a man used to come and go wearing them.

[End quote from “Al-Mughnī” by Ibn Qudāmah (1/216)]

Note: “Khuffayn” are leather socks in the time of the Prophet (صلى الله عليهوسلم), which Abū Hanīfah restricted wiping over. However, most scholars made analogy to other socks, but for the analogy to be valid, there must be similarity between leather and non-leather socks, hence they added the condition of being thick.

Also, scholars differed on the validity of wearing see-through socks. Imām Shāfi’ī said it is permissible but Imām Ahmad said it isn’t permissible whilst both madhabs state it’s harām to wipe over socks with holes. However this is a separate topic with a difference of opinion, wallāhu a’lam.