I am working on an article that investigates the issue of breastfeeding an adult and a defense of the Mother of the believers ‘Aïsha (صلاة اللّه عليها) against the vile tongues of the infidels. The article rely on previous works for sure, but it would be of a new look.

All of these books proposed here are very proper and good. I advise all of you to try getting them, the list contains books that even laymen can understand up to relatively advanced stuff. Which is a great combo.

Support them by helping their reach grow.

-In Usul al-Din (Islamic theology):

‏شرح أسماء اللّه للإمام الرازي.

Imam al-Razi’s Sharh Asma’ Allāh al-Husna.

تحقيق الإقتصاد للشيخ الطاهر عبد المجيد.

Tahqiq al-Iqtisad of al-Ghazali by Shaykh al-Tahir ‘Abd al-Majid.

التحقيق التام في علم الكلام للسيد محمد الحسيني.

al-Tahqiq al-Tam Fi ‘Ilm al-Kalam by al-Sayyid Muhammad al-Husayni.

شرح العضدية للعلامة الدواني.

Sharh al-’Aqaïd al-‘Adudiyya by Imam al-Dawani.

-In Mantiq (Logic):

علم المنطق الحديث للدكتور محمد حسنين.

‘Ilm al-Mantiq al-Hadith by Dr. Muhammad Hasanayn.

شرح السلم مع تقريرات الشمس الأنبابي للإمام الباجوري.

Commentary on al-Sullam with al-Imam al-Anbabi’s comments by al-Imam al-Bajuri.

حاشية على المطلع شرح ايساغوجي ويليه شرح المتن للشيخ عليش.

Commentary on al-Mutala', the commentary of Isagoge followed by a commentary on the text of isagoge by al-Shaykh ‘Illish.

شرح الشمسية للقطب الرازي مع حاشية السيد الجرجاني وتعليقات الشيخ محمد بيصار.

Commentary of al-Shamsiya by al-Qutb al-Razi alongside its commentary by al-Sharif al-Jurjani and the comments of al-Shaykh Muhammad Bisār on it.

-In Usul al-Fiqh (legal theory):

قمع أهل الزيغ والإلحاد عن الطعن في الاجتهاد الشيخ الجكني الشنقيطي.

Qam’ Ahl al-zaygh wa al-Ilhad ‘An al-Ta’n fi al-Ijtihad but al-Shaykh al-Jukani al-Shanqiti.

منهاج الوصول إلى علم الأصول للقاضي البيضاوي.

Minhaj al-Wusul Ila ‘Ilm al-Usul by al-Qadi al-Baydawi.

الوسيط في أصول فقه الحنفية عرض البحوث القسم الثاني من كتاب التوضيح شرح التنقيح لصدر الشريعة للشيخ أحمد فهمي.

al-Wasit Fi ‘Ilm Usul Fiqh al-Hanafiya, exposition of the researches in the second section of al-Tawdih Sharh al-Tanqih of Sadr al-Shari’a by Shaykh Ahmad Fahmi.

-In Nahw and Sarf (grammar and morphology):

شرح الآجرومية لشيخ الإسلام أحمد دحلان.

Sharh al-Ajrumiyya by Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad Dahlan.

فتح رب البرية على الدرة البهية للإمام الباجوري.

Fath Rabb al-Bariyya ‘ala al-Durah al-Bahiyya by al-Imam al-Bajuri.

حاشية على شرح شذور الذهب للأمير.

Commentary on the commentary of Shudur al-dahab by al-Amir.

الخلاصة السنية في القواعد النحوية والصرفية للعلامة الشبراخيتي.

al-Khulasa al-Saniyya fi al-Qawa’id al-Nahawiyya wa al-Sarfiyyah by Imam al-Shubrakhiti.

All of these books were carefully picked up depending on the accessibility of people's to it and the audience's needs. They are suitable for beginners and mediators alike, and beneficial to both students and scholars.

[https://t.me/DarMustafaSabri]

Telegram

دار الإمام مصطفى صبري

•Translations ***✍🏻*** •Publishing ***📖*** •Bookstore ***📚*** Based in Toronto, Canada. https://linktr.ee/darmustafasabri

Dar al-Imam Mustafa Sabri is excited to announce the list of scholarly works that will be soon available for purchase from us —

Imam Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi said:

"Our scholars unanimously agree that it is impossible to claim that God is in a place or in all places. They do not permit the notion of contact or being in a direction in any form. However, their expressions vary on this matter:

Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari said: 'It is not permissible to say that God is in a place, nor to say that He is separate from the world, nor that He is within the world. Saying He is within the world implies He is limited and finite, while saying He is separate and outside of it implies there is a distance between Him and the world, and distance entails a place. We assert that He does not contact a place.'

Abdullah b. Sa'id b. Kullab used to say: 'He is in the heaven and on the Throne, not in the sense that a body is in a place, nor by way of contact, but we say that in adherence to the Shari'ah.'

al-Ka'bi mentioned in his Maqalat that Ibn Kullab's stance on this issue is not rational, due to his ignorance of the what other Madhahib actually say. If he had known the opinions of his opponents, he would not have claimed they were irrational. Had he examined Abdullah . Sa'id’s books or consulted competent scholars among his followers, he would have understood their viewpoint.

We elucidate Abdullah's stance as follows: Abdullah bin Sa'id said in his refutation of Bishr al-Marisi: 'God is great in His essence, and nothing is greater than Him in essence without involving space or dimensions. It is not possible for Him to be within anything.'

In this chapter, he stated: 'He is not limited because the limited is confined by boundaries and is touched by things of its kind, and God is not in contact.'

This statement indicates that he rejected the description of God as being confined, limited, contacting, or existing in one place to the exclusion of others. However, he chose to describe God as being distinct from His creation, meaning He is not within the world nor is the world within Him, but not in the sense of occupying space.

In his book on attributes, he also said: 'God is distinct from creation, not by a distance between them, since distance only applies to bodies, and God is not a body.'

In the chapter on the question of place, he said: 'If someone asks, if He is distinct from the Throne, is there air between Him and the Throne? The answer is no.'

This clarification in his book indicates that he asserted God's distinction from the Throne and all places, meaning He is not in contact with them, not in the sense of spatial separation or distance, nor with air between Him and places.

Al-Ka'bi’s assertion that Ibn Kullab’s stance is irrational stems from his ignorance of his opponent’s views, as we have demonstrated."

يقول الإمام أبو منصور البغدادي:

«وأجمع أصحابنا على إحالة القول بأنه في مكان أو في كل ولم يجيزوا عليه مماسة وملاقاة بوجه من وجوه، ولكن إختلفت عباراتهم في ذلك:

فقال أبو الحسن الأشعري: إن الله عز وجل لا يجوز أن يقال إنه في مكان ولا يقال أنه مباين للعالم ولا أنه في جوف العالم لأن قولنا إنه في العالم يقتضي أن يكون محدودا متناهيا وقولنا إنه مباين وخارج منه يقتضي أن يكون بينه وبين العالم مسافة والمسافة مكان وقد أطلقنا القول بأنه غير مماس لمكان.

وكان عبد الله بن سعيد يقول: إنه في السماء، وإنه على العرش، لا على معنى كون الجسم في المكان، ولا على طريق المماسة ،ولكن اتباع للشرع.

وحكى الكعبي في مقالاته: أن قول ابن كلاب غير معقول في هذا الباب، وذلك لجهله بمعرفة المذاهب فإذا لم يعرف مذاهب خصومه ادعى أنها غير معقولة، ولو نظر في كتب عبد الله بن سعيد ، أو رجع إلى المحصلين من أصحابه لم يختلف عليه مذهبه.

ونحن نكشف عن قول عبد الله في ذلك فنقول: إن عبد الله بن سعيد قال في «نقضه على بشر المريسي»: (إن الله تعالى عظيم في نفسه ولا شيء أعظم منه في الذات بلا مساحة ولا أقطار ولا يجوز أن يكون في شيء).

ثم قال في هذا الفصل :(إنه غير محدود لأن المحدود ما اعتورته النواحي ويماسه ما هو من جنسه والله سبحانه غير مماس).

فهذا الفصل من كلامه دليل على أنه كان يبطل وصف الله عز وجل بالحد و النهاية والمماسة و الكون في مكان دون مكان: إلا أنه اختار القول بأنه مباين من خلقه على معنى، أنه ليس في العالم ولا العالم فيه، لا على معنى التحيز للخلق.

وقال في كتاب الصفات أيضا: (إن الله عز وجل مباين للخلق، وليس هو مباينا للعرش بمسافة بينهما، إذ كانت المسافة لا تقع إلا بين الأجسام، والله ليس بجسم).

وقال في باب السؤال عن المكان: (إن قال قائل إن كان بائنا من العرش فهل بينه وبين العرش هواء؟ قيل له: لا).

فقد بين في هذا الباب هذا الكتاب أنه يقول بمباينته للعرش ولسائر الأمكنة، على معنى أنه غير مماس لها، لا على معنى التحيز والمسافة، ولتوسط الهواء بينه وبين الأمكنة.

فقول الكعبي: إن مذهب ابن كلاب غير معقول، يرجع إلى جهله بمذهب خصومه كما بيناه.»

Imam Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi said:

"There is a difference of opinion among those whose views we have mentioned in this chapter regarding the meaning of 'istiwa' [over the Throne]. Those who claim that their deity is a physical entity and allow for contact and spatial location believe that His establishment on the Throne is by way of physical contact, and that He is upon it as a body is upon another body, without any intermediary between them.

As for those who deny the possibility of contact and reject the notion of Him being a physical body, they have differed in their interpretation of 'istiwa' mentioned in the Quran.

The Mu'tazilites claim that it means 'istiwa' in the sense of dominion and control.

Our scholars have five responses to this:

1. The first interpretation is that this is an account of an action God performed on His Throne, which He called 'istiwa,' and described Himself with this attribute because of that action. This interpretation suggests that God's attributes are either eternal or related to His actions. It is not possible for His 'istiwa' to be eternal because it is associated with the Throne, which is a created, non-eternal entity. Therefore, it must be an attribute related to His action, derived from His action, and not something that occurred in His essence, as He cannot be subject to events. Thus, it must be understood as an action He performed on the Throne.

2. The second interpretation is that 'istiwa' means elevation over the Throne without contact, as held by Abdullah bin Sa’id, since God is above all creation without contact or spatial confinement. The purpose of this interpretation is to inform us that God is not in a place, nor between the layers of the heavens and the earth, nor surrounded by any physical entities.

3. The third interpretation is that the verse's statement about the Throne is separate, as if it says, 'The Most Merciful is upon the Throne,' and then begins anew with 'He established Himself.' In this view, the significance of 'upon the Throne' is like saying 'He is overseeing every soul,' without implying contact.

4. The fourth interpretation is that the Throne represents creation and servants, meaning the verse implies that He is the creator of all kinds of creation, with no other creator or inventor besides Him.

5. The fifth interpretation is similar to the fourth, proposing that 'Throne' in the language can mean kingdom and dominion. Therefore, 'The Most Merciful established Himself over the Throne' means He established dominion and sovereignty, and the kingdom is His alone. According to this interpretation, 'istiwa' would be an eternal attribute, as He has always been the owner and ruler.

These answers follow the view of those who permit interpreting ambiguous verses. However, those who say 'The interpretation of the ambiguous verses is known only to God' and stop there, then begin with 'and those firmly grounded in knowledge say, "We believe in it,"' affirm 'istiwa' without interpreting it, but believe it does not imply contact or anything inappropriate for God to be described with. This view was held by Malik bin Anas, Al-Shafi'i, and most of the Hadith scholars, companions, and followers. It is reported that Malik, when asked about 'istiwa,' said, 'The 'istiwa' is known, its manner is unknown, belief in it is obligatory, and questioning it is a heresy.'

We have detailed the interpretations of the verses and reports that may appear anthropomorphic in another book, and God, exalted be He, is the guide to the correct understanding."

قال الإمام ابو منصور البغدادي:

«وإختلف الذين حكينا قولهم في هذا الفصل في معنى الإستواء فمن زعم أن معبوده جسم وأجاز عليه المماسة والكون في مكان زعم أن استواءه على العرش على طريق المماسة منه له، وأنه كائن عليه ككون الجسم على الجسم قوله بلا واسطة بينهما.

وأما الذين أنكروا جواز المماسة عليه وأنكروا كونه جسما فإنهم اختلفوا في تأويل الإستواء المذكور في القرآن.

فزعمت المعتزلة أنه بمعنى الإستيلاء.

ولأصحابنا في ذلك خمسة أجوبة:

أحدها: أن ذلك إخباره عن فعل فعله الله في عرشه سماه إستواء، ووصف نفسه من ذلك الفعل بهذا الوصف.

ووجه هذا التأويل: أن أوصاف الله عز وجل لا تخلوا من أن تكون أزلية أو فعلية، ولا يجوز أن يكون إستواؤه أزليا، لأنه مقرون بذكر العرش والإستواء عليه، والعرش مخلوق غير أزلي. وإذا بطل أن يكون وصفا أزليا صح أنه وصف فعلي، وإن كان مشتقا من فعله، ولم يجز أن يكون فعله حادثا في ذاته، لأنه لا يجوز أن يكون محلا للحوادث فإذا صح أنه فعل فعله في غيره وهو العرش فلا بد من تأويل الإستواء على فعل وقع منه في العرش.

والتأويل الثاني: أن المراد به الإستواء بمعنى العلو عليه من غير مماسة منه له، كما ذهب إليه عبد الله بن سعيد، لأنه فوق جميع الخلق بلا مماسة ولا تحيز.

وتكون فائدة الإستواء على هذا المذهب: أن الله عز وجل عرفنا بأنه ليس في مكان، ولا بين طبقين من أطباق السموات والأرضين، ولا أجسام محيطة به.

والتأويل الثالث: أن يكون الكلام في الآية منقطعا عند ذكر العرش كأنه قال : (الرَّحْمَٰنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ)، ثم ابتدأ فقال: ( اسْتَوَىٰ (5) لَهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا وَمَا تَحْتَ الثَّرَىٰ).

وتكون فائدة قوله: (عَلَى الْعَرْشِ) كقوله: (قَائِمٌ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ نَفْسٍ)، وليس ذلك على معنى المماسة، كذلك ها هنا مثله.

والتأويل الرابع: أن يكون العرش بمعنى الخلق والعباد [...] ومعنى الآية على أنه هو الخالق للكل من أصناف الخلق لا خالق غيره ولا مخترع سواه.

والتأويل الخامس: قريب من الرابع وهو أن العرش في اللغة قد يكون بمعنى الملك والسلطان [...] فقوله: ( الرَّحْمَٰنُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ اسْتَوَىٰ ) أي: هو الذي استوى على الملك، واستوى الملك له دون غيره.

وعلى هذا التأويل: يكون الإستواء من صفاته الأزلية لأنه لم يزل مالكا وملكا.

وهذه الأجوبة على مذهب من أجاز من أصحابنا تفسير الآيات المتشابه.

فأما من قال (إن المتشابه لا يعلم تأويله إلا الله) ووقف ها هنا، ثم ابتدأ من قوله: (والراسخون في العلم يقولون ءامنا به) فإنه يطلق القول بالإستواء ولا يفسر بتفسير ولكنه يعتقد أنه ليس على وجه المماسة، ولا على وجه يستحيل أن يكون الله سبحانه موصوفا به. وإلى هذا القول ذهب مالك بن أنس والشافعي رحمهما الله، وأكثر أصحاب الحديث ، وأكثر الصحابة و التابعين.
وروي: ان مالكا سئل عن الإستواء فقال: الإستواء معقول وكيفيته مجهولة والإيمان به واجب والسؤال عنه بدعة.

وقد استقصينا تأويل الآيات والأخبار التي يوهم ظاهرها التشبيه في غير هذا الكتاب ، والله سبحانه و تعالى الموفق للصواب.»

On semantics:

A word can only be either singular or compound, the former is that which has no part that indicates its meaning and the latter is that which has a part that indicates its meaning.

We can give the example of the singular: "man", as the individual letters of the word do not denote the meaning or part of the meaning.

We can give the example of a compound: "Zouhair is chaste", so part of these words indicate part of its meaning.

The singular is divided into universal and particular, and we have already talked about this part before. A universal is something that can be predicated on many, while a particular is something that can only be true of one individual.

The universal has five categories:

Genus, which is what is true as an answer to the question of what it is for many different people (divided into near, middle, and far).

Type, which is what is true as an answer to the question of what it is to many who agree, and it is either additional, i.e. not purely because it is a type of what is above it and a genus of what is below it, or real, which is purely because there is no type below it.

The differentia, which is what is true as an answer to the question of what is in itself, such as speech in humans and neighing in horses, is either near or far.

The specific, it is of two kinds, either inherent, which is what is by potential, or seperate, which is what is by actualisation.

The general accidental, is that which is excluded of what a thing is, but is true of it, and is either inherent or separate.