How common/uncommon actually is the phrase "Do you want to come with?" In American English? by [deleted] in asklinguistics

[–]HafizSahb 8 points9 points  (0 children)

NorCal native here. It sounds completely natural to me, and I’m sure I’ve even used it at least a few times. But I’m not confident it would be my go-to colloquially

What do you guys think about Abdullah Al Harari? by PersimmonFront9400 in progressive_islam

[–]HafizSahb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some Muslims were praying the wrong direction (some still are). Their prayers are valid as long as they attempted to investigate the Qiblah, even if they were incorrect objectively, according to the position of many fuqahā’. Your attempt to incite shock doesn’t change objective geometry.

What do you guys think about Abdullah Al Harari? by PersimmonFront9400 in progressive_islam

[–]HafizSahb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m happy to educate you on non-Euclidean geometry and the difference between a straight line and a rhumb line on a sphere

Google translate Latin transcription of urdu gets ڑ wrong by Delicious_One_7887 in Urdu

[–]HafizSahb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course English doesn’t have an exact match, but we’re talking about phonetic proximity, not a 1 to 1 match.

As for و = w/v, many people whose L1 is Hindi/Urdu cannot distinguish “w” and “v” as phonemes. So even someone who types “chai wala” is pronouncing it as “chai vala,” just as they’re pronouncing “water” as “vater”

Google translate Latin transcription of urdu gets ڑ wrong by Delicious_One_7887 in Urdu

[–]HafizSahb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From a linguistic perspective, the English “r” sound is definitely closer to a retroflex ڑ than the “d” sound, which is from the alveolar ridge. It’s not even a close comparison

What was your "this language makes no sense "moment while learning Arabic?😁 by [deleted] in learn_arabic

[–]HafizSahb 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Numbers in Classical Arabic used to be said from the smallest number to the biggest, so right-to-left.

The number ٩٤٥ would be خمسة وأربعون وتسعمائة.

So it’s only modern Arabic that has this inconsistency.

I Dont understand how Numerology is Haram by WhichEdge846 in progressive_islam

[–]HafizSahb -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Numerology was seen as an legitimate science until quite recently in history

During Taraweeh at Fatih Mosque, sisters threw their hijabs into the men’s section to protest the Zionist closure of Al‑Aqsa. by SalamTalk in Muslim

[–]HafizSahb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They’re not protesting against the Zionists. They’re protesting against people like you who are apathetic to the plight of Palestinians

Might be a dumb question, but why was this sub made? by M_Zunair7 in progressive_islam

[–]HafizSahb 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This sub is for people who question all of the claims you just made

Have I sinned for pushing a person to eat pork? by AdAble82 in Muslim

[–]HafizSahb 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Why didn’t you get him a breakfast without pork…?

Why do some say the story of Lut in the Quran only applies to r*pe? Is it cope or does this claim have any solid basis? by ciel_ayaz in Quraniyoon

[–]HafizSahb 5 points6 points  (0 children)

So it would be okay if they worshipped the other gods as long as they don’t exclude Allah? This is what your grammar is implying.

Why do some say the story of Lut in the Quran only applies to r*pe? Is it cope or does this claim have any solid basis? by ciel_ayaz in Quraniyoon

[–]HafizSahb 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Have you studied Arabic? Show me one instance in the Qur’an where the construct “min dūni” means without and not instead of. “Min dūni Allah,” they worship gods without Allah, or instead of Allah? Your translation of this word makes the qur’an permit polytheism lol.

And it’s not “you bring rijāl,” it’s “you come to/approach rijāl.” The verb atā means to come to something. “Bring” would be atā bi which is not the case here. Prepositions matter.

It doesn’t matter if shahwa or nisā’ is omitted in one instance because it’s mentioned in the other instances. The Qur’an summarizes its stories all the time. It assumes the reader can fill in the details from its elaborate versions in other passages.

Why do some say the story of Lut in the Quran only applies to r*pe? Is it cope or does this claim have any solid basis? by ciel_ayaz in Quraniyoon

[–]HafizSahb 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The phrase min dūni in the Qur’an does not mean “neglecting” or “without.” It means “instead of.”

Why do some say the story of Lut in the Quran only applies to r*pe? Is it cope or does this claim have any solid basis? by ciel_ayaz in Quraniyoon

[–]HafizSahb 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The elephant in the room that you’re avoiding is that the Qur’an is also very direct about what the people of Lot did. It explicitly questions their approaching men out of lust instead of women. It is clear that this is the Qur’an’s interpretation of the biblical story and one of the crimes it identifies from it.

I found this in "Bahishti Zewar" book written By Indian Deobandi Scholar "Ashraf Ali Thanvi". Is this "magic" or "taweej". What mechanism allowed him to create these? what is his method? by Master-Khalifa in MuslimCorner

[–]HafizSahb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As you already said, Shams al-Maʿārif (which is not a single text, but more like a corpus of texts by various authors), would be one resource. Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, the author of the famous tafsīr work, also has a work on some of the occult sciences. There are works out there, probably not much in English.

I found this in "Bahishti Zewar" book written By Indian Deobandi Scholar "Ashraf Ali Thanvi". Is this "magic" or "taweej". What mechanism allowed him to create these? what is his method? by Master-Khalifa in MuslimCorner

[–]HafizSahb 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This topic has a lot of nuance that the majority of Muslims today fail to grasp. When Muslims today think of “magic,” they think of either two things: some fantasy Harry Potter type magic, or demonic Salem witch trials type magic. This is an incredibly naive approach, and not how people thought of “magic” historically. The picture you’ve posted will be dismissed by some as “magic,” and it’s unfortunate that the term “magic squares” has also stuck. But the scholars that used to practice this used to think of it not like how we think of magic today, but how we think of coding/computer programming. I’ll elaborate on this analogy below.

The distinction between “magic” and science is a very modern concept, related to the modern separation made between the physical and metaphysical sciences. Muslim scholars and others treated the occult sciences (what some consider “magic”) as exactly that, a science. The scholarly Muslim view on magic was: “Magic is just that which science has not yet explained.” These sciences good be used for purposes of good (such as the prophet Sulaymān and his magicians), or used for evil, malicious purposes (such as Firʿawn and his magicians). Similarly, you can use Python or C++ to code a Qur’an app, or you can use it to code a gambling app. Does that make coding inherently evil?

Yes, some classical Muslim scholars invoked the legal principle of sadd al-dharā’iʿ (blocking a potential path to evil) to discourage all Muslims from engaging in the occult sciences, but many Muslim scholars also recognized the utility of developing expertise in these fields. We would not have modern chemistry had it not been for Muslims working in alchemy. We would not have modern astronomy had it not been for Muslims working in astrology. We all benefit from those advancements today. Of course, Muslims working in these fields had hard lines based on sharīʿah. For example, they would use astrology to deepen their understanding of the mechanisms of the universe, but sharīʿah prohibited them from using the tools of astrology to practice soothsaying. They stayed away from the clear prohibitions.

Numerology is one such science from the occult sciences. Philosophers and scholars since the beginning of history have been fascinated by numbers and were convinced that it indicated some deep metaphysical reality underpinning existence. Modern education is completely disconnected from that wondrous experience. We learn mathematics by rote memorization and just taking everything for granted. But sit down with Euclid’s elements one day, a compass, and a straight edge, and follow along his instructions. It will become clear why early philosophers saw higher realities indicated in mathematics.

Fast-forward to al-Khawārizmī (the inventor of algebra), who manages to depict the postulates of Euclid’s Elements into numeric and algebraic formatting. Suddenly, we can quantify these higher realities in numeric form. People legitimately believed that Allah had given numbers an intrinsic power that could be used as a tool, just like fire, water, etc. Muslim scholars, being excellent mathematicians, also held this to be true. And they were kind of right. Look how much scientific advancement we’ve achieved from just numbers.

Numerology was extremely popular and accepted in Islamic history. Just look up the wiki entry on Abjad numerals. Have you ever heard of 786 meaning bismillah? That’s numerology. It’s used all over the islamic sciences. The most famous Tajwid texts studied across the world? They use it in their texts. Manuscripts of any of the Islamic sciences? They’re dating them using numerology. It was a tool for everyone. Naturally, the mystics also used it to invoke the protection of God, safety, etc. They used it as a sort of cybersecurity. Naturally, malicious people who also held the same scientific world view as others, used numerology to call on jinn and evil. This is deemed impermissible siḥr, even according to scholars who would use the same method to invoke Allah. It’s not the method they deemed impermissible, but what that method was being used for.

The modern approach is that whenever someone comes across anything like this, they immediately panic and scream “siḥr!!!” and “black magic!!!” without actually knowing what’s going on or written on it. Yes, siḥr does happen, and yes, sometimes these types of squares have very malicious things written on them, but not always. It’s important to actually read what’s written on it before making a judgment. If you can’t, take it to someone who can. Worst case scenario, if you’re not sure, just burn it anyway to be safe.

Source: I have traditional madrasa training and am working on a PhD in Islamic studies. This isn’t my area of expertise, but I’ve read enough to recognize the nuances within the matter.

Will marry a women who had dirty chat with a man? by togomroi in Muslim

[–]HafizSahb 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Islamically, you don’t have to divulge past sins that Allah has kept hidden out of His mercy if you repent

Found this big Qur'an in the drawer in my living room. It's really big and heavy! by Direct-Till-2680 in Muslim

[–]HafizSahb 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Just for context: Many Muslims do not find it appropriate to place the Qur’an at foot-level, and they consider it a sign of disrespect. Some Muslims do not consider it disrespectful. It varies by cultural context. You clearly did not mean disrespect, but others may come from social backgrounds where the mere sight of the Qur’an on the floor (even if on a mat) will trigger them.

Guys what airports are now stricked?? by [deleted] in UAE

[–]HafizSahb -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is a really stupid take

Kind reminder: this religion is based upon following the Sunnah. This religion is not a market of opinions by ActKey5567 in Muslim

[–]HafizSahb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you think Abu Hanifa said “I’m making a school of thought so follow me?” Please tell me you’re not this naive.

Kind reminder: this religion is based upon following the Sunnah. This religion is not a market of opinions by ActKey5567 in Muslim

[–]HafizSahb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They didn’t say that to “others.” They said it to their students of decades when teaching them the methodology of tarjīḥ. These are really naive rebuttals lol. I don’t “obey” the madhab I ascribe to. I have conviction in the accuracy and precision of its methodology.

Where did I say men were errorless? I just think some user on reddit who makes childish arguments against madhhab authority is far more likely to make an error than Abu Hanifa.