u/SyedAhmedHussain

A major problem I see in the Islamic World today is that Muslims use Hadith and traditionally transmitted historical narratives as a normal part of their discourse when it comes to Islam.

Ahadith are used to preach and justify Aqeedahs while there is no in-depth research or engagement with the Quran. Even within Hadith, the Isnad or Chain of Transmission is the part that is most focused on.

In my humble opinion, this acts as a Source of Deviation. Epistemologically speaking, making Ahadith or traditional historical narratives a basis for your belief is a very misinformed approach.

This is because Ahadith in the form we have today were compiled 200 to 300 years after the death of the Holy Prophet. So the sayings of a person are quite literally being compiled 200 to 300 years later after he died. That is automatically a red flag. On top of that, it was being transmitted orally majorly. It is a general understanding of informed observers that a message changes the more links it passes through in an oral chain of transmission. The margins of error are high, especially with the existence of issues such as false memory. Human cognition is fallible.

A Hadith, even if it is Sahih, only provides Probable Knowledge and not Certain Knowledge. Usul al-Hadith and other works of Hadith scholars are deeply appreciable, but Ahadith, especially Ahad, only give Probable Knowledge. There is no Certainty that Prophet Muhammad said it. A Hadith being graded Sahih instead of Daif just means it is more Probable. Infact, it is entirely possible that a Daif Hadith was said by Prophet Muhammad while a Sahih Hadith wasn't. I'll get back to this later.

Truth be told, academically speaking, traditional historical narratives come under the same category. I see this problem online that while people do question Ahadith, they operate from established traditional frameworks of Islamic History. To say something about early Islamic History with Certainty is difficult in reality. As per the Quranic Cosmological Pattern, Islam came again and again and always underwent Theological Evolution that later resulted in Transmitted Orthodoxies that rejected Messengers later. Why would something different happen this time?

Coming back to the vast majority of Muslims, I see it as quite hypocritical that they'll reject Skepticism and Caution towards Ahadith outright and rather aggressively while they would completely reject the Ahadith and traditional narratives of other traditions as completely fabricated and false attributions. The Sunnis and Shias would be very quick to disregard Ahadith and historical traditions of each other as dubious while their own tradition is somehow subject to perfect preservation of "true" Islam.

So what is the solution to this entire problem? Should we reject Ahadith and traditional narratives altogether?

The solution is Matn Analysis

Matn being Sound can give Certainty that words were actually uttered by Prophet Muhammad and the Imams. For example, we do not even need a Hadith to know that the Holy Prophet preached about One God and Day of Judgment. Reason establishes Certainty that Transmission cannot. We do not need a Hadith to establish that Prophet Muhammad preached against interest. This is established through Reason. Therefore, any Ahadith that condemn interest are automatically asserted as Certain Knowledge.

In a similar fashion, if the Matn of a Daif Hadith is Sound, it has more likelihood of being said by Prophet Muhammad than a Sahih Hadith that has a Weak Matn.

Reason can establish that adultery is bad. Therefore, Ahadith against adultery give Certain Knowledge and have Certainty of having been spoken by Prophet Muhammad.

On the other hand, if we have a Hadith that is justifying tyrants, we can establish that it is supposed to be rejected despite it being Sahih because there is Certainty that Prophet Muhammad would not have said it.

In this way all Islamic Evidence from Ahadith to traditional narratives should be subject to Matn Analysis where the aim is not transmission of established positions, but search of Objective Truth.

The Criteria is as follows:

1. Testing the transmitted Hadith or account against Aql or established Objective Truth

2. Testing the transmitted Hadith or account against the Quran

If the Hadith or traditional account is in sync with the Quran and Aql, it should be accepted as Certain Knowledge. Otherwise, it should be rejected. This is the only way to establish Certainty over Islamic Teachings and Islamic History.

However, before everyone jumps to analysing Ahadith and traditional narratives, we need to ask a few meta questions.

Who establishes what is Objective Reality? This is an important question because what seems logical to one person may seem illogical to another. Therefore, based on Matn they can argue differently about Certainty of a Hadith.

Who establishes Contradiction with the Quran? The same Hadith might appear contradictory to the Quran to one person and perfectly in sync to the other.

Therefore, it is important that this task is done by someone who is willing to test premises and work based on Sound arguments instead of being left to the whims of a particular community or group.

The greatest lesson from today's post is:

Evidence of Reason > Evidence of Transmission

The central premise of this post is that Original Creed always experiences Theological Evolution and then converts into a Transmitted Orthodoxy.

I want to know what theological positions and beliefs crystallized as a direct result of Ummayyad political rule starting from Mauwiyah. What are contributions of Ummayyad Caliphs to the Islamic Creed whether these are interpreted as positive or negative contributions.

Do note I am not asking you to cite sources. If you want, you can directly mention what is written in the source. I would also love to see personal reasoning and opinions on the matter. So if you have any personal inference based on data regarding the question I am asking, please do mention it.

I am also majorly interested in the traditional Twelver and Zaydi Shii answers to my question. Of course Ismaili and neutral narratives are welcomed too.

The central premise of this post is that Original Creed always experiences Theological Evolution and then converts into a Transmitted Orthodoxy.

I want to know what theological positions and beliefs crystallized as a direct result of Ummayyad political rule starting from Mauwiyah. What are contributions of Ummayyad Caliphs to the Islamic Creed whether these are interpreted as positive or negative contributions.

Do note I am not asking you to cite sources. If you want, you can directly mention what is written in the source. I would also love to see personal reasoning and opinions on the matter. So if you have any personal inference based on data regarding the question I am asking, please do mention it.

I am also majorly interested in the traditional Twelver and Zaydi Shii answers to my question. Of course Ismaili and neutral narratives are welcomed too.

While the Maliki Fiqh does have an emphasis on Sunnah, which often gets reduced down to Ahadith, it seems anachronistic to me to identify the Maliki Fiqh with Ahl al-Hadith methodology and intellectual lineage.

The Maliki Fiqh has alot of similarities with Ahl al-Ray

1. The core principle of Amal Ahl al-Medina

Amal Ahl al-Medina seems to be a heavily Reasoned form of source to extract the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad. It mirrors how in Hanafi tradition Mutawatir Ahadith were given preference and different Epistemological weight as a source of Sunnah. Additionally, it is systematically different from the later reductive Hadith-centered approach towards Sunnah that was synonymous with Ahl al-Hadith

Amal Ahl al-Medina was a rather Rationalistic doctrine in comparison to the Transmission-based approach of Shafii and Hanbali Fiqh. Seeing the practices of the community of Medina—whose politics, economics, culture, and pedagogy were shaped by Prophet Muhammad—as a Living Embodiment of Sunnah is a very different Epistemological approach to Prophetic Practice than to base Prophetic Practice solely on transmitted reports that satisfy traditional Isnad verification.

2. Amal Ahl al-Medina held greater weightage than Ahad Ahadith.

If Imam Malik came to a point where an Ahad Hadith was contradicting Amal Ahl al-Medina or Practice of People of Medina, he would give preference to Amal Ahl al-Medina. This structurally distinguishes Maliki Fiqh from Ahl al-Hadith because for Ahl al-Hadith an Authentic Hadith takes the place of Supreme Law even if it is a Solitary Report.

Imam al-Shafi himself attacked the doctrine of Amal Ahl al-Medina in favour of Ahad Ahadith.

This feature is actually very similar in Hanafi and Maliki traditions. In Hanafi Fiqh the Mutawatir Hadith was already socially embedded and reached a point of Epistemological Authority where it couldn't be overridden. Similarly, in the case of Amal Ahl al-Medina what were Mutawatir Ahadith had already become socially embedded into the Custom of Medina where it could not be overridden. The understanding of Sunnah was similar and so was the treatment of Ahad Ahadith.

3. Maliki Fiqh is considered closer to Hanafi Fiqh

Even in traditional discourse, it is often brought up how Maliki Fiqh is closer to Hanafi Fiqh. I don't mean this in terms of Usul at this point, but Furu.

Is it possible that both these Madhabs mirror each other because they share Epistemological Foundations?

If the Hanafi Fiqh is said to descend from Ahl al-Ray and Maliki Fiqh is close to Hanafi Fiqh, maybe Maliki Fiqh also descends from Ahl al-Ray

So what do you think? Can Maliki Fiqh trace its roots to Ahl al-Ray or to an even earlier tendency from which Ahl al-Ray descended?

Does Maliki Fiqh have shades of Ahl al-Ray more than Ahl al-Hadith when investigated from an Epistemological lens rather than a tradition-based historical lens?

If Maliki Fiqh truly is associated with Ahl al-Hadith, how does one explain the Epistemological similarities between Hanafi Fiqh and Maliki Fiqh?

I am wanting to know at which private institutes Sir Rehan Rehman and Sir Farough Ahmed Siddiqui teach.

Currently, I only know about Nadeem's Academy.

It would be helpful if any of you could list down private institutes where these teachers teach. Otherwise, it would be helpful if you could give me their contact numbers.

I searched through their Facebook profiles, but they don't state the private institutions they teach at or their numbers.

I am wanting to know at which private institutes Sir Rehan Rehman and Sir Farough Ahmed Siddiqui teach.

Currently, I only know about Nadeem's Academy.

It would be helpful if any of you could list down private institutes where these teachers teach. Otherwise, it would be helpful if you could give me their contact numbers.

I searched through their Facebook profiles, but they don't state the private institutions they teach at or their numbers.

I have hit a point in my life where I have been pushed to exploring new possibilities. The background story is that more than 5 years ago I discontinued my A Level because I was going through severe parental abuse. Studying was a form of worship for me and I couldn't do it under such circumstances. Fast forward to present day I am in a much better position, however, A Level colleges in Karachi have refused to admit me as a candidate because I don't meet their age criteria.

The go-to move here is obviously to do A Level privately.

However, I have been wrestling with a new idea for a long time now and that is what if I study for A Level independently?

By studying independently I mean not being part of a formal teacher-student program and instead preparing for CAIEs through textbooks, YouTube, AI, Cambridge resources, online communities, and private study sessions.

The reason why this option is attractive to me is because it provides insane flexibility. It gives me time to engage simultaneously in extensive independent Islamic research while also giving me time to develop a unique and comprehensive ECA profile. I would have the flexibility to decide on which days I want to study more and on which days I want to contribute more to my ECAs. Though I am heavily studious, I don't prefer heavy homeworks and tests at all because I consider them a waste of time. For me time can be better used in studying the subject matter and developing a Coherent Chain of Reasoning. Of course, practicing past papers and answer patterns is also important, but that can be done independently of heavy homeworks and texts. I need a powerful ECA profile because I want to apply to elite international universities. The flexibility factor would extend to me having the flexibility to thoroughly research university options and developing my applications in a way that can have a chance of acceptance. This only happens with research. Overall, the key factor is that lack of institutional structure allows me to have study and life plans that can fast-track my aims in each domain.

My background is of having a National Distinction in O Level and I am someone with a deeply philosophical thinking where I approach subjects from their first principles. If I get appropriate material, there is no reason why I can't study independently.

However, there are three central issues with this plan.

1. The textbooks in A Level don't cover the subject matter

Before I explain, the subjects I am planning to take are Further Mathematics, Mathematics, Economics and Psychology.

When I studied A Level 5 to 6 years ago I realized that in A Level Cambridge endorsed textbooks don't seem to cover the content requirements of the syllabus. Teacher notes were essential. In A Level Economics I found the IB Diploma book more suitable than Susan Grant's A Level book. Such a problem didn't exist in O Level. Yes, there were subjects where teacher guidance was necessary like in O Level Accounts, but many subjects like Business Studies, Economics, and Sociology were entirely possible to cover by engagement with the textbook.

If I can't rely on textbooks to cover the syllabus, I can't opt for this option because a teacher would be necessary

2. The methodology of tackling question paper requires a teacher

In A Level especially, the way you attempt a paper determines alot. Additionally, it is teachers, especially those with Cambridge certifications, who provide the answer patterns. This is especially true in theoretical subjects like Economics where Marking Scheme and other Cambridge resources are quite vague.

If I can't have access to the correct answering mechanism, and also at least some limited feedback on my answers, I won't be able to secure good grades. Again, a teacher becomes necessary here.

3. Elite universities require an external recommendation

Having a teacher naturally gives me someone I could approach for recommendation, especially a teacher with a background in IVY admissions.

However, if I don't have such teachers available, I would be under the burden of finding a mentor or reliable person who can act as a valid recommender because elite universities require evidence, not just potential.

With all these issues in mind, is it possible to do A Level independently? Is there a way to bypass these issues? Has anyone ever done something like this?

Most Religions are centered on a Divine Scripture. In religious traditions there is always a central body of texts upon which the religion is based.

Islam is no different. In Islam the central textual authority manifested in the form of the Quran and Hadith corpus.

With having a grounding textual body, comes the problem to exegetical excess. How do you constrain the apparent subjectivity of Reason from interpreting the Text in fragmentary and differentiating ways?

Islamic tradition historically came up with two solutions.

1. Literal adherence to Nass (Text)

This is a methodological solution. It is about keeping Nass (Text) foundational in Islamic Epistemology and limiting the role of Interpretative Ijtihad(Reasoning). A literal reading of the Text is preferred to keep Islamic Creed and Law grounded in Divine Certainty that comes from Wahy (Revelation) particularly.

Speculative Ijtihad (Reasoning) in the form of Kalam (Speculative Theology) and Ray-based (Reasoned Judgement-based) Jurisprudence was seen as dangerous to Islamic tradition and those who engaged in it were seen as those who follow their personal whims.

Restrictive Ijtihad (Reasoning) was allowed and it strictly or preferably had to be grounded in Nass (Text).

Imam al-Shafi's role in this epistemological view gaining dominance was crucial as he was the one who codified his own Usul al-Fiqh centered around Nass (Text). Although of course, there are more details and nuances to him.

2. Imamate as a Divinely Designated Epistemic Role

This is a theological or ontological solution.

The Imam has a Metaphysical and Cosmological Role as the Epistemic Authority for Believers.

The Imam is the Axis of Objectivity. The Imam is the one Divinely Chosen to give the Authoritative Interpretation of the Nass (Text). Divine Certainty comes from the Aql (Intellect) of the Imam and his Aql is the foremost manifestation of Aql as an Inner Proof of God.

The Ijtihad (Reasoning) of the Imam is the Objective Truth and where interpretations or applications diverge from his Ijtihad they are not Objective since the Imam is Axis of Objectivity.

This is the reason Imam is said to be Hujjah (Proof of God) amongst humanity that is necessary because God is Objectivity and Imam as the Highest Intellect is Access to Objectivity.

This is a Philosophical, although fair and traditionally grounded, Understanding of Imamate.

The question is which solution do you think is better? Which solution provides the most comprehensive and logical resolution to the problem of exegetical excess?

What do you people think about the two solutions? Which one speaks more Truth to you? Any relevant thoughts would be appreciated.

I have seen a repeated problem in the community and that is that people give broad questions without mentioning their Context.

If you don't give details particular to you, there is no way to guide you properly. You would get advice in the end that you may see as authoritative, but it is totally irrelevant or flat out damaging for you.

Students here ask about whether their subject combination for A Level is good or not. There is no measurable way to answer such a question unless you mention your Context. Context here means what your interests are, what your academic background is, what university program you're looking forward to, what your career prospects are, etc. These are essential metrics based on which a person can give you a suitable answer.

Similarly students are asking about what ECAs they should opt for. There is no productive way to answer that because what ECAs you should do depends highly on your passions, hobbies and skillset, coupled with the personality and university profile you want to build. Unless you're looking for random shenanigans in the name of ECAs, mention your Context so that a person can answer you as per your profile.

Students here simply ask whether they should take Add Maths or not. There is no way to answer that unless relevant Context is given, which includes current rigor in Mathematics, timeline available, method of studying, etc.

Another prominent example is of students asking for recommendations when it comes to A Level colleges. This is actually one of the most dangerous examples. You can end up in a college that makes you miserable just because you collected random advice from random people on the internet. You need to mention what specifically you are looking for when it comes to A Level colleges. The metrics you take into consideration highly changes the answer to what A Level college suits you the best.

Mention Context people. Your posts should include details that can help the community in guiding you.

A user asked on the r/AcademicQuran community why there are no women mentioned in the Quran except for Hazrat Maryam. The user pointed out that females in the Quran are usually expressed as "wives of" or "spouses of". The user expressed that this makes her feel like she is a second ranked person in her own religion and this makes her not want to read the Quran.

I answered the query, but it was removed because as per the community norms it was theologically loaded and as per the epistemological lens of the community it wasn't academic. However, I would like to share my response within this community so that it can be discussed. Maybe people here have different explanations for this phenomenon.

My answer was as follows:

I don't think the Western Academic approach can answer your question.

The reason Hazrat Maryam is mentioned in the Quran explicitly is for the purpose of clarity in the Narrative of Isa. Isa is known as the "son of Hazrat Maryam" in the Quran.

I am not really sure how you will take this particular answer(modern perspectives on this are hostile), but the reason for why the Quran doesn't explicitly name females is for the Sanctity of Women.

Women are in No Way second class to men in Islam. The Quran establishes a coequal existence of the two. They are Equal in Status and Worth as long as they have Equal Belief. However, they are Ontologically Different and have Different Roles, Rights and Responsibilities.

The Reason God doesn't mention Women by name is because God doesn't want other men to even think about Women. In the Quran a Women is taught that she shouldn't wear anklets around other men. This is because a man's mind immediately visualizes and God doesn't want men who don't have rights over you to even imagine your ankle or think about your feet.

This revolves around the Concept of Pardah that is Sexual Preservation.

Usually, it is thought that Islam is about Women putting on Hijabs or Niqabs. However, the purpose is not the clothing itself. The Effective Cause is that God doesn't a female to be sexualized by anyone other than her spouse because only her spouse has the right to do that.

The Sexuality of Spouses is Preserved for Each Other for a Healthy Marriage that can very well be Erotic within the Bounds of Marriage.

For this reason, females are mentioned with their male relatives. This is because a male, because he knows the psyche of males generally, wouldn't want the name of a female in his house to be known generally so that it isn't used inappropriately or thought about inappropriately. One of the lowest things an evil male does is that he immediately targets the females of a good male. There is a reason we see derogatory language is usually concentrated on attacking females and that too across multiple cultures. Secondly, when a female is mentioned alongside a male like a husband or father, she is respected much more by the general male population. This is generally known male psyche that if a male sees that the female is with another man, he would lose interest in her or his interest in her would lower.

The Quran more than about Tawhid and Day of Judgment is about Divine Morality. A key feature of this Divine Morality is Pardah and since God has no differentiation in Him, you see that Pardah being preserved across the entirety of the Quran.

𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘈𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘏𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘋𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘑𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘯 𝘌𝘱𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘓𝘦𝘯𝘴

This is a 50 page document on Islamic Jurisprudence that I have written. It reads more like an Introductory Text to Islamic Jurisprudence in the form of a Curriculum than a singular Research Paper.

I have been looking for an Academic Review and Deep Engagement with my document for the longest of time. I tried attaining this from Traditional Scholarship. However, many in Traditional Scholarship do not have the time for such an endeavor despite the fact that they call themselves Scholars of Islam and usually don't get engagement from young students like this. Additionally, I am also skeptical of engaging with Traditional Scholarship because they have strong narratives that don't align with evidence. For example, they are heavily hell-bent on stating that Imam Abu Hanifa was from Ahl al-Hadith and Ahl al-Ray was just a bunch of people who used their whims and wishes. This connotation being attached to Ahl al-Ray is obviously not objective, but a later Ahl al-Hadith/Sunni projection.

Is there any possibility for me to get an Academic Review or Deep Engagement with my document from Scholars that you know about? Do you people have any recommendations for what should be my approach in regards to this document?

I am basically looking for active readers who enjoy Islamic Jurisprudence Tradition like I do. I would have actually preferred if there were readers amongst this Community and they could have discussed my document and even critiqued it within themselves.

If you would like, I can provide an overview of what is written in the document and you can even ask me relevant questions in the comments section to see if the document would be a worthwhile read.

I think ChatGPT has basically diminished into nothingness for the kind of user I defined in the title.

ChatGPT 5.1 was like a blessing for people like me.

The recent models don't have the ability to engage with an original thought or idea neutrally. They always try to fit the ideas inside what is orthodox.

The recent models have no insight generation of any sort. These models are not thinkers, but just some mechanical engagers.

The recent models have no ability to take on clear sides or engage with opinions that are unheard of. They would necessarily want to balance out everything or analyze what you have to offer from strict guardrails.

The recent models have no philosophical depth. The ChatGPT 5.1 model seemed to operate on Meta-Cognition. The recent models act more like killer of ideas than originator of ideas.

The recent models have no ability of intellection. In ChatGPT 5.1 even when my ideas were debated against, the debate was highly valuable as it pointed out towards real tensions and potential critiques. The recent models act like they have no idea what they are talking about and neither do they understand what I am talking about. They just analyze my text against a set of data. ChatGPT 5.1 focused on developing ideas and thoughts. Recent models focus on reducing ideas to fit them inside a box.

The recent models have no ability to engage with abstraction. They would miss nuances and not highlight the key features, insights and geniuses in your thoughts or responses. The previous ChatGPT 5.1 model was able to identify such unique assets within your thoughts and it felt more like engaging with an intellectual companion.

I can go on, but overall the newer models just lack intelligence and depth. ChatGPT 5.1 could genuinely be considered an AI tool focused on Human Development. However, recent models feel like torture to those who have experienced such peak of AI. What makes it worse is that there is no suitable alternative. No other AI model offers what ChatGPT 5.1 did.

If any of you have similar experiences, I would like to hear about them. If any of you have found any suitable alternatives given what I am looking for, I would highly appreciate it if you could share.

In the r/AcademicQuran community there was a question about the theological development of Proto-Sunni Islam.

I am about to share my response with this community and am looking forward to hearing your opinions, research, analysis and interpretations.

My response was as follows:

This depends heavily on what your definition of "proto-Sunnis" is.

The two earliest developments in Islam were the distinct mindsets about authority after the Holy Prophet(S.A.W). This is authority both in the political sense and epistemic sense.

What was the dominant view was that all 4 Rashidun Caliphs are legitimate successors to the Holy Prophet(S.A.W) both as epistemic authorities who can interpret the sources of Quran and Sunnah(Not Hadith) for them authoritatively and those who can act as political authorities. These two roles were obviously closely interrelated at that time since the Prophetic model of leadership was a complex one that was more of an integration of politics and religion.

The minority view was that Ali specifically was first and foremost the legitimate epistemic successor to the Holy Prophet(S.A.W) who can interpret the sources of the Quran and Sunnah authoritatively while also being a political authority. There was a mix of views within this minority view. For example, that Zaydis while affirming that Ali was the rightful successor didn't consider the other three Caliphs as illegitimate.

These sectarian developments happened first and foremost due to the First Fitna. During the Ummayyad period that followed, Ali was even cursed actively as per authoritative Sunni sources themselves. This boosted the hardline pro-Alid sentiment. A core feature of the opposing view was the legitimacy of Mauwiyah. The event of Karbala amplified sectarian hardlines even more.

The only distinct theological belief system distinct from both these streams was the Kharijite school of thought.

By the definitions and history mentioned above, even the Mutazilites can be termed as Sunnis because they hailed from the majority view and even considered Mauwiyah a Companion who at the end of the day cannot be cursed or considered illegitimate, although the Mutazilites had a nuanced and rational approach towards Companions than the later Sunni elevation.

This "proto-Sunni" school would be too massive when seen from a theological lens because it would essentially have all groups as a part of it other than Shii and Kharijite sects.

However, what generally became the Sunni orthodoxy started from the Ahl al-Hadith movement within Islam. This was a psychological tendency found within a minority of Islamic scholars in the earliest centuries. There were several key features:

• A literalist approach towards the sources of Islamic sources like the Quran and Sunnah

• Intense focus on preservation and transmission of the Ahadith of the Holy Prophet(S.A.W)

• Abstention from political life

• Suspicion towards Ijtihad or Reasoning, especially one that was not heavily reliant on Nass or Text

The earliest generations of Islam were much more rational in their approach, especially the scholarly class that descended from the Companions. This is why we found Ahl al-Ray as a dominant school of Jurisprudence before Imam al-Shafii. If we study the Maliki Madhab, that also matches Ahl al-Ray methodology because it has a Rational approach towards Jurisprudence and doesn't align with a core Ahl al-Hadith tenant that is unquestionable adherence to Ahad Hadith or Solitary Report. This is why we see that Hanafi and Maliki schools of Jurisprudence emerged earlier and have solid chains of scholarship that connect them to Companions.

Ofcourse, this doesn't mean the Ahl al-Hadith approach was found in a vacuum. This psychological tendency was found in Abdullah ibn Umer. However, the Ahl al-Hadith movement was started by Imam al-Shafii because he was the one who canonized, compiled and formalized Ahl al-Hadith methodology into the first formulation of Usul al-Fiqh in Islam.

Imam al-Shafii's project was within the field of Jurisprudence, but it had escalated to Theology when later Mutazila and Ahl al-Hadith schools of thought became the two opposing giants within Islam. The Minha especially escalated this rivalry between these two schools and it resulted in Ahl al-Hadith theological school becoming the orthodoxy within Islam that can be seen as "proto-Sunni". Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal is the face and pioneer of this Ahl al-Hadith theological school that later became known as the Athari creed. While the previous Ahl al-Hadith tendencies were maintained, there were several theological developments. They are as follows:

(Do note that I am not mentioning the Athari creed verbatim or the Ahl al-Hadith theological beliefs as they were. Rather I am trying to provide what became "Sunni" later on more generally)

• Affirmation of Divine Attributes without Rational Tawil or Interpretation

• Elevation of Ahadith to an unquestionable and routine source of Islamic Knowledge alongside the Quran as a primary source equal to the Quran

• Isnad or Transmissionism based approach towards Ahadith and Islamic Scholarship

• Elevation of the role of Muhaddith or Hadith scholar

• Elevation of Companions to an unquestionable status, especially morally

• Heavy polemical tones against Mutazila

• Suspicion towards Rationalism often leading to hostility

• Revelation and Reason were not seen epistemologically complementary and when they come in conflict the role of Reason is submission to Revelation

• Greater emphasis on Omnipotence of God that lead to theological beliefs such as greater emphasis on predestination

• Crystalization of the separation of political authority and religious authority with religious authority retaining to Ulema

What was "proto-Sunni" crystalized more as "Sunni" through Imam al-Ghazali who provided a synthesis of Islam as a Religion itself. Here are the developments:

• Centralized Revelation as axis of Religion while Reason was supposed to only defend what established creed was

• Limited the scope of Philosophy and gave rise to anti-Philosophy sentiment(Ahl al-Hadith project was against Rational Theology and Ashari project was against Philosophy)

• Strengthened the Shafii synthesis of Quran, Hadith, Ijma and Qiyas as a standard Sunni framework

• Integrated Sufism into Sunni Islam

This is the "proto-Sunni" theological development.

I have seen that within this community there are no meaningful discussions on different theological schools and historical theological development of Islamic tradition

While it is preferred that the tone of this community is academic, many times it gets too technical. It seems more like Islam is being approached as a subject rather than as a living tradition that encapsulates various philosophies of consciousness, life and civilizations

Recently, I came across a post on this community that was an inquiry about theological development of Sunni orthodoxy. It was refreshing to see such discourse being approached and explored here

One important thing I see is that instead of seeming like a community of scholars this seems more like a community of citing scholars. I personally like to see people's own views, study, interpretation and synthesis

Let's discuss Islamic Theology under this post. You can ask me questions. You can provide your own theological positions and analysis. You can narrate your own theological developments too. We can discuss how Islamic Theology should be approached methodologically. I invite knowledgeable people of this Reddit community to join the discussion and give their input