Why won't the press probe if a Leonardo representative has lobbied his former Ministry of Defence colleagues?

On 29 February 2024, the Israeli military killed over 100 Palestinians seeking aid and injured more than 750 near Gaza’s al-Nabulsi roundabout.

Exclusive: Home secretary understood to have withdrawn authorisation for speaker at Unite the Kingdom rally in May

A US-based anti-Islam influencer who had been authorised to attend a far-right rally in London has been blocked from entering the UK by the home secretary.

Valentina Gomez, a self-styled Maga influencer, was given permission last week to enter via a UK electronic travel authorisation (ETA).

Continue reading...

Israelis subjecting Gaza to systematic, escalating process of engineered starvation.

How the Four Great Imams Might Model Unity, Humility, and Principled Disagreement Today

“And hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not become divided.” Qur’an 3:103

Introduction

The Muslim community has never been entirely free of disagreement, nor should disagreement itself be treated as a sign of failure. Difference in interpretation, legal reasoning, and scholarly judgment has long existed within the Islamic tradition. At its best, that diversity reflected the richness of a civilization rooted in revelation, disciplined by scholarship, and guided by a sincere search for truth. Yet in our own time, disagreement often feels less like a mercy and more like a fracture. What was once carried with adab is now too often expressed through suspicion, polemics, and the urge to delegitimize those who differ.

In such a climate, it is worth pausing to imagine a different model. What if the four great Imams of Sunni jurisprudence, Abu Hanifah, Malik ibn Anas, Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi‘i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, were seated together at the same table today? What would their conversation reveal about knowledge, humility, disagreement, and responsibility in a divided age? More importantly, what might their example teach a community that is struggling not simply with difference, but with the loss of the ethical discipline required to navigate it?

To imagine such a gathering is not to romanticize the past or pretend that these towering scholars agreed on every matter. They did not. Their differences were real, substantive, and at times significant. Yet those differences unfolded within a shared moral and intellectual universe, one anchored in reverence for the Qur’an, fidelity to the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and deep awareness of the responsibility of speaking about the religion of Allah. They disagreed without abandoning humility, and they defended principle without surrendering respect. Their legacy reminds us that the true measure of scholarship is not only what one knows, but how one carries that knowledge before Allah and before others.

A Gathering Rooted in Humility

The first quality that would likely become evident in such a gathering is humility. Each of these scholars understood the weight of speaking about the religion of Allah, and none of them claimed absolute infallibility. Abu Hanifah held his conclusions with seriousness, yet without arrogance, recognizing that legal reasoning is an effort to approach the truth, not to possess it completely.

Imam Malik famously taught that every statement may be accepted or rejected except that of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Imam al-Shafi‘i revised a number of his own legal views during his lifetime, demonstrating that intellectual maturity includes the willingness to refine one’s understanding. Ahmad ibn Hanbal preserved and transmitted narrations even when they challenged his own inclinations, placing fidelity to the Sunnah above personal preference.

If these four Imams were gathered today, their humility would shape the tone of the room from the beginning. The purpose would not be to defeat one another, nor to defend positions for the sake of pride, but to strive collectively toward what is most faithful to revelation and most beneficial for the Ummah. Their example reminds us that sincere scholarship requires openness to correction and fear of Allah in every word that is spoken.

Anchored in the Teachings of the Prophet ﷺ

Despite their methodological differences, the four Imams shared an unshakable foundation. Their scholarship was rooted in the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. These were not merely sources among others. They were the compass that guided every discussion, every disagreement, and every legal conclusion.

Abu Hanifah, often associated with the use of reasoning and analogy, never placed personal opinion above authentic Prophetic guidance. He understood reason as a tool to apply revelation faithfully, especially when new situations required careful judgment. Imam Malik built much of his legal method upon the inherited practice of the people of Madinah, believing that the living tradition of the city of the Prophet ﷺ preserved the Sunnah in action. His work Al-Muwatta became one of the earliest systematic efforts to gather hadith and legal rulings rooted in the Prophetic tradition.

Imam al-Shafi‘i clarified the authority of the Sunnah within Islamic law and established a structured methodology that balanced the Qur’an, the Sunnah, consensus, and analogy. Ahmad ibn Hanbal devoted his life to preserving the words and actions of the Prophet ﷺ, compiling vast collections of hadith and refusing to compromise the authority of revelation even under political pressure. Though their methods differed, their devotion to the guidance of the Prophet ﷺ united them more strongly than any disagreement could divide them.

Listening Before Speaking

A defining feature of classical Islamic scholarship was the discipline of listening. These scholars were not formed in isolation. They studied with one another, learned through chains of transmission, and inherited traditions of respectful engagement. Imam al-Shafi‘i studied with Imam Malik. Ahmad ibn Hanbal studied with Imam al-Shafi‘i. Their relationships were built upon learning, not rivalry.

If they were seated together today, they would begin not with accusation, but with careful listening. Abu Hanifah might explain the role of analogy in addressing new circumstances. Imam Malik might emphasize the importance of preserving the living tradition of the community. Imam al-Shafi‘i would clarify the principles that govern sound legal reasoning. Ahmad ibn Hanbal would insist that speculation must remain anchored to authentic narrations. Each would listen before speaking, knowing that justice in scholarship requires understanding before judgment.

Advising with Wisdom and Respect

Their disagreements would be real, but they would not be stripped of adab. Islamic intellectual history shows that strong debate can exist alongside deep respect. The Imams differed on many issues, yet they spoke of one another with honor. Advice would be given with sincerity, not hostility. Correction would be offered as a means of preserving the truth, not defeating an opponent. In an age when disagreement is often driven by ego, their example teaches that sincere counsel can itself be an act of mercy.

Scholarship Lived Through Moral Courage

These Imams were not only scholars of law. They were people of moral courage. Abu Hanifah refused positions offered by rulers when he feared that authority might compromise justice. Imam Malik endured punishment for speaking truthfully. Ahmad ibn Hanbal remained steadfast under pressure rather than surrender what he believed to be the truth. Their lives remind us that scholarship carries responsibility, and that knowledge without integrity becomes a source of harm.

If they were to address the Muslim community today, their guidance would likely extend beyond individual legal questions. They would call for scholars to work together across schools of thought. They would encourage consultation and disciplined dialogue. They would remind students that disagreement has always existed within the tradition, but that it must be carried with humility and restraint. They would emphasize that the health of the Ummah depends not only on correct rulings, but on correct character.

Civil Debate as an Act of Worship

For the four Imams, debate was never entertainment or a contest for dominance. It was part of fulfilling the trust of knowledge before Allah. Disagreement was approached with seriousness, patience, and awareness that every word spoken about religion carries accountability. When governed by sincerity and taqwa, disagreement could become a source of mercy. When governed by pride, it became a source of division.

A Model for Today’s Muslim Community

The real lesson of imagining this gathering is not to ask what rulings the Imams would give today, but to ask how they would conduct themselves. They would listen deeply. They would advise sincerely. They would disagree honestly. They would preserve conviction without arrogance. They would hold firmly to the truth while maintaining respect for those who sought it sincerely.

The schools of law they established were never meant to divide the Ummah into factions. They provided structured ways for Muslims across different lands and generations to live according to the guidance of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Their diversity was not a weakness of the tradition, but a sign of its depth and flexibility.

Conclusion

If the four great Imams were sitting together today, they would remind us that the real crisis is not that Muslims disagree. The real crisis is that we have forgotten how to disagree. We have mistaken loudness for strength, suspicion for piety, and factional loyalty for faithfulness to the truth.

Their legacy teaches that unity does not require uniformity. It requires humility, discipline, and fear of Allah. It requires scholars who speak with integrity and communities that value adab as much as argument. The future strength of the Ummah will not come from winning debates, but from producing people of character, scholars of sincerity, and communities that hold firmly to the rope of Allah without allowing difference to break their bonds.

In an age of division, the example of Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Shafi‘i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal calls us back to a more excellent path, one in which knowledge is joined to humility, conviction is joined to mercy, and disagreement is carried with dignity before Allah.

Related:

The Rise of the Scholarly Gig Economy and Fall of Community Development

Common Mistakes When Dealing With Crisis in the Ummah

The post If The Four Great Imams Sat At The Same Table Today appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.

A boy throws a missile at police during Wednesday’s Epsom ‘protest’

Last weekend a woman reported that she had been raped by a gang of men outside a church in Epsom, Surrey (this is a few miles from where I live), between 2am and 4am after leaving the Labyrinth night-club. Over the past few days, the police have not issued any descriptions of the alleged attackers, leading people online to “put two and two together” and assume that this means the attackers must have been asylum seekers living in nearby hotels or houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) or at the very least were not white. Comments like “no description is a description” and “it’s those doctors and engineers again” can be found under any link to a newspaper article about the alleged incident on Facebook. Yesterday, a ‘demonstration’ took place in Epsom town centre, in the middle of rush hour, allegedly by “angry locals” but no doubt supported by organised groups of racists from outside town; their supporters on social media have been taunting the police whose job it was to contain them, calling them ‘traitors’ and the demonstrators “English patriots who have had enough”, cheering as ‘projectiles’ are thrown at them and they took a step back as the ‘demonstrators’ moved forward up Epsom high street. Epsom is fairly posh, with the exception of a council estate (or former council estate) to the north of the town centre; the seat was solidly Tory from its inception in 1974, regularly returning its MPs with more than 50% or even 60%, until 2024 when a Liberal Democrat was elected. It is unlikely that most of the ‘demonstrators’ depicted are anything like local.

Complaints about “two-tier policing”, first heard after the riots following the 2024 Southport triple murder, have been heard in relation to this ‘protest’, both on social media and on the new-right TV channels like Talk TV. The complaint is that the police are nowhere near as heavy-handed with pro-Palestinian protesters in London as they are with “decent honest English” when they protest against “third world vermin raping our women”. The obvious reason is that these mobs, including many with convictions for domestic violence and other criminal behaviour, went on the rampage after the Southport murders in an attempted pogrom against Britain’s ethnic minorities and immigrant communities; they did not distinguish between the two then and still do not. Demonstrations against the Gaza genocide have been overwhelmingly peaceful, and many of the arrests have been for politically manufactured speech crimes such as holding up placards supporting Palestine Action, the banned group that sabotaged military hardware intended for use by the Israeli military. The protests have been subject to restrictions: a demonstration outside BBC Broadcasting House was banned because it was near a synagogue on a Sunday, while an order was issued that pots and pans not be used (to ensure that the noise could be heard in the Israeli embassy) in one demonstration in Kensington. The policing of the ‘demonstration’ in Epsom yesterday was not especially heavy-handed; riot police were deployed with shields because previous protests in similar circumstances based on similar accusations have turned violent.

The conspiracy theory as to why no description of the attackers has been published by the police is that that they are asylum seekers and that the police and politicians are more concerned for asylum seekers’ welfare than for the rights of the ordinary citizen. A variant on it is that the attackers will claim to be under 18 and that the police will not identify them after arrest or charge because of this claim. (A man touting this theory has been putting out videos on Twitter, alleging that the police know who the men are and are lying to the public.) Ex-cops both on Twitter and in the new-right media have been repeating variations on these theories when they should know better. One reason they have not been able to release descriptions of the men is that they are still patiently trying to get information out of a traumatised victim; another is that they do indeed know who they are but need to gather actionable evidence to arrest them, so that they will not have to release them under investigation a few days later. Another reason is that they are trying to find corroborating evidence for the claim and maybe even that they are having trouble doing that. (A few years ago in Oxford, a teenage girl reported being raped by two men who arrived in a van; police could not find any evidence that said van was in the area at all, and closed the case.) The fact that the area of the alleged rape is covered by CCTV has been amply mentioned by the racists on social media, but this possibility never occurs to them.

Yes, no word from the police for several days might look suspicious, but sometimes the police have to watch what information they put in the public domain to avoid endangering the inquiry. Racists, the sort who assume that such an attack must be the doing of a Black or Asian person, an immigrant or an asylum seeker, do not have the right to have their assumptions confirmed or addressed by the police when they are trying to solve a report of a serious crime. 

Myth was insinuated by Israeli intelligence and cemented by resistance faction's rivals.