What makes a good question?

[ghulamRasool]

asking a proper question is half the knowledge

Though I do have another question, an off topic one, but if you could provide guidance in this reagrd, it will be very benificial.

What makes a proper question? And how can you know you are asking a good question before asking it: when formulating it, the points and criteria which sum to make a good question?

This question is not about this particular matter, but rather a general question - the answer to which a student of knowledge should have at the back of their mind when seeking knowledge.

 

[Noori]

What makes a proper question? And how can you know you are asking a good question before asking it: when formulating it, the points and criteria which sum to make a good question?

a few points to remember, a good question is:

– easy to understand; avoids vague or overly complex phrasing
– aligned with the topic, objective, or context (especially in ongoing discussions)
– encouraging discussion, explanation, or exploration
– stimulating reflection, analysis, or critical thinking
– possible to answer meaningfully based on available information or expertise
– aimed at understanding or progress, not at provoking or attacking

on the contrary, a bad question:

– is unclear or ambiguous
– lacks purpose or relevance
– is too broad or overly narrow
– is leading, biased, or loaded
– is repetitive when the answer is already known or easily available
– is aggressive, sarcastic, or inappropriate

 

[abu Hasan]

hazrat has written the matn beautifully. perhaps i can do a sharh...

Can I ask, in short, what should our aqida be about khilafat? Meaning:
Can a non qureshi not be a caliph, is this from daruriat e ahle sunnah?
Was sultan Abdul Hamid not a caliph, and instead a Sultan?
Was the ottomon empire not a caliphate? Why does shaykh asrar call it a caliphate?

these are good questions. (ignore the odd phrasing of using double negatives. again writing on the forum, grammar and phrasing is not given much thought by most of us, if not all. but helps if you take time to read and rephrase.

for example the below question falls a little short of "easy to understand"

Can a non qureshi not be a caliph, is this from daruriat e ahle sunnah?
​

better:

is it true that a non-qurashi cannot be a caliph? is this from daruriat ahl al-sunnah?​

others were good questions.
====

the first was:

Was the ottomon empire not a caliphate?

to which i replied

not in the sharayi sense. but in general, due to their service of muslims worldwide, the empire - dawlah - was called a 'khilafah'.

you suddenly sprang a name.

Is it the same with the khilafat of Hazrat Umar bin abdul aziz radi Allahu anhu?

someone who wants to answer is now asking the following questions himself:

- why is he asking this specific question?
- has he not heard of the ummayad and abbasid caliphs?
- since he has an inkling of qurashiyat being a requirement, does he not know that hazrat umar ibn abdul aziz was a qurashi?
- specifically from the umayyad clan? or is he asking whether he was a qurashi? maybe he doesn't know this.
- he seems to have an idea that it is discussed in aqidah works - so what is he driving at?

if you just asked "is it the same"? it would mean, is it the same as uthmani 'khilafat' - i.e. non-qurashis and labeled urfi khalifah [used for a ruler]. but you appended nearly half a dozen nested questions rendering the "is it the same" vague.
​

I remember reading in the nasafi creed that the khilafat was only for 30 years. Does this but I also read in dawat e islami farz uloom course that after khilafat e rashida, there was saltanat and khilafat (though I dont remember if they wrote khilafat e rashida here) and inky re implemented in the time of hazrat umar bin abdul aziz and will only be inplemented again when hazrat imam madhi arrives.

- easy to understand?

- avoids vague or overly complex phrasing?

- aligned with the topic - yes; but objective? and context - we easily jumped to imam mahdi and the reason why it is complicated is you broached the topic of khilafat e rashidah, which inevitably brings up the hadith of 30 years and the 'sultanate' meaning the reign of hazrat muawiyah. naturally, the question will be asked how can hazrat umar ibn abdul aziz be considered khalifah rashid, as a tabiyi and not hazrat muawiyah? and it goes further deep.
​

---
so if one has to properly answer your question, they will have to correct errors and erroneous assumptions.

I remember reading in the nasafi creed that the khilafat was only for 30 years.​

and since you mentioned nasafi creed - naturally, there will be another question about the sharh by taftazani in which he mentioned mulkan aduda [tyranny, brutal rule, repressive] and this would warrant a clarification that taftazani strung together from different riwayat - because this is a feast for the rafidi! so one has to clarify that the riwayat that talk of 30 years only mention mulk - and the lengthy riwayah in musnad ahmad that mentions of tyrannies and finally the rule of mahdi does not count the 30 years.

---

Does this but I also read in dawat e islami farz uloom course that after khilafat e rashida, there was saltanat and khilafat (though I dont remember if they wrote khilafat e rashida here) ​

you are just unburdening your thoughts for us to sort out. and to do the fact check. the least you could do is look up books you said you had read. just for perspective, even though, i wrote the answer above relying on memory, i still had to make sure by checking half a dozen commentaries of sharh al-aqayid and atraf hadith to ensure where the 'aduuda' was mentioned.

qari in his takhrij of sharh al-aqayid does not mention that the wording is not found in the references that he presents. i.e., abu dawud, tirmidhi, nasayi, hakim vide hadith of safinah raDi'Allahu anhu. he did takhrij based on the first portion - khilafah is 30 years.

and inky re implemented in the time of hazrat umar bin abdul aziz and will only be inplemented again when hazrat imam madhi arrives​

which is the debate of how do you define khilafat e rashidah - various hadith and especially the hadith that mentions various stages (which also has the wording of aduuda) and finally khilafah on the footsteps of nubuwwah. and what it entais.

and if you continued to read sharh al-aqayid, the hadith of qurashi being the criterion for khilafa is also mentioned. you can see why someone may judge it to be a bad question.


so you can see how complex it gets.

 

[ghulamRasool]

woooww.
Never realised that.

I guess it is easier to pose a question than to answer it.

I would like to say that regarding imam taftazani's commentary, I have not read it. I can't read arabic. When I mentioned the nasafi creed, I meant a translation of the matn.

 

[ghulamRasool]

salam hazrat.

So, how should've I phrased the question?

Please note: what I am posting below is not with the intention of surreptitiously trying to get an answer to my question because you have already answered it in the other thread, but rather to actually learn to formulate a question properly.

For example, this is what I wanted to ask:
I had read this in dawat e islami farz uloom course.

I had also read in a translation of The Nasafi Creed (it was on the manchester central mosque website by Shaykh Tahir Mahmood Kiani), in which it said that "The Caliphate was for thirty years, thereafter came kingship and emirate."

When you answered that Khilafat e Uthmania was not a shari' khilafat, I wanted to get a reconcialtion between the statement from the nasafi creed and the dawat e islami farz uloom: the especially mentioning of Hazrat Umar bin abdul aziz as a khalifa e rashid even though the khilafat ended after 30 years? Meaning that if khilafat ended after 30 years, then why is hazrat umar bin abdul aziz also considered a khalifa e rashid since his khilafat was after the 30 years? Was his khilafat also an urfi Khilafat, and because it resembled the khilafat of the khulafa e rashideen, it was called khilafat e rashida as well?

I did read you paraphrasing of the question I asked, but what was going in my head was a bit more. Would it have been better to ask all of them as separate questions or is there a better way?

The above was what was going in my head. How should I have phrased that question?

 

[AbdalQadir]

How should I have phrased that question?

bro, practice reading and listening comprehension.

after you read or listen to something, close the book or video/audio - and write it down in your own words, either in the same language or in the target language you want to ask the question in - not necessarily the whole discourse, but at least 3 or 4 or 5 bullet points, and see if you've understood it, and are capable of rewording it in your own words. you can even do it mentally, but putting it on paper is better. (regardless if you want to ask a question or not)

if you can, THEN formulate the question based on YOUR understanding in YOUR words, and with correct spelling, grammar, and logical sentence structure and sequence. if you can't, then read or listen or watch again till you are able to.

don't try to marry your question into the content you just read/heard.

anyone can mistake the below (like me) to understand that you're saying the khilafat of Hazrat Umar bin Abdul Aziz was 30 years!

massacre diction, grammar and sentence structure only if you can get away with it!

i too used to be a spelling and grammar nazi once upon a time, but now my posts too are pillaged with rubbish spellings and grammar, but i try to ensure i can get away with them! woe unto smart phones and autocorrect!

https://curvebreakerstestprep.com/definite-and-indefinite-articles-adjectives-grammar-practice/

 

[abu Hasan]

bro, practice reading and listening comprehension.

this.

don't try to marry your question into the content you just read/heard.

and this.

---

So, how should've I phrased the question?

you should have just presented the clip below and said: i don't understand this, can someone explain?
instead you asked a question based on the misunderstanding of the text.

I had read this in dawat e islami farz uloom course.

as it is obvious, you have not understood the simple text.

minhaj e nubuwwat par khilafat e haqqah rashidah 30 saal rahi ​

the rightly guided and rightful (haqqah) khilafat in the tradition of prophethood remained for a period of 30 years.

phir amiru'l mu'minin umar ibn abdul aziz ki khilafat, khilafat e rashidah huwi​

and THEN, the caliphate or amiru'l mu'miin umar ibn abdul aziz was rightly guided khilafah.

aur aakhir zamanay mein...​

AND in end times...

---
besides, the question is about khilafat e rashidah - not khilafat as an absolute term.

 

[Ikhwaan]

Brother although you are sincere in your questions sometimes it is better to just practice what you already know before delving into deeper topics.

The following Hadith shareef, I hope, will bring comfort to your heart:

From Abu Hurairah who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say, “What I have forbidden for you, avoid. What I have ordered you [to do], do as much of it as you can. For verily, it was only the excessive questioning and their disagreeing with their Prophets that destroyed [the nations] who were before you."

A quick scan of the questions you have been asking lately on this forum would show that the level of questioning is not on par with the subject to which it relates. Perhaps, a better use of time would be to first study without any questions. Bahar e shariat would be an excellent start as well as Tamheed e Iman. Both of which are translated and available on this site.

 

[ghulamRasool]

salam brother.

Brother although you are sincere in your questions sometimes it is better to just practice what you already know before delving into deeper topics.

I think I know the reason. And honestly, I think I have misundertood this as well so I am actually going to ask for the real meaning of that passage from fiqh al akbar.

I think I have misunderstood this passage from fiqh al akbar:

I, because I am not an alim, am not able to distinguish between what does and doesn't need an inquiry from an alim. So as soon as I have a question or think I might have understood a point of creed wrong, I try to ask in whatsapp groups, post here, call scholars if possible - to avoid delay.

I will be 100% honest, almost all the questions I have asked on this forum, I am quite sure that 80% of them have been due to this reason. I personally don't want to ask that many questions but I fear about falling into kufr (may Allah protect us all). I don't want to delve deep into topics. I just want to stick to basic tahawiyyah that suddenly I experience of moment of what I mentioned above. My family are annoyed with me as well for not working (not the marriage kind of family as I am not married yet, rather my parental family) and constantly doing research.

So, finally, I would like to ask the knowledgable in the group for the true understanding of the passage from fiqh al akbar please.

 

[abu Hasan]

it is only about daruriyat - necessary precepts.

others you need to learn and clarify too - but not in an ambulance.

 

[ghulamRasool]

Yes but I am also not able to distinguish know which part is and isn't from daruriat. What I mean is that most of the questions I asked in this forum stem from the daruriat but the branch (which is the question I am asking) is what I am unsure as to whether it is or not from the daruriat or not.

Note: regarding the below, AlHumdulillaah all concepts have been cleared so I am giving that as an example (not sneakily trying to get a question through).
For example, regarding my wahdat ul wujud question, a while back I read the epistle by huzoor ghazali e zaman on wahdat ul wujud (back when I liked delving deep) and what stuck in my mind was that:
- Real existance is of Allah and the rest, though it may appear to have an existance, doesn't (in actuality) exist. But this is from furu and normal people shouldn't delve deep and keep their aqida simple.
- I also had the normal ash'ari aqida about what Mawlana noori sahab mentioned in the sense of everything being dependant on Allah and Allah creating everything.

then I re- read the epistle (this was also long ago but came to my mind due to reason which I will not mention here) and came across the following and thought that "what if it is necessary to believe that nothing exists except Allah, and perhaps I commited kufr. Belief in Allah being dissimilar to his creation is from daruriat... And you can guess where it went from there.

Again, this is not a question about the correct belief. Mawlana Noori sahab has already provided it in the other group chat ma sha Allah.

But when it is said:

it is only about daruriyat - necessary precepts.

Isn't "daruriat" a broad term which encompasses the example I gave above as well and many more steming from the basic iman e mufassil, the denial of which is also kufr?

So how does one decide when to and when not to aska question urgently?

 

[abu Hasan]

may Allah ta'ala help you.

 

[Noori]

dear brother, for the sake of your iman, i suggest you focus on aqidah tahawiyyah and the aqidah section of bahar-e-shariat. read them multiple times and let their meanings settle in your heart.

it’s okay for questions to come to your mind, but don’t rush to find answers. many of these are whispers from shaytan meant to distract you. instead, read trusted commentaries like mir’aat al-manajih by mufti ahmad yaar khan (rahimahullah) or sharh riyaz al-saliheen by dawateislami. these are beneficial, and any minor issues they may contain are not related to core beliefs, so there's no need to worry.

honestly, let your questions be forgotten for now. Allah Ta'ala will bring the answers when the time is right inshaAllah. many questions that once confused me were answered years later, often unexpectedly, while reading or listening to a scholar. some questions are still unanswered, and i don’t even remember them anymore, but i trust Allah will clarify them in due time.

so, for now, focus on learning the quran, hadith, and other essential islamic sciences. i’m not saying don’t ask questions, just don’t let them overwhelm you. ask your question, then move on if no answer comes. and perhaps limit yourself to one question per month, for your own spiritual well-being. May Allah protect you from confusion and strengthen your faith.

 

[ghulamRasool]

Ameen.
جزاک اللہ خیرا۔
With regards to the urdu translation of tahawiyyah, would it be okay if I, from time to time, sent snippets of words or phrases - to ask for their meanings. There are literally no masajid near where I live and all the whatsapp scholars have gotten tired of me. I will try not to ask aqida questions: just the meaning of words (in the the context of aqida)?

 

[abu Hasan]

Yes but I am also not able to distinguish know which part is and isn't from daruriat.

so that is your first objective. until you clarify this - you must not ask another question.
speak to scholars, read books, identify what is daruriyat. and once you learn about it, stick to it.

i will give you a hint:

i suggest you focus on aqidah tahawiyyah and the aqidah section of bahar-e-shariat.

----
do dhikr, tasbih, salawat, istighfar, and if you are able to, go sit in a graveyard for a few hours. do community service.


Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

[abu Hasan]

all the whatsapp scholars have gotten tired of me.

my sympathies.
with the scholars.

 

[ghulamRasool]

in sha Allah

 

[AbdalQadir]

also do note that such compulsiveness is from shaytan's whispering like Noori said.

have you ever run a marathon?

only a fool will sprint in a marathon. he's gonna drop after a couple 100 meters at best if he's a well trained sprinter. sprinting is for short distances.

it's not humanly possible to sprint long distance because the energy has to be paced and spread out evenly and consistently. life and deen are long distance too. never forget.

you think you're doing yourself a favor by sprinting, but you'll drop and won't be able to go the full long distance, and this is what shaytan wants. many times as counterintuitive as it sounds, shaytan himself pushes people deeply into deen, only to pull them away from it!

this is why there is the hadith that Allah like the deeds done consistently even if they are less.

it is better for you or me to just say subhan Allah 1 time after Fajr for our entire lives, than to pray 300 rakats of tahajjud only this one night in some pursuit of attaining overnight wilayah and then come to the forum in the morning asking people how come i wasn't able to walk on water after Fajr?

do dhikr, tasbih, salawat, istighfar, and if you are able to, go sit in a graveyard for a few hours. do community service.

with the intention of remedy and to discard wasawis - even look to pass time in halal duniyawi pursuits to not let such compulsive thoughts in deen get in your head -

hit the gym, take up a calisthenics challenge - set a target - i will just understand aqidah Tahawiyyah and do my faraid and daily adhkar & durood activities only - and not pursue big books or overnight wilayah till i manage to do a 100 chin ups;

take up cricket or basketball or take long walks in a park or something; take up gardening maybe.

or if you feel you're not the physical activity kind but the bookish detail oriented kind - get into details of something duniyawi - like maybe get into cars and learn about the intricate design differences between the engines of different supercars how they affect their performances up to the nanosecond. maybe join a cars forum and ask their admins on the specs and engine design details of supercars.

maybe buy a telescope and get into astronomy - use the days for research and nights for stargazing

you get the picture.

 

[abu Hasan]

while it is natural to think that firm conviction comes from reading a lot of books or gaining a mastery of aguments, in truth, it is far simpler. yes, reading books, amassing knowledge and the ability to form and reply to arguments are stepping stones - but conviction - yaqeen may still be elusive.

islam is istislam. surrender.

one ought to learn to let go - i do not understand this, but it is thus. so be it. one ought to master the ability to dive as deep as one can go - and at the same time withdraw totally and shield oneself from the 'intellectual argument'.

a man can read a 100 books of kalam, but if he has not learned the art of 'withdrawing' to the precincts of humility, and acknowledging that it may not be possible for him to understand and that is his own limitation, he will still not have gained yaqeen.

---
and the blessed person - though less in knowledge - but has the ability to readily accept even if he doesn't understand - is more firm in yaqeen than the learned scholar whose acceptance is tied to his understanding.

سمعنا وأطعنا

---
if i sound like i am rambling, ignore.

wa billahi't tawfiq.