[VanDerSmok]

Dear brother, it was established multiple times in the other thread that an-Nawawi did not issue a new ruling. He gave preference to something else narrated from Imam Shafi'i. As I wrote, speaking on authority of what Maulana Taha Karaan said in his lecture on the mad'hab of Imam ash-Shafi'i:

Firstly, as far as I am aware, the Shaykhayn of the Shafi'i mad'hab's tarjih is just that - tarjih. Meaning, it is a preference for a particular position traceable to the Imam. The Shafi'i school, according to Maulana Taha Karaan (his excellent talk on the stages of development of the Shafi'i mad'hab is available on the seeker's path website, and I recommend it highly to those interested), disallowed the verdicts of even luminaries like Imam al-Muzani to be considered 'part of the mad'hab,' and as such it must be inferred that Imam Shafi'i had two positions on the matter, the latter of which was makruh. Secondly, it is not precisely respectful to refer to the opinions of great scholars like an-Nawawi as revisionist, nor do I see how terming something as makruh is permitting it, and your lionization of the early Imams, while nobly intended I am certain, is reaching a strange level.

Thirdly, a brother quoted al-Waraqat in that thread and it decisively established what makruh is in the mad'hab.

Fourthly, to refer to terming something as makruh as 'permitting' it is ridiculous.

Fifthly, if you are claiming ijmaa' on something, then it is upon you to bring forth some proof that such ijmaa' exists. Why not check Ibn al-Mundhir's book, or Ibn Hazm's book with Ibn Taymiyyah's checking, or something to that effect? It would greatly benefit us all to see such entries.

May Allah bless you and your zealous concern for the religion.