[QysnZWB4]

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:



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.

Shaykh,

When I used the word revisionist, I was referring to the ulama today, and primarily that of the Hanafi Madhab, who are issuing rulings that completely contradict those issued by the early Mujtahids. The following are a few examples that have become increasingly prevalent today:

1) Rulings of permissibility for building over graves.
2) Rulings of permissibility for trimming below a fist-length, or even shaving.
3) Rulings of permissibility for tawassul/istagathah using words that easily lead to shirk.
4) Rulings of permissibilty for music.
5) Widespread displacement of the Sunnah practice, with eight rakats Taraweeh.

Contrary to those brothers (not referring to you) who appear to break into a frenzy when someone asks genuine questions regarding another Madhab, I believe that every person, be he Shafi'i, Maliki, or Hanbali, has the right to seek clarification from the Hanafis regarding the basis of the rulings mentioned above.

All of these rulings can be justified based on the Tarjeeh, new Ijtihad, or failing these two, an inferred non-traceable Tarjeeh from some latter day Mujtahid (let's say for example Ibn Abideen).

As far as I have understood thus far, for each and every ruling of Imam Nawawi that goes against the clearly recorded texts of the early Mujtahids confirming the most obvious import of the Ahadith, we are to assume that he had come across another opposing ruling of the founding Mujtahid, or some other unrecorded Daleel he had privy to, which must take precedence?

You do realise that from at least one angle, this rank conferred upon Imam Nawawi, which you seem to find acceptable, far supersedes my perfectly justified 'lionization' of the, clearly divinely ordained, entire formation process of the compendium of rulings that constituted the early Madhab.

Even the modernists demand of Ibn Taymiyyah and others, clearly recorded Daleel, or at least a traceable tarjeeh, before adopting their rulings that contradict those issued by the early Mujtahids.

And even if we were to dismiss the clearly recorded ruling of the early Mujtahids, and the majority of the fuqaha, shouldn't Imam Nawawi's ruling on plucking a few grey hairs be taken into account when determining what he himself may have meant when he used the word Makruh?

Regarding the word 'permissible', I used it in its linguistic sense to mean something that can be practised without condemnation, which is the meaning clearly ascribed to Makruh, in practical terms, by many ulama today.