[reawnvam]

The Majlis said they had the original article (i.e. they weren't just using the questioners statement). Yet still there appeared to have been little refrain in the language and manner they answered in.

That is true.

[otheloComRole]

What a thorough refutation....!


__________________________________________________ _________________________________

Brother the refutation hasn't taken place yet, so hold your horses for little longer.

[Biassasecumma]

The reason for asking the definition of Makruh, is that some brothers take Makruh lightly. Since you are a Shafi'i we accept that shaving the beard is Makruh as per the Shafi'is.

I would like to know what the Shafi'i Ulema say about a person who has made it a habit to act purposely on a Makruh. Even though he knows it to be makruh. This is a general question not specific to the beard issue.

Any Shafi'i Brothers?

[triardwonvada]

Mufti Abdool Kader Hoosen has said that the beard is wajib according to all four Imams. He goes on to say that Shaykh Zakariyya has written the same in his book ihfa al-lihya of which Shaykh Bin Baz has written footnotes. Further, Mufti Saheb met a senior Shafi'i scholar of Madinah and he asked him the position of the Shafi'i madhab and he said that it is wajib. Anyone who claims otherwise has made a buhtan against the 'aimmah.

[Zdfjpbth]

Mufti Abdool Kader Hoosen has said that the beard is wajib according to all four Imams. He goes on to say that Shaykh Zakariyya has written the same in his book ihfa al-lihya of which Shaykh Bin Baz has written footnotes. Further, Mufti Saheb met a senior Shafi'i scholar of Madinah and he asked him the position of the Shafi'i madhab and he said that it is wajib. Anyone who claims otherwise has made a buhtan against the 'aimmah.

Lolz... Bro. Do you know the details of the Ikhtilaaf in this matter in the Shafi'i Madhab. There is valid ikhtilaaf inside the Madhab whether its makrooh or haraam to shave ones beard. Also it gets a lot more deeper when one gets into the definition of the beard according to Shafi'i Madhab. Let ulema issue statements, bro you shouldn't issue statements like ' Anyone who claims otherwise has made a buhtan against the 'aimmah'. Does that include Imam Nawawi, Al Rafi'i, Ibn Hajar and Al-Ramli ? Bro, kindly do not speak without knowledge, especially declarations like above. Its dangerous.

Below are mentioned ulema on both sides, who thought it was only makhrooh and the others who thought it was Haraam:



Shaykh Muhammad Al-Akiti states, “…the relied upon fiqhi opinion for the Shafi’is, for ‘amma (public) as well as khassa (scholars), by living (such as Habib Zayn Ibn Sumayt al-Madani) as well as those recently moved-from-this-world authorities (such as, the well-known Musnid al-Waqt, Shaykh Muhammad Yasin al-Fadani al-Makki) is still that it is Makruh (all four Tawa’if of the school, al-Nawawi and al-Rafi’i, Ibn Hajar and al-Ramli, including Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya al-Ansari, concur on this hukm)…”

In support of Shaykh Muhammad Al-Akiti’s establishment of Imam An-Nawawi’s view, I would like to mention the statement recorded by Imam Ash-Sha’rani who quote the Mujtahid Imam As-Suyuti as saying,
لما بلغتُ مرتبةَ الترجيح لم أخرجْ في الإفتاء عن ترجيح النوويِّ وإن كان الراجحُ عندي خلافَه

“Even when I became qualified to independently determine the official, relied-upon position of the school (rajih), I refrained from going against the verdicts of An-Nawawi, regardless if [what I determined was the] correct view was with me, I did not contradict him.”

Those who deemed it haram to shave the beard are not lightweights either. Al-Qaffal Ash-Shashi is said to be the “Scholar of his time!” He was a student of the great Shafi’i Imam Ibn Khuzaymah as well as the non-Shafi’i Mujtahid and Mufassir Ibn Jarir At-Tabari.

P.s. The definition of beard in Shafi'i Madhab is only the lihya(chin) not the aridin(sideburns).

[adolfadsermens]

who thought it was only makhrooh and the others who thought it was Haraam:

My brother, I would be very careful when using the term "only makrooh" as makrooh means reprehensible. A reprehensible act done with impunity and as habit will raise the severity of the sin.

May Allah Ta'ala forgive us all and keep you and family in aafiyah.

[KhJOHbTM]

When 'Salafis' and Gibril Haddad does it (because it's directed against our akaabir) it is unacceptable.

When Deobandis do it, it is acceptable, propagated, and defended: "Such and such Mufti Saheb is a great faaqih, zaahid, IMAM! He has done so much for the Ummah! How dare anyone criticize his foul language that we spend a lot of time criticizing Ahmed Raza Khan and everyone else for! What's a double standard?"

[Zdfjpbth]

My brother, I would be very careful when using the term "only makrooh" as makrooh means reprehensible. A reprehensible act done with impunity and as habit will raise the severity of the sin.

May Allah Ta'ala forgive us all and keep you and family in aafiyah.

'only makrooh' is used in comparison with haraam. The usage is well in context. Nobody is encouraging doing a makhrooh act here. Why do you have to blow things out of proportion here.

[Xcqjwarl]

When 'Salafis' and Gibril Haddad does it (because it's directed against our akaabir) it is unacceptable.

When Deobandis do it, it is acceptable, propagated, and defended: "Such and such Mufti Saheb is a great faaqih, zaahid, IMAM! He has done so much for the Ummah! How dare anyone criticize his foul language that we spend a lot of time criticizing Ahmed Raza Khan and everyone else for! What's a double standard?"

Very true. Everything is fine till it fits in their world view. Their so called principles are just a party line.

[KuevDulin]

I just stumbled upon this article by Majlisul Ulama of South Africa, led by Hadhrat Mufti A S Desai.

The language is shocking to say the very least; and coming from a whole consortium of 'ulamaa - it is extremely disappointing.

[Biassasecumma]

When 'Salafis' and Gibril Haddad does it (because it's directed against our akaabir) it is unacceptable.

When Deobandis do it, it is acceptable, propagated, and defended: "Such and such Mufti Saheb is a great faaqih, zaahid, IMAM! He has done so much for the Ummah! How dare anyone criticize his foul language that we spend a lot of time criticizing Ahmed Raza Khan and everyone else for! What's a double standard?"

Very true. Everything is fine till it fits in their world view. Their so called principles are just a party line.

Can we do the Tango?

How are your pots related to this thread

[KhJOHbTM]

Can we do the Tango?

How are your pots related to this thread

Because this article does exactly what Deobandis are always accusing Salafis of doing, that is - being intolerant of furoo' in deen and causing fitna, and worst of all, using language that does not befit a guttersnipe, let alone an 'aalim like Mufti AS Desai (whom I still admire for his wala' and bara' and hatred of secularists).

This isn't to say that 'Salafis' don't do that - they do. But if you're not going to act similarly towards all instances of such matters, then you lose all the right to complain about them when others do it.

[Xcqjwarl]

Can we do the Tango?

How are your pots related to this thread

Here is the general party line adopted while arguing with Salafis.

1. All the four madhabs are HAQ
2. No outsider has any right to castigate or deplore a ruling of any of the four madhabs.
3. It is upto the scholars of the respective madhab to decide which ruling is Mu'thamad . Raajih , Mufta bihi etc.

Join the rest of the dots yourself. Anyways kindly continue with the thread.

[Muhabsssa]

Mufti Abdool Kader Hoosen has said that the beard is wajib according to all four Imams. He goes on to say that Shaykh Zakariyya has written the same in his book ihfa al-lihya of which Shaykh Bin Baz has written footnotes. Further, Mufti Saheb met a senior Shafi'i scholar of Madinah and he asked him the position of the Shafi'i madhab and he said that it is wajib. Anyone who claims otherwise has made a buhtan against the 'aimmah.

I gave Mufti Saheb the cd of Shaykh Taha Karaans dars to the Ulama on the Structure of the Shafi'ee Madhab. Mufti Saheb (may Allah continue to bless us through his ilm) is thus well aware of the manner in which Shaykha Taha laid out the method of Tarjeeh in the Madhab. If this is to be accepted then there is no doubt that the ruling within this beautiful madhab, is that the shaving of the beard is Makrooh and not Haraam.

The Shaykh you are referring to that Mufti Saheb met, is the great Shafi’ee faqih, Allama Umar Jilani (may Allah protect him)

Anyone who claims otherwise has made a buhtan against the 'aimmah.

Are these yours, or mufti sahebs words?

[rbVmVlQ2]

Wa'alaikum salaam

I am just asking what is the ruling of doing a makruh act? Anything unreasonable in that? I apologise if it is....

Cos in the hanafi madhhab multiple makruhs can turn into haram. And shaving a beard is a lifelong act. So ACCCORDING TO HANAFIS it would turn haram after a while due to persisting in a makruh deed for a long time.

So I just needed to know the corresponding views on committing makruh in the shafi'i madhhab.

Your question is answered in the detailed answer from Sunnipath about beard in Shafi'i fiqh.
Excerpt below:

"It is important to point out that someone who shaves
his beard in order to turn away from the sunna, or with the intention
of imitating non-Muslims or people of disobedience out of admiration
of them, then this is completely unlawful without any scholarly
disagreement whatsoever. Rather, if someone does this in order to
mock the blessed and pure sunna of our Prophet (Allah bless him and
give him peace) then—and Allah is our refuge—this would constitute
disbelief and would take one out of the fold of Islam.


I am only drawing attention to this point because I see that many
ignorant Muslims have been duped by un-Islamic cultural practices
that have invaded their societies: such people should realize the
danger of their ways and fix themselves by turning to Allah Most High
in sincere repentance and by venerating the sunna and the Sacred
Law of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace).


As for someone who merely shaves his beard without any excuse,
and without intending any of the above, then he has committed
something that is disliked and thereby loses out on tremendous
reward, but—according to the Shafi`i school—he is not sinful."

[end excerpt]

Wallaahu A'lam.

[adolfadsermens]

'only makrooh' is used in comparison with haraam. The usage is well in context. Nobody is encouraging doing a makhrooh act here. Why do you have to blow things out of proportion here.

Please accept my apologies. The context is now clear.

[rbVmVlQ2]

Is da'wah fee sabeelillah supposed to be restricted to people within own's madhhab???

This question is also answered in the answer on Beard from Sunnipath by Sheikh Amjad:

The Impermissibility of Commanding the Right
and Forbidding the Wrong in Matters of Disagreement

I would like to conclude this answer by mentioning that the rulings
of commanding the right and forbidding the wrong only apply to
matters that are agreed upon among scholars as being obligatory
or unlawful. As for something that is differed upon, such as the issue
under discussion, it is not permissible to condemn someone for doing it.
It is, however, recommended for one to give sincere advice to such a
person and to encourage him to adopt the more religiously precautionary
position by extricating himself from the disagreement of the scholars.

The great scholar, the Proof of Islam, Imam Ghazali said in the Ihya during
his discussion of the integrals and conditions of commanding the right,

"The fourth condition is that the matter being condemned be something
that is condemnable without being subject to scholarly disagreement.
Commanding the right and forbidding the wrong does not apply to anything
that falls under the realm of scholarly disagreement. It is therefore not
permissible for a follower of the Hanafi school to condemn a follower of
the Shafi`i school for eating a lizard, a hyena, or meat upon which the
name of Allah was not pronounced [even though such matters may be
unlawful in the Hanafi school]."

Imam Nawawi said in his commentary on Sahih Muslim,

Scholars only condemn what is agreed upon [as being unlawful].
As for something that is differed upon, it may not be condemned because
either (a) the conclusion of every mujtahid is correct—and this is the
position adopted by many (or most) of the scholars of exacting
verification—or (b) only one of them is correct but we don’t know with
certainty which one is incorrect and [whoever he may be] he is not
sinful [for reaching his incorrect conclusion].

However, if one encourages such a person to extricate himself from
scholarly disagreement by way of giving sincere advice, then this is
a good and praiseworthy thing when done with gentleness. This is
because scholars agree that is encouraged to extricate oneself from
scholarly disagreement when doing so does not result in contravening
a sunna or falling into another disagreement.

And Allah Most High knows best what the correct position is and to
Him is the final return.

[end excerpt]

Wallaahu A'lam.

[Yswxomvy]

MashaAllah the Shafi'i brothers here have clarified the position very well.

The language used in the so called "refutation" is shocking subhanAllah.

[CHEAPPoem]

My brother, I would be very careful when using the term "only makrooh" as makrooh means reprehensible. A reprehensible act done with impunity and as habit will raise the severity of the sin.

May Allah Ta'ala forgive us all and keep you and family in aafiyah.

Nope, makruh in this context means one is rewarded for leaving it, but not punished for doing it. There is no such shafi'i ruling saying to do perform makruh actions repeatedly 'raises the severity of the sin' - in fact, it's not a sin to begin with, let alone raising its severity.

If you can show me a reliable text to the contrary, I'll be glad to change my position.

[adolfadsermens]

Mine was not a fiqhi statement, it was meant for caution. After brother Amr clarified what he meant I have apologised. I thought he was encouraging a makruh act which he was not.

Could you please kindly show me where it is in the Shafi'i mathab that committing a makruh act is not a sin to begin with? I was ignorant of this aspect and am now intrigued that in the Shafi'i mathab a makruh act is not a sin to begin with.