[ensuppono]

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.a...=1898&CATE=164

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari said:

Keeping the above in mind, it becomes clear that to perform Salat behind Shias that are considered to be out of the fold of Islam is out of the question, and if one did pray behind such a person, his Salat will not be valid, thus must be repeated.

If the beliefs of a Shia is not to an extent that constitutes Kufr, then it is strongly disliked (makruh tahriman) to perform Salat behind him. Such Shias, even though they are not regarded as non-Muslims, are still considered to be deviated and transgressing (fisq), thus one must avoid performing Salat behind them.


Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his Durr al-Mukhtar:

"It is Makruh to pray behind a sinner, blind person or a innovator, meaning the one who holds beliefs that are not known from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace)".


Imam Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) comments on this by saying:

"The reason for not praying behind a sinner (m. in action or belief) is that he takes matters of religion lightly. Also, in praying behind such people, we are showing them respect, where as it is necessary to not show them respect"..It is reported in Sharh al-Munya that to perform Salat behind such people is Makruh Tahriman. According to Imam Malik and Imam Ahmad (in a narration), Salat behind them is not valid altogether" (Radd al-Muhtar, 1/560).


Most of the Imams said that its makruh. So, isn't it better to do something wajib that is makruh but halal instead of leaving the wajib thing?

[tsaaapla]

1) Imam Ash-Shafi'i: On one occasion Imam Shafi'i said concerning the Shia,
"I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Raafidi* Shia." and on another occasion he said; "Narrate knowledge from everyone you meet except for the raafidi* Shia, because they invent ahadith and adopt them as part of their religion." (Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah) *
(Some shia at the time of the Alid Imam Zayd ibn 'Ali demanded that he make a declaration of innocence (tabarra) from whoever disagreed with 'Ali's right to be Imam. When Zayd refused, they rejected him, and became known as the "raafida" or rejectors. Those who followed Imam Zayd became known as Zaydis, and have very little difference from mainstream Islam. The Raafidi evolved into the the various Imami shia sects, the largest of which is the Ithna 'Ashari.)

2) Imam Abu Hanifah: It is reported that often Imam Abu Hanifah used to repeat the following statement about the raafidi Shia; "Whoever doubts whether they are disbelievers has himself committed disbelief."

3) Imam Malik: Once when asked about the raafidi Shia, Imam Malik said; "Do not speak to them or narrate from them, for surely they are liars." During one of Imam Malik's classes, it was mentioned that the raafidi Shia curse the sahaba. Imam Malik recited the verse, "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them." (48:29) He then said, "Whoever becomes enraged when the sahaba are mentioned is the one about whom the verse speaks." (Tafseer al-Qurtubi)

4) Abu Zur'ah ar-Razi: He said of the raafidi Shia doctrine of cursing the sahaba, "If you see someone degrade any of the companions of the ProphetSAWS know that he is a disbeliever. Because the ProphetSAWS was real, what he brought was the truth and all of it was conveyed to us by way of the sahaba. What those disbelievers wish to do is cast doubt on the reliability of our narrators in order to invalidate the Qur'an and Sunnah. Thus the disbelievers are the ones most deserving of defamation."

5) Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi: During the period of Muslim rule in Spain, Imam Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm would often debate with the Catholic priests about their religious texts. He brought before them evidence of textual distortions in the Bible and the loss of the original manuscripts. When they replied by pointing out the Shia claims that the Qur'an has been distorted and altered, Ibn Hazm informed them that Shia claims were not valid evidence because the shia were not themselves muslims.

6) Imam Al-Alusi: He declared the raafidi Shia disbelievers because of their defamation of the sahaba. His position was based on the rulings of Imam Malik and other scholars. In response to their claim to be followers of the Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophet's SAWS family) Al-Alusi said, "No, they are really followers of the devils and the Ahl al-Bayt are innocent of them."

[tsaaapla]

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari said:

Keeping the above in mind, it becomes clear that to perform Salat behind Shias that are considered to be out of the fold of Islam is out of the question, and if one did pray behind such a person, his Salat will not be valid, thus must be repeated.

If the beliefs of a Shia is not to an extent that constitutes Kufr, then it is strongly disliked (makruh tahriman) to perform Salat behind him. Such Shias, even though they are not regarded as non-Muslims, are still considered to be deviated and transgressing (fisq), thus one must avoid performing Salat behind them.


Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his Durr al-Mukhtar:

"It is Makruh to pray behind a sinner, blind person or a innovator, meaning the one who holds beliefs that are not known from the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace)".


Imam Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) comments on this by saying:

"The reason for not praying behind a sinner (m. in action or belief) is that he takes matters of religion lightly. Also, in praying behind such people, we are showing them respect, where as it is necessary to not show them respect"..It is reported in Sharh al-Munya that to perform Salat behind such people is Makruh Tahriman. According to Imam Malik and Imam Ahmad (in a narration), Salat behind them is not valid altogether" (Radd al-Muhtar, 1/560).


Most of the Imams said that its makruh. So, isn't it better to do something wajib that is makruh but halal instead of leaving the wajib thing?

Ok. We have progressed to some extent. The post was in response to the fact that you said, "Second, there is nothing wrong to pray behind a Shia imam". Now you know that it is not true. Makruh tahriman is not just makruh. Just makruh would be makruh tanzeehan. Makruh tahriman means practically haraam.

[ensuppono]

Ok. We have progressed to some extent. The post was in response to the fact that you said, "Second, there is nothing wrong to pray behind a Shia imam". Now you know that it is not true. Makruh tahriman is not just makruh. Just makruh would be makruh tanzeehan. Makruh tahriman means practically haraam.

Because I am taught that, as an ahlus sunnah wal jamaah, we are not supposed to say those who follow other sects are considered as kafirun. This is what I am taught.
So, I thought, it wouldn't be a big problem than I he prays behind a Shia Imam because Shia is also considered as Muslims.
Do tell me more about the difference between makruh tahriman and haram, if you don't mind.

[parurorges]

Brothers discussing the Shia is off-topic, pls Open another thread.

[lionsiy]

Because I am taught that, as an ahlus sunnah wal jamaah, we are not supposed to say those who follow other sects are considered as kafirun. This is what I am taught.
So, I thought, it wouldn't be a big problem than I he prays behind a Shia Imam because Shia is also considered as Muslims.

Not all Shi'as are considered Muslims; Zaydis are still Muslims (but Ahl al-Bid'ah); Twelvers, Ismailis and other are deemed to be out of the folds of Islam and prayer behind them is invalid.

[Spongebob]

Ace Abbas is, apparently, a shafi'i, and they do not have the concept of karahah tahrimiyyah . . . In the shafi'i madh-hab, praying behind ahl al-bid'ah is permissible. In the hanafi madh-hab, praying behind ahl al-bid'ah is either [1] makruh tanzihan (al-haskafi and others) [2] makruh tahriman (ibn 'abidin mentions both opinions) which means one incurs sin if one performs it (i.e. it is akin to haram, except the strength of evidence is slightly weaker).

HOWEVER, none of the above is relevant if we are discussing a rafidi 'ja'fari'; they make takfir of as-sayyidah A'ishah radhiy Allah 'anha amongst other things which take them out of the fold of Islam, as far as I know.

was-salam

[plalleste]

I don't mind where the thread has gone: it has some bearing on my original question, which included the fact:

"There is no public transportation within walking distance (~4km) of me, and the public transportation, if I could walk that far, does not come close to any masjid except for a Shi'a one."

To answer the unspoken question, it's a standard Jafari Twelver place, always going about how Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman (RA) are kuffar who stole the succession from Ali, how there were Fourteen Perfect Imams that came to teach the religion because Rasul'Allah (SAW) did such a bad job of it, they curse Aisha (RA) as a kafir (they should be called "Fourteeners" or "Misguided by al-Shaytan") , and how the last of those Imams is now sleeping in a cave like the Companions of the Cave and is al-Mahdi, claiming the Qur'an (Allah speaks the truth) has undergone tahrif, and the true book is the "Suhuf Fatima" or "Kitab Fatima" which was destroyed by one of those caliphs (RA), so on.

And beyond cursing the rightly-guided successors, they try to claim all the Sahih traditions in Bukhari and Muslim (and Nasa'i, and Abu Da'ud, and Tirmidhi, and Ibn Maja, and Darimi, and Daraqutni, the the Musnad, and al-Muwatta, and Ibn Khuzaymah) are lies, and throw up massive collections of munkar and mawdoo ahadith (kitab al kafi) to "counter" them.

I know because they got me to talk to them one time to try and recruit me when I was less knowledgeable in Islam and weaker of eeman than I am today, by spouting the lies, "We love the family of the Prophet (SAW), did you know your Sunnis don't follow the Prophet (SAW), but follow Aishah (RA) and the successors instead?"

I find it odd as well that almost all of the Shi'a masjid is full of white people, very few people of colour. Many of them aren't even Arabs or Indians, and can only speak English. I suppose the rabid promotion of Salafism in the West is backfiring.

[parurorges]

I don't mind where the thread has gone: it has some bearing on my original question, which included the fact:

"There is no public transportation within walking distance (~4km) of me, and the public transportation, if I could walk that far, does not come close to any masjid except for a Shi'a one."

To answer the unspoken question, it's a standard Jafari Twelver place, always going about how Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman (RA) are kuffar who stole the succession from Ali, how there were Fourteen Perfect Imams that came to teach the religion because Rasul'Allah (SAW) did such a bad job of it, they curse Aisha (RA) as a kafir (they should be called "Fourteeners" or "Misguided by al-Shaytan") , and how the last of those Imams is now sleeping in a cave like the Companions of the Cave and is al-Mahdi, claiming the Qur'an (Allah speaks the truth) has undergone tahrif, and the true book is the "Suhuf Fatima" or "Kitab Fatima" which was destroyed by one of those caliphs (RA), so on.

And beyond cursing the rightly-guided successors, they try to claim all the Sahih traditions in Bukhari and Muslim (and Nasa'i, and Abu Da'ud, and Tirmidhi, and Ibn Maja, and Darimi, and Daraqutni, the the Musnad, and al-Muwatta, and Ibn Khuzaymah) are lies, and throw up massive collections of munkar and mawdoo ahadith (kitab al kafi) to "counter" them.

I know because they got me to talk to them one time to try and recruit me when I was less knowledgeable in Islam and weaker of eeman than I am today, by spouting the lies, "We love the family of the Prophet (SAW), did you know your Sunnis don't follow the Prophet (SAW), but follow Aishah (RA) and the successors instead?"

I find it odd as well that almost all of the Shi'a masjid is full of white people, very few people of colour. Many of them aren't even Arabs or Indians, and can only speak English. I suppose the rabid promotion of Salafism in the West is backfiring.

Praying behind a Kaffir is Haram.

[plalleste]

Indeed, that is why I do not attend the communal Friday prayer because the only masjid accessible (within 4km of public transport route) is of Jafari kuffar.

[rammossyAcron]

It really sad to hear that bro. Be patient, Allah will provide in ways we never imagined, InshAllah.
May give you the ability to attend Juma'a regularly. Ameen.

[tsaaapla]

Ace Abbas is, apparently, a shafi'i, and they do not have the concept of karahah tahrimiyyah . . . In the shafi'i madh-hab, praying behind ahl al-bid'ah is permissible. In the hanafi madh-hab, praying behind ahl al-bid'ah is either [1] makruh tanzihan (al-haskafi and others) [2] makruh tahriman (ibn 'abidin mentions both opinions) which means one incurs sin if one performs it (i.e. it is akin to haram, except the strength of evidence is slightly weaker).

HOWEVER, none of the above is relevant if we are discussing a rafidi 'ja'fari'; they make takfir of as-sayyidah A'ishah radhiy Allah 'anha amongst other things which take them out of the fold of Islam, as far as I know.

was-salam

brother. The following is a good exposition of the Shafi'i stand on the issue by Shaykh Amjad Rasheed. I am putting it here for the benefit of the OP and other posters:

Answer:
Prohibitive Dislikedness vs. Non-Prohibitive Dislikedness:
As for the statement of the questioner that some scholars say that the Shafi`is who say that shaving or shortening the beard is disliked actually mean that it is prohibitively disliked (makruh tahriman), it is incorrect. This is because whenever a Shafi`i scholar says that something is disliked (makruh), he means that it is something that the Lawgiver has non-firmly asked us to refrain from, such that someone who refrains from it is rewarded, but someone who performs it is not punished. In other words, when a Shafi`i describes something as being disliked, he means that it is non-prohibitively disliked (makruh tanzihan) and that performing the action does not entail any sin.
The concept of prohibitive dislikedness (karahah tahrimiyyah) belongs to the nomenclature of the great and respected scholars of the Hanafi school, as has been explained in the books of legal methodology (usul al-fiqh), but it is foreign to the nomenclature of the Shafi`i school. Although some Shafi`is have described certain actions as being prohibitively disliked (makruh tahriman), they do not mean what the Hanafis mean when they use the term.
According to the Hanafis, a prohibition that is established by probabilistic evidence is termed prohibitively disliked (makruh tahriman) whereas a prohibition that is established by definitive evidence is termed unlawful (haram). When the Shafi`is use the term “prohibitively disliked”, they mean something quite different: they are merely trying to join between conflicting scholarly statements when a scholar says at one point that something is unlawful and at another point that it is disliked. In order to prevent him from contradicting himself, they interpret his describing something as “disliked” as being “prohibitively disliked”. This does not mean at all that when they describe something as being disliked it is, in fact, prohibited and sinful, as is the case with the Hanafis in certain sections of their law manuals.
The great Hanafi scholar of exacting verification, Ibn `Abidin al-Shami said in his Hashiya in the Chapter on Disliked Matters in Ablution,
It says in the book Bahr in the section of disliked matters in prayer, “Disliked matters in this chapter are of two types: (1) matters that are prohibitively disliked—this is how their words are understood when then they simply describe a matter as being “disliked”, as mentioned in the chapter of zakat in Fath al-Qadir—and (2) …”
This is how the Hanafis understand the term.
As for the Shafi`is, when a ruling is described as being simply “disliked”, then what is meant is “non-prohibitively disliked”. This is what is established in the books of methodology and law of the Shafi`i school. The great scholar of legal methodology, Qadi al-Baydawi, said in the Minhaj of legal methodology, by way of explaining the five rulings according to the Shafi`is: “… the disliked (makruh) is that whose leaver is praised but whose doer is not blamed …”
Here is an example of a section from the works of the Shafi`i jurists that corresponds with the above explanation of the meaning of prohibitive and non-prohibitive dislikedness in the Shafi`i school. Imam Khatib al-Shirbini said in al-Iqna` fi hall alfaz abi shuja` in the Book of Fasting,
It is disliked to fast on a day of doubt (K: i.e., non-prohibitively disliked. Isnawi said, “This is well-known, explicitly mentioned [in the works of the Shafi`is], and the position of the majority [Shafi`is]. The relied-upon position in the school, however, is that it is unlawful, (cf. Rawda, Minhaj, and Majmu`) because of the saying of `Amman b. Yasir, “Whoever fasts a day of doubt has disobeyed Abul-Qasim (may Allah bless him and give him peace).”” Note: It is possible to interpret the [usage of the term “disliked] by the author as “prohibitively disliked”, whereby his words would correspond to the relied-upon position of the school.)
Play close attention to how he explains the meaning of “dislikedness” in words of Abu Shuja` as meaning non-prohibitive dislikedness, which is the default meaning of “disliked” whenever the word is used without further qualification. Then, after mentioning that this goes against the relied-upon position of the school, he alerts us to the possibility of interpreting “dislikedness” in the words of Abu Shuja` as referring to prohibitive dislikedness with the aim of forcing the author’s words to agree with the relied-upon position in the school on the issue. This is further confirmed by the words of the author of the marginal glosses on the work, the great scholar Sulayman al-Bujayrimi, who commented on Khatib al-Shirbini’s words, “it is possible to interpret the words of the author …” by saying, “He said this because whenever something is described as being “disliked” without further qualification, it means that the matter is non-prohibitively disliked.”
The great scholar of exacting verification, Jalal al-Mahalli, said in his commentary on the Minhaj in the Book of Fasting during his discussion on the matters that are recommended for a fasting person to avoid,
… and for him to refrain from cupping (M: and bloodletting because they weaken him) and kissing (M: based on—regarding the one whose lust is thereby aroused—the Muharrar’s describing it as disliked without any further qualification, which is understood as referring to non-prohibitive dislikedness …
Note how he explains that when something is simply described as being “disliked” without any further qualification, it means that it is non-prohibitively disliked.
Something that further indicates that the “dislikedness” meant by the imams Nawawi and Rafi`i in this case in particular means non-prohibitive dislikedness is that the scholars of the Shafi`i school who transmitted this position from them explicitly mention that Imam Halimi’s saying, “It is not permissible for anyone to shave his beard,” is weak (as mentioned above). They did this in contradistinction to the two imams’ position of dislikedness. Had they understood from the two imams’ usage of the term “dislikedness” that the dislikedness was a prohibitive dislikedness, they would not have described Imam Halimi’s position as being weak, for something that is prohibitively disliked can correctly be described as “not being permissible,” and Imam Halimi’s statement would therefore not be weak, but correct. This clearly indicates that the two imams’ meant that shaving the beard is non-prohibitively disliked, not prohibitively disliked.
The upshot is that the relied-upon position of our school, which is the position of the two shaykhs, Nawawi and Rafi`i, and confirmed by the late Shafi`is whose works are relied upon for issuing formal legal opinion (fatwa) is that growing a full beard is a confirmed sunna for men, not an obligation. Therefore, anyone who shaves or shortens his beard without an excuse will not be sinful, but will have committed something disliked because of his contravention of the prophetic command that has been established in rigorously authenticated hadiths, and his contravention of the established practice of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). According to the Shafi`i school, someone who does something that is disliked—like someone who leaves something that is recommended—is not thereby sinful, as was established from the previously mentioned words of Imam Baydawi. Such a person does, however, miss out on great reward. As for someone who shaves or shortens his beard because of a legally valid excuse, such as an illness, or fear of a tyrant who threatens him because of his growing a full beard, he is completely blameless because of Allah Most High’s saying, “He has not placed any hardship for you in your religion.”
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.

Written by the one in need of divine forgiveness, Dr. Amjad Rasheed al-Maqdisi, Dean of the Faculty of Islamic Law and Legal Methodology at Ahqaf University, Hadramawt, Yemen.

[plalleste]

I think I understand that. It is very twisted and hard for my English ability to understand. It makes the madhhab al-Shafi'ee seem ridiculously complicated!

Essentially, there is only makruh and no makruh tahriman in the madhhab al-Shafi'ee, and al-Shafi'ee has one less level of ahkam in his madhhab, and it is haraam to hold one to the standard of a madhhab they do not follow, because all madhhab passed down from the four mujtahid are valid, as it is impossible and impermissible to force taqwa on to someone who does minimum (as trying to command a man to do 42 raka't a day instead of 17 or 20, where 17 is the minimum agreed upon as fardh by all schools and passed down in the Sahih traditions, Hanafi consider 20 to be minimum [wajib witr], or consider that one must do 4 raka't before dhuhr to fulfill the Sunnah where Shafi'ee only do 2).

Is this correct understanding?

And, it goes in to very much complexity and referencing in establishing the Shafi'ee position of makruh.

[ensuppono]

I think I understand that. It is very twisted and hard for my English ability to understand. It makes the madhhab al-Shafi'ee seem ridiculously complicated!

Essentially, there is only makruh and no makruh tahriman in the madhhab al-Shafi'ee, and al-Shafi'ee has one less level of ahkam in his madhhab, and it is haraam to hold one to the standard of a madhhab they do not follow, because all madhhab passed down from the four mujtahid are valid, as it is impossible and impermissible to force taqwa on to someone who does minimum (as trying to command a man to do 42 raka't a day instead of 17 or 20, where 17 is the minimum agreed upon as fardh by all schools and passed down in the Sahih traditions, Hanafi consider 20 to be minimum [wajib witr], or consider that one must do 4 raka't before dhuhr to fulfill the Sunnah where Shafi'ee only do 2).

Is this correct understanding?

Yes, you are right. We only have makruh. To be simple, there are only six statuses in shafi'i (as what I learned). They are wajib, sunnah muakkad, sunnah, mubah, makruh and haram. As for fard, we have two types of fard; fard 'ayn and fard kifayah.

And yes, our fard prayers only consist of 17 rakaat a day. In shafi'i, witr is not wajib. It's considered to be sunnah muakkad.

Praying two rakaat before dhuhr is sunnah muakkad. However, you can add another two rakaat to fulfill the sunnah (ghair muakkadah).