[Yb4bulVR]

I think you may be referring to Imam Nawawi here and the trimming/shaving issue. If so, you need to really let that one go because your digging yourself further and further into a hole, never mind the fact that you are in effect dismissing a whole madhab (much in the same way as the ahle hadees do to Hanafis on issues such as raful yadayn).

PS: You have quoted Sh. Uthman dan Fodio on scrupulousness etc. you might want to do a search on him on this forum for a particular thread because as per your lofty standards he falls quite far short. He has described 4 levels of wara'a and you have asked the question whether any of the 'spiritual masters' have made it past level two. But I don't think Sh. Uthman dan Fodio would get past level 1 according to your lofty standards.

through all the digging I have learnt a lot, and hopefully will continue to learn

And no, I was referring to the very concept of providing scope for giving preference to an opposing tarjeeh/Ijtihaad of a latter day Mujtahid, who is qualitatively a relative minnow, on issues in which the early Mujtahids had already deliberated and agreed upon; a process which will naturally result, as is evident today, in the complete transformation of the Deen.

All the anomalous opinions that are increasingly in vogue today, can be justified on such a premise. Ibn Taymiyyah is cited to defend rulings such as that of three talaqs; Ibn al-Humam is cited to defend the widespread displacement of the ijma' practice of the Sahabah with eight rakats taraweeh; Ibn al-Hajj is cited to defend new forms of tawassul/istagathah; an-Nablusi is cited to defend the permissibility of music; and with such a process of transformation of Deen potentially unending, the likes of al-Albani and Ahmad Raza Khan are now cited to defend many questionable rulings practised by ulama today, all of which are justifiable under the pretext of new Ijtihad being added to the Madhab, or an unrecorded and untraceable ijtihad assumed to have been issued by an early Imam, overriding what appears to be the explicitly recorded ruling of the early Mujtahids from all four Madhabs.

There's a huge difference between a Mujtahid erring in his ijtihad, or a Wali making a slip, and the people that latch onto the errors. We do not deny the zuhd and rank of the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Arabi despite their errors. I've already explained this elsewhere:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post761083

Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani said in the 266th Letter of Volume 1:

“No practice of any Sufi is an argument to decide which is lawful or unlawful. Will it not be sufficient that instead of reproaching them we pass over their actions and leave them to the judgement of Allah? This is a matter in which the opinion of Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Abu Yousuf or Imam Muhammad should be considered authoritative rather than the practice of Abu Bakr Shibli or Abul Hasan Nuri. The half-baked Sufis of our day have taken to Raqs and whirling as an accepted religious rite and raised it to the level of divine service. These are persons who have taken their religion for sport and pastime “

Any view which conflicts with the official and authoritative position of the Shariah as confirmed by the Aimmah Mujtahideen and the early fuqaha, has to be rejected regardless of the status of the personality propagating such a view. There is no non-prophet who is free from error. If the one who advocates permissibility happens to be a reliable Aalim of the Deen, his view will be regarded as an error in ijtihad, or a misattribution, or some other suitable interpretation will be proffered. However, the laymen has no right to adopt such a position.

Despite the fact that we respect Shaykh Ibn Arabi and Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, we condemn and avoid their positions that are in conflict with the clear ruling of the Shar’iah as confirmed by the Aimmah Mujtahideen and the early fuqaha. Regardless of their rank and knowledge, their erroneous positions must be avoided. Any person who adopts their errors is clearly blameworthy, and is liable to be taken to task.

There are numerous warnings from the fuqaha that emphasize the fact that a person is on the border of Kufr if he adopts the anomalous positions that exists in our tradition:

Imam Al-Awza’i said:

“Whoever holds on to the rare and unusual positions of the Scholars has left Islam.”

Imam Sufyan al-Thawri said:

“Whoever pursues the rare and the unusual has gathered up all evil.”

Shaykh Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi said:

“He is not an Imam in `ilm who follows anomalous positions (al-shadhdh).”

Shaykh Sulayman al-Taymi said:

“If you take the dispensation (rukhsa) or error (zalla) of every `alim, you will become the gathering point of every evil.”

Allamah Sha’raani said:

“He who follows the obscurities of the ulama, has made his exit from Islam”

The Ahl al-Bid'ah tend to leech on to the anomalous positions of the fuqaha and Awliyah, whilst also anathematising others whom they do not agree with. Maulana al-Hakim al-Sayyid Murtad Hasan Chandpuri (1868 – 1951 CE) describes the balanced path of ensuring that the laws of the Shar'iah are not altered based on dubious actions or statements attributed to some fuqaha and Auliya, whilst also exonerating them if their status and wilayat is established:

"To label the noble Awliya and great Sufiyyah as mushriks and kafirs is (Allah Almighty forbid!) the work of the irreligious people and deviants. Whatever number of noble Awliya have passed away, all are our leaders and predecessors. Love for them is a means to salvation. The person whose wilayah is established, his speech, action and belief cannot be against the Shari‘ah. If any action or speech as a consequence of being human happens to oppose [the Shari‘ah], immediately thereupon, those esteemed personalities repent after knowledge. And a belief against Islam is impossible for the Awliya of Allah Almighty. One who is not a Muslim, how can he be a Wali?!

Thus, now, two matters must be established: one is whether a certain person is really a Wali or not, and second, if that speech or action really occurred from that Wali or not. If such speech is attributed to an accepted Wali which is against the Shari‘ah, it is necessary for us to deny that speech, and if that action or speech is established by an authoritative means, it should be interpreted in a way that is fitting to his position and is not against the blessed Shari‘ah. The reason is that those ecstatic words (kalimat shathiyyah) that emerged from some esteemed personalities, the ‘ulama even gave favourable interpretations of them, and explained them with a correct meaning in accordance with the Shari‘ah; and said that a statement being a word of disbelief is one matter and applying the ruling of disbelief on a speaker is another matter...

Some Statements of the Akabir which are Outwardly Opposing [the Shari‘ah] must be Interpreted

However, it is never permissible that if any action or speech against the Shari‘ah is attributed to a Buzurg or Wali, neither is his Wilayah verified, nor is the authenticity of the narration investigated, nor is any correct meaning devised for it that agrees with the Shari‘ah, rather an effort is made to make that matter opposing the Shari‘ah in agreement with the Shari‘ah, and make it permissible for the general Muslims.

After the establishment of the wilayah of a Wali and the authenticity of the narration, it is necessary to preserve the sanctity of the Awliya against anti-Shari‘ah [views], which can be acquired by a favourable interpretation in a goodly way. Why then will the thought of changing the established ruling of Shari‘ah occur?

If a person did not die after taking ten grams of arsenic, it should be said that he has an antidote with him or he will shortly travel to the world of lifelessness, not that arsenic can no longer be called poison, and everyone is given permission to take ten grams of arsenic. Arsenic is poison, and is certainly a poison. Taking it puts an end to life. That particular person not dying has a specific reason for it which cannot be made into a general rule. This principle should always be kept in mind." (Sabil al-Sadad fi Mas'alat al-Istimdad pp. 7-8)

And Al-Hafiz Abu al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 H) wrote:

وما زال العلماء يبين كل واحد منهم غلط صاحبه قصدا لبيان الحق لا لإظهار عيب الغالط ولا اعتبار بقول جاهل ، يَقُول : كيف يرد عَلَى فلان الزاهد المتبرك به ، لأن الانقياد إنما يكون إِلَى مَا جاءت به الشريعة لا إِلَى الأشخاص ، وَقَدْ يكون الرَّجُل من الأولياء وأهل الْجَنَّة وله غلطات فلا تمنع منزلته بيان زلله

"And the 'ulama continue, each of them to explain the error of his companion, with the intention to clarify the truth not to expose the defect of the one who made the error. There is no consideration of the statement of the ignorant person who says: 'How can so-and-so ascetic from whom blessing is received be refuted?!' Because loyalty and submission is only to what the Shari'ah has come with, not to personalities. Often a person is from the Awliya' and from the people of Jannah, but he has errors. Thus, his status does not prevent elucidating his slips."