بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

ليس للمنتسب إلى مذهب الشافعي في مسألة ذات القولين أو الوجهين أن يتخير فيعمل أو يفتي بأيهما شاء...عليه البحث عن الأرجح الأصح منهما

وأما المكروه فهو لفظ مشترك في عرف الفقهاء بين معان أحدها المحظور فكثيرا ما يقول الشافعي رحمه الله وأكره هذا وهو يريد التحريم

وأرادوا به كراهة تنزيه كما هو المشهور فى استعمال الفقهاء

إن الإثم فى المحرمة هو الظاهر؛ وأما المكروهة فلا إثم فيها فى الجملة ما لم يقترن بها ما يوجبها كالإصرار عليها إذ الإصرار على الصغيرة يصيرها كبيرة فكذلك الإصرار على المكروه فقد يصيره صغيرة؛ ولا فرق بين الصغيرة والكبيرة في مطلق التأثيم

اتَّفَقَ الْعُلَمَاءُ عَلَى النَّهْيِ عَنِ الصَّلَاةِ ، وَثَوْبُهُ مُشَمَّرٌ أَوْ كُمُّهُ أَوْ نَحْوُهُ ، أَوْ رَأْسُهُ مَعْقُوصٌ أَوْ مَرْدُودٌ شَعْرُهُ تَحْتَ عِمَامَتِهِ أَوْ نَحْوُ ذَلِكَ فَكُلُّ هَذَا مَنْهِيٌّ عَنْهُ بِاتِّفَاقِ الْعُلَمَاءِ ، وَهُوَ كَرَاهَةُ تَنْزِيهٍ فَلَوْ صَلَّى كَذَلِكَ فَقَدْ أَسَاءَ وَصَحَّتْ صَلَاتُهُ

قَوْلُهُ : ( عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ أَنَّهُ رَأَى ابْنَ الْحَارِثِ يُصَلِّي وَرَأْسُهُ مَعْقُوصٌ فَقَامَ فَجَعَلَ يَحِلُّهُ ) فِيهِ الْأَمْرُ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَالنَّهْيُ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ ، وَأَنَّ ذَلِكَ لَا يُؤَخَّرُ ، لَمْ يُؤَخِّرْهُ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ - رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا - حَتَّى يَفْرُغَ مِنَ الصَّلَاةِ ، وَأَنَّ الْمَكْرُوهَ يُنْكَرُ كَمَا يُنْكَرُ الْمُحَرَّمُ ، وَأَنَّ مَنْ رَأَى مُنْكَرًا وَأَمْكَنَهُ تَغْيِيرُهُ بِيَدِهِ غَيَّرَهُ بِهَا لِحَدِيثِ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ ، وَأَنَّ خَبَرَ الْوَاحِدِ مَقْبُولٌ . وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ

سبق في الحديث أن إعفاء اللحية من الفطرة فالإعفاء بالمد ، قال الخطابي وغيره : هو توفيرها وتركها بلا قص ، كره لنا قصها كفعل الأعاجم ، قال : وكان من زي كسرى قص اللحى وتوفير الشوارب ، قال الغزالي في الإحياء : اختلف السلف فيما طال من اللحية فقيل : لا بأس أن يقبض عليها ويقص ما تحت القبضة ، فعله ابن عمر ثم جماعة من التابعين ، واستحسنه الشعبي وابن سيرين ، وكرهه الحسن وقتادة ، وقالوا : يتركها عافية لقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم : { واعفوا اللحى } " .

قال الغزالي : والأمر في هذا قريب إذا لم ينته إلى تقصيصها ; لأن الطول المفرط قد يشوه الخلقة . هذا كلام الغزالي والصحيح كراهة الأخذ منها مطلقا ، بل يتركها على حالها كيف كانت للحديث الصحيح " { واعفوا اللحى } " ، وأما حديث عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده { أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : كان يأخذ من لحيته من عرضها وطولها } " فرواه الترمذي بإسناد ضعيف لا يحتج به

وأما إعفاء اللحية فهو إرسالها وتوفيرها. كره لنا أن نقصها كفعل بعض الأعاجم وكان من زي آل كسرى قص اللحى وتوفير الشوارب، فندب - صلى الله عليه وسلم- أمته إلى مخالفتهم في الزي والهيئة

Ibn Wahb said: I heard Malik say: “It was not from the condition of the people, nor those who came before from our predecessors, and I have not found anyone I follow say about something: ‘This is halal,’ and ‘this is haram.’ They would not be reckless in this. They would only say: ‘We detest [nakrah] such-and-such,’ and ‘we deem this good’ and ‘we avoid this’ and ‘we do not believe in this.’” ‘Atiq ibn Ya‘qub narrated it from him and he added: “And they would not say: ‘halal,’ nor ‘haram.’ Have you not heard the statement of Allah (Exalted is He): ‘ Say, “Have you ever considered, whatever provision Allah has sent down for your benefit, you have made up unlawful and lawful from it?”’ (10:59) Halal is what Allah and His Messener made halal and haram is what Allah and His Messenger made haram.”

I say: Many of the later scholars from the followers of the Imams imputed error on their imams due to this reason, whereby the Imams were careful in using the word “haram” and they used the word “karahah” so the latecomers negated prohibition from that in which the Imams used “karahah” and then the word karahah became insignificant and its burden became light on them, so some of them held it according to light (tanzih) [karahah], and others went even further therein to the karahah of tark al-awla (leaving what is better), and this is very common in their usage; so because of this great error occurred against the Shari ‘ah and against the imams. Imam Ahmad said about combining between two sisters in right-hand ownership (i.e. slavery): ‘I dislike it and I do not say it is haram’ while his madhhab is it is haram, and he was only being careful in using the word haram due to the opinion of ‘Uthman.

Abu al-Qasim ‘Umar ibn al-Husayn al-Khiraqi said in what he transmitted from Abu ‘Abd Allah [Ahmad ibn Hanbal]: “And it is disliked to do wudu in utensils of gold and silver.” And his madhhab is that it is not permissible. He said in the narration of Abu Dawud: “It is desirable [yustahabbu] to not enter the public bath but with an undergarment.” And this desirability is obligation. He said in the narration of Ishaq ibn Mansur: “When most of the wealth of a man is haram, it does not please me that his wealth is consumed” and this is in the meaning of prohibition.

...

This occurred on innumerable occasions in his responses, and likewise from other imams. Indeed, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan [al-Shaybani] stated explicitly that every makruh is haram, but when he did not find a categorical text, he would not use the term haram without qualification. Muhammad also narrated from Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf that it is closer to haram, and he said in al-Jami‘ al-Kabir: “It is detested to drink in utensils of gold and silver for men and women,” and its intent is prohibition, and likewise Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said: “It is detested to sleep on mattresses of silk and to rest on its pillows,” and their intent is prohibition, and Abu Hanifah and his two companions said: “It is detested for male children to wear gold and silk,” and the companions stated explicitly that it is haram...And this is very common in their speech.

As for the companions of Malik..

Likewise, al-Shafi'i said about playing chess: 'it is akin to futile entertainment, I detest it, and its prohibition is not clear to me,' so he stated its detestability, and he was unsure of its tahrim; hence, it is not permissible to attribute to him and to his madhhab that playing it is permissible and that it is mubah, because he did not say this nor what indicates to this...

From this also is that he stated the detestability of a man marrying his daughter that was created from the fluid of illicit intercourse, and he did not say at all that it is allowed or permissible. That which is fitting for his eminence, imamate, status, which Allah bestowed on him from religion, is that this detestablility is in the meaning of prohibition, and he used the term karahah [literally] because haram is what Allah and His Messenger hated. Indeed He (Almighty) said after mentioning what He prohibited of the prohibited things from his saying: “Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him” to His saying “do not say to them: uff”, to His saying: “Do not kill your children for fear of poverty” to His saying “Do not even go close to fornication” to His saying “Do not kill any person the life of whom is sanctified by Allah, except for a just reason” to the end of the verses, and then He said: “That which is evil, of all these, is detestable (makruh) in the sight of your Lord.” (17:23-38) and in the Sahih: "Verily Allah detests (kariha) for you gossip and asking much and wasting wealth."

The Salaf would use karahah in its meaning in which it was used in the speech of Allah and His Messenger. However, the later scholars devised a specific technical definition for karahah which is other than haram, the omission of which is superior to its performance, and then those of them who understood the speech of the imams according to the new technical definition understood it as such, and erred therein. And an uglier error than this is the one who held the word karahah or the word la yanbaghi in the speech of Allah and His Messenger according to the later technical meaning...(I‘lam al-Muwaqqi‘in, 2:75-82)

وأما كلام العلماء فإنهم – وإن أطلقوا الكراهية فى الأمور المنهي عنها – لا يعنون بها كراهية التنزيه فقط، وإنما هذا اصطلاح للمتأخرين حين أرادوا أن يفرقوا بين القبيلين، فيطلقون لفظ الكراهية على كراهية التنزيه فقط، ويخصون كراهية التحريم بلفظ التحريم أو المنع وأشباه ذلك

وأما المتقدمون من السلف فإنه لم يكن من شأنهم فيما لا نص فيه صريحا أن يقولوا: هذا حلال، وهذا حرام، ويتحامون هذه العبارة، خوفا مما فى الآية من قوله

وَلاَ تَقُولُوا لِمَا تَصِفُ أَلْسِنَتُكُمُ الْكَذِبَ هٰذَا حَلٰلٌ وَهٰذَا حَرَامٌ لِّتَفْتَرُوا عَلَى اللهِ الْكَذِب

وحكى مالك عمن تقدمه هذا المعنى، فإذا وجدت في كلامهم فى البدعة وغيرها: أكره هذا، ولا أحب هذا، وهذا مكروه، وما أشبه ذلك، فلا تقتطعن على أنهم يريدون التنزيه فقط

'As for the speech of ‘ulama’ – even if they use “karahiyyah” in matters that are prohibited – they do not mean thereby “karahiyyat al-tanzih” only. Rather, this is a convention of the later scholars: When they wished to differentiate between the two categories [of karahat al-tanzih and karahat al-tahrim/haram], they used the word “karahiyyah” for karahiyyat al-tanzih alone, and they designated karahiyyat al-tahrim with the word “tahrim” (prohibition) or “man‘” (proscription) and the equivalents of these.

As for the early scholars from the predecessors, it wasn’t from their temperament to say in that which there is no clear text: “This is halal” and: “This is haram,” and they avoided using such expressions, for fear of what is in the verse from His saying:

“Do not say about what your tongues describe falsely, “This is halal and this is haram” so that you invent a lie against Allah.” (16:116)

Malik related this usage [i.e. of karahiyyah for haram] from those who preceded him.

Thus, when “I dislike this (akrahu hadha),” “I do not love this (la uhibbu hadha),” “This is makruh,” and the likes of these are found in their speech regarding bid‘ah or something else, you must not have certainty that they intend tanzih thereby [as they may mean tahrim].'

Al-I‘tasam, 2:372

والحلاق ليس بجناية لأن فيه نسكا فى الرأس وليس كثير ألم وهو وإن كان فى اللحية لا يجوز فليس كثير ألم ولا ذهاب شعر لأنه يستخلف

وظاهر هذه العبارة التحريم

وقال الحليمي في منهاجه لا يحل لأحد أن يحلق لحيته ولا حاجبيه وإن كان له أن يحلق سباله لأن لحلقه فائدة وهي أن لا يعلق به دسم الطعام ورائحته ما يكره بخلاف حلق اللحية فإنه هجنة وشهرة وتشبه بالنساء فهو كجب الذكر

وما ذكره في حق اللحية حسن وإن كان المعروف فى المذهب الكراهة

قال الشيخان يكره حلق اللحية واعترضه ابن الرفعة في حاشية الكافية بأن الشافعي رضي الله تعالى عنه نص في الأم على التحريم قال الزركشي وكذا الحليمي في شعب الإيمان وأستاذه القفال الشاشي في محاسن الشريعة وقال الأذرعي الصواب تحريم حلقها جملة لغير علة بها كما يفعله القلندرية انتهى

ويحصل التعزير (بضرب) غير مبرح أو صفع وهو الضرب بجمع الكف (أو حبس) حتى عن الجمعة أو توبيخ بكلام أو تغريب أو إقامة من مجلس ونحوها مما يراها المعزر جنسا وقدار لا بحلق لحية. قال شيخنا: وظاهر حرمة حلقها وهو إنما يجئ على حرمته التي عليها أكثر المتأخرين أما على كراهته التي عليها الشيخان وآخرون فلا وجه للمنع إذا رآه الامام. انتهى.