Questions regarding revisionist versions of the Madhabs today

[umar_italy]

My primary aim in starting this thread is this:

Certain rulings, at least on the surface, appear to contradict the rulings issued by the early fuqaha. Someone here might know the answer why. I have contacted scholars directly but the answers were very unsatisfactory to say the least.

Any clarification by the scholars here would be very useful for me

Have you tried contacting Shaykh Taha Keran?

[SeekerOfGuidance]

Have you tried contacting Shaykh Taha Keran?

If his email is available publically could you post it here. If not, could you email me his contact.

[umar_italy]

If his email is available publically could you post it here. If not, could you email me his contact.

I though I had it, but it seems I remember wrongly..

Anyway, the following is all I could find; I think you will be able to reach him following one of these routes insha'Allah:

http://www.shafiifiqh.com/about/shaykh-taha-karaan/
http://www.muslim.co.za/education/co...versities/duai (Phone number and madrasa address)
http://web.archive.org/web/200711261...za/contact.htm (webmaster's contact)

(P.S.: Shaykh Taha Karaan himself masha'Allah has a fistful lenght beard).

[SeekerOfGuidance]

I though I had it, but it seems I remember wrongly..

Anyway, the following is all I could find; I think you will be able to reach him following one of these routes insha'Allah:

http://www.shafiifiqh.com/about/shaykh-taha-karaan/
http://www.muslim.co.za/education/co...versities/duai (Phone number and madrasa address)
http://web.archive.org/web/200711261...za/contact.htm (webmaster's contact)

(P.S.: Shaykh Taha Karaan himself masha'Allah has a fistful lenght beard).

[SeekerOfGuidance]

The obligation on the non-Mujtahid (one who is not qualified to derive rulings directly from the Qur'aan and Sunnah) is to follow the most qualified scholarship possible. There are absolutely no institutions that possess more qualification and rigour, and have undergone greater scrutiny and deliberation by the best minds the Ummah has ever witnessed, than the four Madhabs, the bulk of rulings of which were concluded upon by the first few generations involved in their codification. Where the four Imams might have erred, the early Mujtahids amended the ruling of the Madhab in a process that was administered by the best of generations. Spiritually and materialistically they possessed advantages for Ijtihad (the process of derivation of rulings) and Tarjeeh (giving preference to a particular Ijtihad), which none of the Ummah will ever acquire again.

By consensus they possessed the most insight into, knowledge and understanding of the Deen (religion). They were blessed with the Suhba (company), guidance, and tutelage of those who had acquired Deen directly from the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and the Salaf. The more one studies the miraculous processes that Allah brought about in order to preserve the Deen, the more one is compelled to realise the fact that the Ijtihad adopted for the Madhab by the early Mujtahids, is practically akin to Nass (divinely revealed text) for the non-Mujtahid.

The unsurpassably superior position for Ijtihad held by the four Imams, and the early Mujtahids who verified or amended the ruling of the Madhab, is further amplified by the fact that their Ijtihad was based on narrations whose chain consisted solely of the first few generations. Furthermore, many of these narrations might quite conceivably not have reached the time of Bukhari, Muslim etc. with a sanad (chain of narration) short and reliable enough for admissibility as evidence for formulating rulings.

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah's statement here succintly summarises the unmatchable advantages for Ijtihad possessed by the early Mujtahids:

“If we were to believe that all the Ahadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) were confined to books, then no Alim knows all that is written in books and nor is it possible for anyone to know all. Instead, at times a person has many books with him but does not know all which it contains. In fact, those who came before the compilation of these books were much more knowledgeable than those who came afterwards. This is because many Ahadith were authentic in their time but reached us through an unknown narrator, or with a broken chain, or did not reach us at all…Their books were their hearts which contained manifold more than what is contained in these [present] books. And this is something that a person with some understanding of the matter has not the slightest doubt in." (Raf’ al-Malam, Ahtar al-Hadith al-Shareef)

The fuqaha from all Madhabs agree that Ijtihad will always continue for new developments, for changes in circumstances, and for issues in which the early Mujtahids did not deal with. However, to provide scope for giving tarjeeh to an opposing 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, is tantamount to opening the door to transform the Deen completely, and to abrogate rulings adopted through an unsurpassably superior process with those formulated by relatively deficient and embryonic processes.

All the anomalous opinions that are increasingly in vogue today, can be justified on the premise of giving tarjeeh to the Ijtihad of a latter day Mujtahid. Imam Nawawi is cited to defend the permissibility of shaving; Ibn Taymiyyah is cited to defend the ruling of three talaqs; Ibn al-Humam is cited to defend the practice of eight rakats taraweeh; Ibn al-Hajj is cited to defend new forms of tawassul/istagathah; an-Nablusi is cited to defend the building over graves; 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, even overriding what appears to be the clear ruling of all four Madhabs for the first five centuries.

The following post mentions just a few of the questionable rulings that have gained credence amongst those who claim to authentically follow the Salaf, or our tradition:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...l=1#post781163

Bearing the above in mind, I would be grateful if any scholar or Talibul Ilm can give satisfactory answers to the following questions asked in another thread, before it degenerated into a bout of name-calling and personal attacks. I request moderators to delete only those posts which aim to scuttle the purpose of this thread, rather than closing the thread completely.

Since some of the Shafi'i ulama have produced several articles for laymen and scholars alike, providing evidences and reasonings for the justification of permissibility of shaving the beard, I would like clarification from Shafi'i scholars and students of knowledge regarding some of the reasonings and 'usuls' used in justifying a ruling that appears to conflict with that of the early Mujtahids of all Madhabs. I have already asked these questions to some Shafi'i ulama, and on this forum, but have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

The Mujtahids from all four Madhabs for the first five centuries seem to agree on the obligation of lengthening the beard. There appears to be consensus on this. The early Mujtahids from the Shafi'i Madhab, Imam Shafi’i, Imam Qaffal al-Shashi, Imam al-Halimi, all from or near the Salaf, agreed to this obligation.

How does an indecisive ruling from a scholar from post-5th century override the Ijtihad of the founding Mujtahids, and what appears to be the clear mu’tamad ruling and Ijma’ of all Madhabs for the first five centuries?

How does such a methodology differ to that of the modernists today who give preference to certain anomalous rulings of the post-7th century Ibn Taymiyyah, over the founding Mujtahids of the Madhab?

Even the Shafi'i ulama today concede to the fact that the majority of fuqaha, including the early Shafi'i mujtahids, took the command to lengthen the beard as obligatory:

From: http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?...14618&CATE=414

"The majority of scholars have understood the above-mentioned hadiths—all of which command Muslims to grow full beards—in their immediately obvious sense, coming to the conclusion that it is unlawful to completely shave the beard. This position has been transmitted from the imam of our school, Imam Shafi`i (may Allah be pleased with him and have mercy on him), and a number of Shafi`i scholars—both early and late—have adopted it as their preferred position. Among the early Shafi`is who held this position are the two great imams, Qaffal al-Shashi and Abu `Abdullah al-Halimi. Among the late Shafi`is who held this position are the two imams, Ibn al-Rif`ah and Shihab al-Adhra`i."

Another 'usul' that demands some interest, is the reasoning that the classical Shafi'i fuqaha felt the need to compensate for their initial leniency (by equating shaving to any trimming), by ruling that any trimming whatsoever is Makruh:

http://www.livingislam.org/maa/mmsb_e.html

"Given that the Shafi’i school has the most lenient fiqhi position regarding the beard (in that it is not Haram to shave it off, even completely (but like leaving the khuff, above, it becomes Haram when one does this, intending to go against the Prophetic Example or thinking that the sunna of the non-Muslims is superior to ours), unlike the Hanafis, for instance, that to trim the beard when it is less than the minimum is Haram), our Imams stress the ‘unconditional’ nature of the dislikedness in trimming the beard; and because of the absolute Makruh, our school does not strictly set a minimum limit for the beard. This explains why scholars like al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajar, consider the opinions of those setting a minimum limit for the beard (such as al-Ghazali and later on, the Mufti of Zabid, al-Ashkhar (d. 903 H/1497), who followed one of Imam al-Adhra’i's conflicting opinions, set the minimum limit of the beard to be the throat or the ‘handful’, which basically means that what grows beyond the ‘handful’ or the ‘minimum limit’, so to speak, is no longer considered Makruh to cut off [Ba 'Alawi, Bughya al-Mustarshidin, 20]) to be even more lenient than what is already a lenient position vis-a-vis the four schools of fiqh. That is why the position of the school remains that it is unconditionally Makruh to trim or shave the beard in any way. "

And without interpreting Imam Nawawi's ruling that shaving is Makruh, as Tahreemi, how does one reconcile it with the fact that he categorically ruled plucking a few grey hairs as haraam?:

http://www.sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0004P0297.aspx

"Riyad as-Salihin (The Meadows of the Righteous) by Imam Nawawi

297. Chapter: On the prohibition against plucking out white hair from the beard and head, and against a young man plucking out the hair of his beard when it first appears
1646. 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb reported from his grandfather that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Do not pluck out white hair. It will be the light of a Muslim on the Day of Rising." [at-Tirmidhi]
1647. 'A'isha reported that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Anyone who does an action which we have not commanded will be rejected." [Muslim]
Imam Nawawi's ruling of Makruh, which was unqualified, can be be easily reconciled with both the ruling of the early Mujtahids, and his own ruling on plucking a few grey hairs, by qualifying it to be Tahreemi. It'll be useful to check whether there are absolutely no occasions on which Imam Nawawi used the word Makruh without qualifying it, and it refers to a clear Tahreem."

Since the early Mujtahids, including Imam Shafi'i, used the term Makruh interchangeably with Haraam, it'll be useful to get clear quotes from other early Shafi'i scholars which clarifies definitively what was actually meant by Makruh when unqualified. What is certain though, is that the indifferent manner with which Makruh is treated by Ulama today, is in stark contrast to the treatment served by the likes of Imam Nawawi and the earlier Mujtahids. Imam Nawawi states in al-Majmu' Sharh al-Muhadhdhab:

فإن المكروه هو الذي ثبت فيه نهي مقضود

"For verily, makruh is that in which a purposeful prohibition is established"

and Al-Ghazali said in his masterpiece work on Shafi'i Usul, al-Mustasfa, regarding Imam Shafi'i's use of the term Makruh:

فكثيرا ما يقول الشافعي رحمه الله وأكره هذا وهو يريد التحريم

"Thus, frequently al-Shafi'i would say: 'I deem this makruh.' And he intends prohibition (tahrim)"

Imam Nawawi's ruling of Makruh for shaving, which was unqualified, can be easily reconciled with both the ruling of the early Mujtahids, and his own ruling on plucking a few grey hairs, by qualifying it to be Tahreemi.

In any case, on failing reconciliation of any ruling of the later fuqaha with that of the early Mujtahids, surely the ruling of the Salaf must take precedence?

for any clarifications

[Jadeed]

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:

Firstly, as far as I am aware, the Shaykhayn of the Shafi'i mad'hab's tarjih is just that - tarjih. Meaning, it is a preference for a particular position traceable to the Imam. The Shafi'i school, according to Maulana Taha Karaan (his excellent talk on the stages of development of the Shafi'i mad'hab is available on the seeker's path website, and I recommend it highly to those interested), disallowed the verdicts of even luminaries like Imam al-Muzani to be considered 'part of the mad'hab,' and as such it must be inferred that Imam Shafi'i had two positions on the matter, the latter of which was makruh.

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.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

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.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

It appears that unfortunately Shaykh Jadeed has left this forum.

[SeekerOfGuidance]

Brother amr123 received the following answer regarding the Shafi'i position on the beard:

---

Today after Juma'a I enquired to the Shafi'i Alim of my Mosque. He is an Alim who runs the Madrassa. Around 35 years of age, has full sunnah beard.

Here are the following points that I understood from him:
-Definition of beard is the same as hanafis, not just lihya, but all parts are considered wajib.
-A handful is Sunnah.
-Trimming (decreasing length) is ok as long as one doesn't shave.
-Shaving is Makrooh tahrimi(prohibitively disliked). Which is applicable not only to the lihya but to the sides as well.
-I mentioned Shaykh Amjad's fatwa and the practice of the Shafi's in Hadramawt,

to that he replied:
-What he mentioned above(makrooh tahrimi) is the official position of Shafi'i Madhab.
(I really felt like a fool on unnecessarily speaking on fiqhi matters)
-The shafi'is of hadramawt are following the minority opinion.
-He did not say that makrooh in shafi'i usool doesn't mean tanzihi. But he specifically mentioned shaving is tahrimi.
-Those who shave repeatedly will be called a fasiq, He is not be a witness in nikah, not to be followed behind in Salah etc.

---

[SunniSeeker]

Brother amr123 received the following answer regarding the Shafi'i position on the beard:

That settles it once and for all then.