If I didn't have the facts on my side, I might not want a calm, rational, intellectual discussion either. When a person has to use insults rather than reason, it means they've lost the debate.
https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/islam/general-islamic-topics/408505-excellent-and-well-needed-response-to-mufti-abu-layth
Excellent and well-needed response to "Mufti" Abu Layth
22-04-14, 09:18 AM
May Allah save our deen from being altered to suit people's fancies. - Ameen
As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullāhi wa barakātuh.
It is a duty of every Muslim to ensure he takes his knowledge of the injunctions of Sharī‘ah from reliable authorities.[1] The madhhabs (schools of jurisprudence) of the four great mujtahid Imāms, Abū Hanīfah, Mālik, al-Shāfi‘ī and Ahmad rahimahumullāh, have been accepted by the scholars of the ummah. Their legal opinions have been collected, refined, developed and codified by dedicated scholars belonging to each one of the four madhhabs. Consequently, only these four madhhabs have survived, to the exclusion of others.[2]
Hence, the obligation of a Muslim in these times is to accept the legal injunctions of one of the four madhhabs[3], from competent and authorised scholars belonging to his chosen madhhab who relay to him its established positions.[4]
‘Mufti’ Abu Layth does not present the established viewpoints of the Mālikī school. Rather, he appears to take certain statements or events in isolation and generalise them to suit a particular narrative that may be called “progressive” or “modernist”. Such a methodology in giving fatwa, in disregard of the established positions of the madhhab, is unbefitting of a mufti. A mufti must issue fatwa on the correct and established view of his madhhab, and may not pick and choose from the available opinions at his fancy.[5] On this basis, ‘Mufti’ Abu Layth may not be referred to in matters of Sharī‘ah. We will briefly address each of his answers below to demonstrate the flaws in his methodology and conclusions:
http://www.askimam.org/public/question_detail/28999
Question
A person asked Mufti Abu Layth following questions. I wanted to know what is your point of view regarding his answers of questions,are these correct or merely agree to disagree:
Questions:
1- are we allowed to adopt a particular way of life against the sunnah to suit the society in which we live?
2- did the prophet salAllahu alihiwasallam allow for males to wear any sort of jewellery? (Apart from the ring)
3- what was the view of the classic Maliki jurists including Imam Malik in relation to the length of the beard?
4- is the dispute on the issue of the maximum of the beards length but not on its minimum length? And is the trimming referred to when it grows beyond a length?
5-Even if something is Mandoob or Mustahab shouldnt a Mufti or a public islamic leader adhere to that in order to give a positive message to the Ummah rather than one of that which may confuse people?
6- can Mas'ha of the head be performed with gel in the hair?
7- what is the ruling of the scholars in relation to not having a level haircut or having a hairstyle which is khilaaf Sunnah?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) no its not against the Sunnah rather it is from the Sunnah to adopt the lifestyle of where you are e.g. in the expedition of Tabuk the Prophet (saw) wore a roman thawb
لبس جبة شامية
Qadi ibn AlAraby in his commentary explains this as the permissibility of wearing the clothes of the land etc.
& it definitely isn't an objective of the Deen to arabicise the world, a good example of this the Indo-pak subcontinent, they didnt embrace the Arabic thawbs etc rather stuck to their own Shalwar Kameez etc.
2) yes, the Prophet (saw) gave glad tidings to Suraqa about receiving the bracelets of Kisra, now would the Prophet give glad tidings for something Haram?
& in Umar (ra) 's time he actually made Suraqa wear them.
Now unless you have some clear conclusive proofs for these things being Haram if not then by default things are permissible unless proven otherwise, and its not enough to use the vague wording of a hadith prohibiting imitation of non-muslims or women, since what imitation is it speaking about? because we know that the Pagans of Arabia all kept beards that didn't make it imitating? We also know that the hanafiyya are absolutely fine with men wearing kohl (eyeliner) which is seen as extremely effeminate in many parts of the world, so is this not imitation? Or are these parameters just arbitrarily drawn up to suit our preconceived judgements.
3) the view of many Ulama including legends like Imam Malik is that the beard maybe trimmed although he himself doesnt expand on minimum length other Malikiya have. Qadi Iyad clearly states that trimming or completely shaving is only Makruh not Haram.
4) no it isn't, these seem to be arbitrary points and would have to be proven from the Sunnah.
Abu Waleed alBaji the legendary Andalusi scholar states that the hadith may equally be referring to trimming as opposed to growing and says anything above استئصال (barely a stubble) could then qualify upon that interpretation.
5) the Sharia is the same for all, we dont generically have different rulings for scholars others for students others for royalty etc. Its quite simple we have obligations that are a must and then we have recommended acts which are highly rewardable yet optional, Imam Malik was asked: does one debate/criticise over the sunnah acts? He responded no, you simply inform and that's all.
Such are the liberties of this Deen.
6) yes, anyone who has studied seerah or Arab history etc to some relevant depth will know that when the Arabs travelled they would conduct 'talbeed' which was to cover your hair in a gel substance that bound it together to prevent it getting in the way, its also the same interpretation the hanfiyyah give to the sahih hadith of the Prophet (saw) having his hair braided into four braids, they interpret that his hair was simply stuck with the gel he'd applied (saw) during that journey.
Since this was never seen as a preventive measure against wiping the hair by the best of generations, why would it now be a problem?
7). This question of hair length is a result of what I call 'pop fiqh' and not actual fiqh. The hadith regarding 'qaza' is to do with disfigurement and not styling and even then is only considered makruh as Qadi iyad and others explain in their commentary upon sahih Muslim.
Where is there any prohibition regarding hair styles? Or the command that 'all hair should be one length'?
since we know that the Prophet (saw) & many companions had long hair at times reaching their shoulders, now having long hair means its impossible for them all to be of equal length since the hair from the front line will naturally be much longer than that from the back or the sideburns, so from where do such arbitrary statements come from? especially when being made by people who claim to have some acquaintance with knowledge.
It is this point precisely in addition to many others that highly stress the crucial need to separate deen from culture. A phenomenon all too common amongst the subcontinent folk!
May Allah inspire us all to understand the true meaning of this Deen, and to refine our knowledge, understanding and most importantly our character. Ameen
Answer
Response
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullāhi wa barakātuh.
It is a duty of every Muslim to ensure he takes his knowledge of the injunctions of Sharī‘ah from reliable authorities.[1] The madhhabs (schools of jurisprudence) of the four great mujtahid Imāms, Abū Hanīfah, Mālik, al-Shāfi‘ī and Ahmad rahimahumullāh, have been accepted by the scholars of the ummah. Their legal opinions have been collected, refined, developed and codified by dedicated scholars belonging to each one of the four madhhabs. Consequently, only these four madhhabs have survived, to the exclusion of others.[2]
Hence, the obligation of a Muslim in these times is to accept the legal injunctions of one of the four madhhabs[3], from competent and authorised scholars belonging to his chosen madhhab who relay to him its established positions.[4]
‘Mufti’ Abu Layth does not present the established viewpoints of the Mālikī school. Rather, he appears to take certain statements or events in isolation and generalise them to suit a particular narrative that may be called “progressive” or “modernist”. Such a methodology in giving fatwa, in disregard of the established positions of the madhhab, is unbefitting of a mufti. A mufti must issue fatwa on the correct and established view of his madhhab, and may not pick and choose from the available opinions at his fancy.[5] On this basis, ‘Mufti’ Abu Layth may not be referred to in matters of Sharī‘ah. We will briefly address each of his answers below to demonstrate the flaws in his methodology and conclusions:
Question One
In answer to the question,
“Are we allowed to adopt a particular way of life against the sunnah to suit the society in which we live?”
‘Mufti’ Abu Layth writes,
“No its not against the Sunnah rather it is from the Sunnah to adopt the lifestyle of where you are e.g. in the expedition of Tabuk the Prophet (saw) wore a roman thawb. لبس جبة شامية
Qadi ibn AlAraby in his commentary explains this as the permissibility of wearing the clothes of the land etc. & it definitely isn't an objective of the Deen to arabicise the world, a good example of this the Indo-pak subcontinent, they didnt embrace the Arabic thawbs etc rather stuck to their own Shalwar Kameez etc.”
‘Mufti’ Abu Layth does not mention any legitimate proof for his claim that it is Sunnah to adopt the lifestyle of the place one happens to be in. The scholars have stated that to regard something that is not Sunnah as Sunnah amounts to altering the Sharī‘ah and introducing innovation into religion.[6] The Sunnah, in its general usage, refers to a religious practice or belief established from the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and his immediate successors.[7] If it was Sunnah to adopt the lifestyle of the place one happens to be in, why did the Sahābah fail to do this, and why did the jurists fail to record it as such?
Far from being Sunnah, it is documented from one of the most prominent Sahābah that he advised the Muslims to stick to their traditional Arab attire, and not adopt the non-Muslim dress of those around them. The senior Tābi‘ī, Abū ‘Uthmān al-Nahdī (d. 95 H), said:
“‘Umar wrote to us, while we were in Azerbaijan…[He said:] Be wary of over-indulgence, the dress of the idolaters and silk clothing…” (Sahīh Muslim)[8]
In another version, there is the addition:
“Hold fast to the dress of your father, Ismā‘īl (‘alayhissalām).” (Sahīh Abī ‘Awānah)[9]
At the most, it is permissible to adopt the attire of the people of a region one happens to be in, as long as it does not contravene the stipulations of Sharī‘ah. And this appears to be the Mālikī view.[10]
As for the example ‘Mufti’ Abu Layth presents, the “Roman Jubbah” or “Shāmī Jubbah” mentioned in the hadīth does not refer to a type of Jubbah worn by the Romans. Rather, it refers to a Jubbah that was made by the Christian Romans, as clarified by the commentators of the hadīth[11], including Qādī Ibn al-‘Arabī (468 – 543 H) who ‘Mufti’ Abu Layth refers to. Qādī Abū Bakr ibn al-‘Arabī said under this hadīth: “Shām at that time belonged to Rome. This [hadīth] entails the permissibility of [wearing] clothes that the Romans weaved without washing...”[12]
Moreover, assuming the garment was not merely Roman-made but Roman-fashion, Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was not amidst the Romans, but amongst his Arab companions. Nor was he travelling to Tabūk to settle amongst the Romans, but to engage them in battle. Hence, this evidence does not in any way support the claim that it is Sunnah to adopt the lifestyle of where one happens to be. Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī has explained that the reason why Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) wore this dress is its suitability for travel, as it was not baggy or loose like other garments.[13]
There is nothing intrinsically wrong in wearing a dress that Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and the Sahābah did not wear,[14] although it must be in keeping with Shar‘ī guidelines. However, a great number of scholars have advised that Muslims should aspire to dress in the manner of the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), his companions and the righteous of the ummah. His specific manner of dress falls under his “circumstantial” or “non-religious” habits (sunan al-zawā’id), and are thus not “Sunnah” in a religious sense. Nonetheless, to imitate him even in these mundane aspects, when there is no obstacle to doing so, is a sign of one’s attachment to, and love for, him. Hence, scholars have regarded it as “desirable” and “recommended” (mustahabb).[15]
The famous successor of the Subcontinent reviver, Mawlānā Ashraf ‘Alī Thānawī, Dr ‘Abdul Hayy al-‘Ārifī, wrote about these circumstantial practices of the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) as follows: “Another part [of the Prophetic conduct] are those matters which the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not carry out by way of Shar‘i sanction, but he adopted out of circumstantial habit. These are called ‘sunan al-zawā’id.’ Although the ummah are not held accountable for these matters, yet to follow him (Allah bless him and grant him peace) in them to the degree that is possible is an expression of love and affection, as all things of the beloved are beautiful [to the one who loves him]. This is the reason why the noble Sahābah copied him (Allah bless him and grant him peace) even in these mundane matters with great emphasis. And the pious have regarded acting on the smallest of the smallest of his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) habits more valuable than the entire world.” (Uswah Rasūl e Akram, pp. 39-40)
There are many examples from the lives of the Sahābah which show they imitated Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) in his habitual (non-religious) practices. For example, in relation to dress, it is related: the Sahābah wore a ring when Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) starting wearing one (Sahīh al-Bukhārī)[16]; Ibn ‘Umar (radiyAllāhu ‘anhumā) wore a particular type of sandals because Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) wore them (Shamā’il al-Tirmidhī)[17] ; Mu‘āwiyah ibn Qurrah and his father (radiyAllāhu ‘anhumā) would leave their qamīs unbuttoned in heat and cold because they saw Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) dressing this way (Sahīh Ibn Hibbān)[18]
Imām al-Ghazālī referred to imitating the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) even in his mundane habits as “the key to felicity.” (Kitāb al-Arba‘īn fi Usūl al-Dīn)[19] Hence, while there is no religious proscription against wearing clothing that the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) did not wear, many scholars have regarded it as desirable on the basis that it creates a connection with him. Some Mālikī texts also mention that to wear an item of clothing with the intention of imitating the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is desirable.[20]
Question Two
In answer to the question,
“Did the prophet salAllahu alihiwasallam allow for males to wear any sort of jewellery? (Apart from the ring) ”
‘Mufti’ Abu Layth said:
“Yes, the Prophet (saw) gave glad tidings to Suraqa about receiving the bracelets of Kisra, now would the Prophet give glad tidings for something Haram? & in Umar (ra) 's time he actually made Suraqa wear them. Now unless you have some clear conclusive proofs for these things being Haram if not then by default things are permissible unless proven otherwise, and its not enough to use the vague wording of a hadith prohibiting imitation of non-muslims or women, since what imitation is it speaking about? because we know that the Pagans of Arabia all kept beards that didn't make it imitating? We also know that the hanafiyya are absolutely fine with men wearing kohl (eyeliner) which is seen as extremely effeminate in many parts of the world, so is this not imitation? Or are these parameters just arbitrarily drawn up to suit our preconceived judgements.”
In order to positively affirm a statement or practice of Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), one needs to have reliable evidence[21]. The records of the events in question, relating to Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) giving glad-tidings to Surāqah (radiyAllāhu ‘anh) that he will receive the bracelets of Kisrā and ‘Umar (radiyAllāhu ‘anh) making him wear them, do not meet the criteria of authenticity. Moreover, one version of this report mentions only that ‘Umar (radiyAllāhu ‘anh) handed over the items to Surāqah, not that he made him wear them or that Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) gave him glad tidings of receiving them.[22] Even so, the reports clearly show this was a gesture of the downfall of Kisrā and an emblem of honour for Surāqah.[23] Hence, he was not “wearing” the bracelets as such; but displaying them for others to see.
Jewellery is for women and not men, as reported from Imām Mālik himself.[24] The Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: “Silk clothing and gold are forbidden for the males of my ummah, and permissible for their females.” (Jāmi‘ al-Tirmidhī)[25] Moreover, he cursed the men who imitate women and women who imitate men. (Sahīh al-Bukhārī)[26]
The Mālikī position has been recorded in the Mukhtasar of Khalīl and its commentaries. Jewellery made from gold or silver, with the exception of a silver ring, is harām for adult males.[27] Moreover, earrings and necklaces have been stipulated as being for women alone, such that if a woman was not to wear them, she will be sinful if her intention is imitation of men.[28]
As for kohl (in the Hanafī madhhab)[29] and a silver ring for men, these are not “arbitrarily” excluded from the general rule. Rather, they are excluded by explicit pronouncements of the Sharī‘ah. Moreover, the Hanafīs have explicitly stated that the intention when applying kohl should not be for “beautification” (zināh), as that is for women.[30]
Question Three
In answer to the question,
“What was the view of the classic Maliki jurists including Imam Malik in relation to the length of the beard?”
‘Mufti’ Abu Layth replied:
“The view of many Ulama including legends like Imam Malik is that the beard maybe trimmed although he himself doesnt expand on minimum length other Malikiya have. Qadi Iyad clearly states that trimming or completely shaving is only Makruh not Haram.”
Imām Mālik did not unconditionally allow trimming of the beard. He allowed trimming only when it is “excessively long”.[31] The condition of “excessive length” shows that when it is not so, the beard is not to be trimmed, as explicitly stated by the Mālikī scholars who related this from him[32]. Imām Mālik narrates in his Muwattā’ that the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) ordered trimming the moustaches and letting the beard grow.[33] Mālikī scholars refer to this narration of al-Muwattā’ to substantiate the Mālikī view on the obligation of growing the beard.[34]
As for Qādī ‘Iyād’s statement, it was said in a commentary of hadīth.[35] The language used in commentaries of hadīth is more flexible than in books of Fiqh. “Makrūh” is often used in the meaning of harām. In fact, it is recorded of Qādī ‘Iyād that he held “makrūh” to be in the meaning of harām in certain juristic statements.[36] Qādī ‘Iyād’s statement, therefore, must be understood in light of the official position of the Mālikī madhhab, which is the prohibition (hurmah) of shaving the beard or cutting it when it is not long.[37]
Question Four
In answer to the question,
“Is the dispute on the issue of the maximum of the beards length but not on its minimum length? And is the trimming referred to when it grows beyond a length?”
‘Mufti’ Abu Layth said:
“No it isn't, these seem to be arbitrary points and would have to be proven from the Sunnah.
Abu Waleed alBaji the legendary Andalusi scholar states that the hadith may equally be referring to trimming as opposed to growing and says anything above استئصال (barely a stubble) could then qualify upon that interpretation.”
In the Mālikī view, when the beard is “not long”, cutting it is harām. “Long” refers to a length somewhat more than a handful.[38] Hence, “not long” refers to what is less than approximately the length of a fist.
As for Abu l-Walīd al-Bājī, his statement is with regards to the interpretation of the hadīth which states, “make the beard plentiful” or “leave the beards” (a‘fu l-luhā). He first relates the most common interpretation that it means “making the beard plentiful.” Then he mentions: “According to me, it is possible that he means the beards are to be left from total removal.”[39] The only reason al-Bājī introduced this interpretation is because the common meaning would entail the beard is left completely unattended. But, as al-Bājī goes on to mention, Imām Mālik stated that stray hairs can be cut and the beard can also be trimmed when extremely long. Hence, his interpretation was only intended to avoid the understanding that the beard cannot be trimmed at all. He certainly did not mean that the beard may be trimmed to just above a stubble. Moreover, there are other wordings of the same hadīth which certainly mean “to make the beard plentiful” and leave no room for interpretation.[40]
Question Five
In answer to,
“Even if something is Mandoob or Mustahab shouldnt a Mufti or a public islamic leader adhere to that in order to give a positive message to the Ummah rather than one of that which may confuse people?”
‘Mufti’ Abu Layth said:
“The Sharia is the same for all, we dont generically have different rulings for scholars others for students others for royalty etc. Its quite simple we have obligations that are a must and then we have recommended acts which are highly rewardable yet optional, Imam Malik was asked: does one debate/criticise over the sunnah acts? He responded no, you simply inform and that's all.
Such are the liberties of this Deen”
It is incorrect to assert that the Sharī‘ah does not consider the position of scholars and prescribe stricter rules for them. In general, scholars have a duty to be more cautious in Dīn, as they are the leaders of men and people adopt them as examples to follow.
When Talhah ibn ‘Ubaydillāh (radiyAllāhu ‘anh) performed a permissible action which could have been misinterpreted as something blameworthy, ‘Umar (radiyAllāhu ‘anh) reprimanded him, as recorded in the Muwatta’, saying: “You are, Oh people, imāms that the people follow.”[41] Hence, a scholar must be conscious of how his actions will be perceived by the public, and act accordingly.
The scholars of the Hanafī madhhab explicitly mention a ruling in which the ‘ulamā’ differ from non-‘ulamā’. If a Muslim attends a dinner on invite, and unexpectedly finds music playing at the table and he is unable to put a stop to it, he may endure until the meal is complete. A scholar on the other hand, may not do this. If he is unable to stop them, he must leave, because not doing so in that situation would tarnish the Dīn and open the door of sin for Muslims.[42]
Hujjat al-Islām Imām al-Ghazālī states that a minor sin performed in public by a scholar (e.g. wearing silk garments) transforms the sin into a major sin.[43]
The reason for these statements and rulings is obvious. A scholar is regarded by the common people as a model to follow. Hence, at least in his public activities, a scholar must adopt utmost caution not to fall into anything considered blameworthy in the Sharī‘ah.
Question Six
In answer to the question,
“Can Mas'ha of the head be performed with gel in the hair?”
‘Mufti’ Abu Layth said:
“Yes, anyone who has studied seerah or Arab history etc to some relevant depth will know that when the Arabs travelled they would conduct 'talbeed' which was to cover your hair in a gel substance that bound it together to prevent it getting in the way, its also the same interpretation the hanfiyyah give to the sahih hadith of the Prophet (saw) having his hair braided into four braids, they interpret that his hair was simply stuck with the gel he'd applied (saw) during that journey. Since this was never seen as a preventive measure against wiping the hair by the best of generations, why would it now be a problem?”
This too is an irresponsible answer. The ruling of applying a substance to the head is discussed in the books of the Mālikīs. There are four situations to this ruling:
The substance forms a thick impermeable coating over the hair of the head, and there is no severe need for it. In this case, wudū’ will not be valid as the obligation of wiping over the head will not have been fulfilled. An example is applying a solid layer of henna over the head.[44] This ruling comes directly from the founder of the madhhab, Imām Mālik.[45]
The substance is not thick, but forms a thin lining over the hair, like oil, perfume or hair dyes. In this case, wudū’ will be valid.[46]
There is severe need for applying the substance, in that not doing so will result in injury or harm. In this case, too, wudū’ is valid. Imām Mālik interpreted the hadīth which states that the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) wiped over his turban for wudū’ as being for severe need.[47]
The substance is applied only at the roots of the hairs near the scalp and not on the outer surface of the hair. In this case too, wudū’ is valid as it is not a condition to wipe the roots of the hair.[48]
Talbīd is applying a gel-like substance to the hair during Hajj to keep it from becoming dishevelled or infected with lice.[49] The Mālikīs have considered wudū’ in this state valid on the basis of it falling into the third or fourth situations mentioned above.[50][51]
Hence, if applying gel to the hair amounts to the first situation described above, wudū’ will not be valid in the Mālikī madhhab.
Question Seven
In answer to the question,
“What is the ruling of the scholars in relation to not having a level haircut or having a hairstyle which is khilaaf Sunnah?”
He said:
“This question of hair length is a result of what I call 'pop fiqh' and not actual fiqh. The hadith regarding 'qaza' is to do with disfigurement and not styling and even then is only considered makruh as Qadi iyad and others explain in their commentary upon sahih Muslim.
Where is there any prohibition regarding hair styles? Or the command that 'all hair should be one length'?
since we know that the Prophet (saw) & many companions had long hair at times reaching their shoulders, now having long hair means its impossible for them all to be of equal length since the hair from the front line will naturally be much longer than that from the back or the sideburns, so from where do such arbitrary statements come from? especially when being made by people who claim to have some acquaintance with knowledge. It is this point precisely in addition to many others that highly stress the crucial need to separate deen from culture. A phenomenon all too common amongst the subcontinent folk!”
The prohibition regarding particular haircuts come from Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). He forbade “qaza‘” (Sahīh al-Bukhārī, Sahīh Muslim). Qaza‘ is to shave part of the head and leave part of it.[52] Imām Mālik said: “If they wish to leave his hair, let them leave it, and if they wish to shave it, let them shave it all.”[53] It is also reported from Nabī (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) that he saw a child with part of his head shaved and part unshaved and he said: “Shave all of it or leave all of it.”[54]
As far as it being “only” makrūh, it is not appropriate for a Muslim to regard something makrūh (tanzīhī) as something light or insignificant. Makrūh is blameworthy and reprehensible in Sharī‘ah (as opposed to khilāf al-awlā or mubāh). The renowned Mālikī scholar of Usūl, Imām al-Shātibī (d. 790 H), explains that persistence on makrūh tanzīhī results in sin.[55] The great Hanafī jurist, Rashīd Ahmad Ludhyānwī (d. 1422 H), also states that “by continued repetition of a maukruh tanzīhī act, it becomes makrūh tahrīmī.”[56]
Conclusion
From the above analysis of this small sample of ‘Mufti’ Abu Layth’s answers, it is clear that his methodology and conclusions are extremely flawed. Thus, it would be incorrect to refer to him for matters of Sharī‘ah.
Note: If ‘Mufti’ Abu Layth has answers to our responses, we will gladly facilitate correspondence with him on an academic level.
And Allah Ta‘ālā Knows Best
Zameelur Rahman
Student Darul Iftaa
UK
Checked and Approved by,
Mufti Ebrahim Desai.
www.daruliftaa.net
This is guy is dodgier than dodgy, almost the equivalent of suhaib webb but on this side of the pond.
Some of his latest dodgy 'fatwas':
* Transgender individuals should be allowed to marry, have families etc
* You can sit at a table with alcohol.
* Bank loans and car finance deals with interest are permissible.
* Going on dates is fine e.g. meeting a girl at a coffee shop.
His Usool seems to be based on two things - just keep things 'natural' and the 'voice of reason' basically his way of saying let's try and blur Islam to fit with a western non-Muslim lifestyle. Personally I'm surprises more reputable Malikis haven't refuted him given how he (ab)uses that Madhab to justify a lot of what he says.
I'm gonna bet that within 5 years he'll be a fully fledged member of Quilliam Foundation, he's certainly being groomed well in that direction...