As-salāmu ʿalaykum wa raḥmatullāh wa barakātuh, My name is Leya, and I’m a 13-year-old Muslim girl who follows the Shāfiʿī madhhab. I’m interested in starting a small home-based business as a nail technician, specifically applying acrylic nails. I would only offer this service to non-Muslim women, and I would work privately, one-on-one, in a respectful and professional environment. I would not offer this service to Muslim women out of concern for wudu and purity. I want to make sure that the income I earn is 100% halal, and I am trying to follow my religion carefully. Would this type of work be considered permissible in the Shāfiʿī school of thought? JazakumAllahu khayran for your time and guidance. May Allah reward you for helping young Muslims like me make good choices. Was-salāmu ʿalaykum wa raḥmatullāh, Leya

According to the Shafi'i madhhab, standing water does not purify a thing from najis, but on the contrary, it becomes najis if it comes into contact with it, and its volume is less than about 216 liters. It turns out that if I put a thing stained with najis in the washing machine for washing, it will not be cleaned, but on the contrary will make all the things that are washed with it unclean? It's just that I used to wash things in the washing machine that had an invisible najis on them without any signs (volume, color, taste, smell).

On the website https://islamdag.ru/verouchenie/23254 (last 2 paragraphs) I saw this (the website says it in Russian): > There is a certain category of najas that is forgiven (i.e. afwu). This is impurity that can stick to clothes from dirty streets if it is impossible to protect oneself from it, if the dirt is not higher than the waist. Afwu is made from raindrops flowing from dirty roofs; from a small amount of blood from a wound and from boils; from blood from an injection site (if it does not come out too much); from the blood of a crushed flea or louse; if a small piece of dung gets into milk, afwu is also made. If a baby vomits and touches its mother's breast with its mouth, afwu is made from this; if a little impurity remains on the entrails of a slaughtered animal after washing, afwu is also made from this; one can eat bread baked on a dung fire. Afwu is made from additives for making cheese. However, it is strictly forbidden to use the duodenum or other body parts of an animal that is not slaughtered according to Shariah standards or is completely forbidden for consumption, especially a pig! Afwa is also made from hair that has migrated onto clothing while riding a donkey or a mule. In short, from all najasah (impurities), from which it is very difficult to protect oneself, the Almighty makes afwa (forgiveness). (This website tells all about the Shafi'i madhhab) So, the question is, is it true that there really is such a category of najis in the Shafi'i madhhab, and also, if this is true, it turns out that I can perform ablution, prayer, along with this najis on my body? Also, does splashing water from the toilet bowl, purulent snot, for example, apply to this najis?

As the title says, what is considered a non-fighter in each of the 4 madhabs? Is it restricted to only woman and children, or is the status extended to other categories like the elderly, monks, and laborers? I understand that there have been a couple posts similar to this, however unlike those posts, I am specifically looking for a comprehensive explanation of what each of the 4 madhabs' mutamads relay regarding this topic.

AssalamAlaikum A woman(38 year old approximately) whose husband was died appropriately 7 years ago. She Has 2 adult daughter and adult 2 Sons. She is Living in her husband's home who died.She Is Not depending on Father or bother .she totally depending on self. She And Her Sons earn for their living. Now question is that if she wanna get married with a person and her sons and daughter are satisfied . Can son become wali of her Mother? She never wants to show next Nikah Due to society and relatives issues because regrettably in our society point out her this decesion in this age. Please Answer that . Can she make a secret marriage if sons become wali and two Muslims For Evidence. It will must valid and governmently registed Nikah. And Boy will also never show to his parents about this marriage. If both Are Shafi'i then please is it w Valid

Most of the males in my place wear head covering with a cap or turban. Also some of the masjid have baskets full of caps for those who come to prayer without it. They don't say you have to wear them in order to pray, but you get hard looks at times. I have researched this and found that it is not a part of sunnah, but instead local customs or tradition. If we cover or not, it doesn't make any difference. Also the male head is not considered awrah. Also, men who are in ihraam pray bareheaded, because they are not allowed to cover their heads whilst in ihraam. This is solely my opinion from the research I have done. In my research, I found: what Imam Shafi'i had to say about this...its mentioned below:- > Imam Shafi'i said, "The covering of the head during salah or otherwise is mubah. Whoever claims that it is mandub, his opinion is invalid because of the lack of evidence in the chain of transmission; unless people use logic as evidence and this is not valid in our Shariah" (sunnah.org ) I'm seeking a reference for this. Also, I would like to know umar ra had said something in regarding this subject?

Can someone spoonfeed me the definition of "Riba"="ربا"=interest in each of the following schools: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, along with explaining the Shafi'i definition. I'd like the definitions in Arabic too if possible, I remember in Maliki that it is in the lines of "كل قرض جر نفعا ...", while for Shafi'is, something like "عقد على عوض مخصوص غير معلوم التماثل...". In particular I heard the Shafi'i's definition is exceptionally long aiming to cover all cases but fails to cover only one of them, I appreciate a clarification on this matter and explanation for it, Actually if possible an explanation for each of the 3 definitions I'm requesting. so the request is for: - Definition for Riba in Hanafi Fiqh, written in Arabic, along with explanation, - Definition for Riba in Maliki Fiqh, written in Arabic, along with explanation, - Definition for Riba in Shafi'i Fiqh, written in Arabic, along with explanation pointing what it covers and what well-know cases of Riba it misses (I don't know if there is disagreement around Riba cases between schools of Islamic Fiqh, so I said "well-known cases"),

>“No one will be absolved because of a transgression against religious law, except in the case of people of high social position, who will be treated accordingly, as the hadith stipulates: **‘Forgive those in elevated social position,’** since for them corporal punishment is more painful.” > >*— Abd Al-Majid Ibn Abdun, in The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise, by Dario Fernandez Morera* I apologize for not providing a direct for this narration. I originally came across this passage that was referenced in the book above. They attributed the quote to Ibn Abdun, and not only that, quoted him providing a hadith that propagates his argument. The focus of this ticket is as follows: 1. What is the reliability of this attribution to Ibn Abdun? 2. How well reflected is this position within the mainstream/ classical understanding Islamic jurisprudence; the opinions of the fuquha within the 4 madhabs? 3. Most importantly, what is the source and authenticity of this supposed hadith Ibn Abdun provided?

>“Ibn Uthaymeen said: and the second benefit is; the prohibition of killing women and children during war. > >And if it is said, if they did this to us, that they killed our children and women, can we kill them? **What is apparent, is that it is allowed for us to kill their women and children, even if that were to cause us to miss taking them as wealth, due to what this contains from breaking the hearts of the enemies and weakening them, and due to the generality of Allah’s saying**, “And whoever transgresses against you, then transgress against them the like of what they have transgressed against you, — Q2:194.” > >The questioner continues: then we are allowed to kill their women and children. But O sheikh, they, the men are the ones who killed the women, and the women are innocent, so how can they be punished due to the crimes of men? > >Ibn Uthaymeen replied: **This is because of the greater benefit, the greater benefit to those who are fighting. Because if we do not do to them what they do to us, this would be humiliation in front of them.** > >Ibn Uthaymeen continued: **Justice with their woman is incomprehensible, they killed our women, we kill their women. This is justice. It is not justice that we say, if they kill our women we will not kill their women. Also, we note that this influences them greatly.**” > >*— Bulugh Al-Maram, Explanation by Ibn Uthaymeen, Tape 3, Side B.* The focus of this ticket is as follows: 1. What is the reliability of this attribution to Ibn Uthaymeen? 2. If it's reliable, is he really saying that, based off of Q2:194, if the enemy kills our non-fighters; more specifically, woman and children who do not take part in battle, we may do the same to them as a form of retaliation? 3. Most importantly, how well reflected is this position within the mainstream/ classical understanding Islamic jurisprudence; the opinions of the fuquha within the 4 madhabs?

Why did classical scholars, particularly in the Shafi'i madhab, allow non-scriptural disbelievers to be compelled into Islam for the purpose of intercourse? As stated in Shu’ab al-Imān 3/12: "وإنما ذكرت هذه المسألة رواية في الأمة الوثنية. فقد يجوز أن يكون فيها خاصة دون العبد. لأنه لا يمكن سيدها الاستمتاع بها مع وثنيتها، فيجبر بها على الإسلام، ليتمكن من الاستمتاع، كما يجبر الرجل امرأته الذمية على الغسل من الحيض لتهيأ." [Source](https://shamela.ws/book/18567/1398) I can share other Shafi'i scholars who argue the same thing, and if i recall correctly imam shafi'i himself too. Additionally, how can some argue against forcing conversion while maintaining an inconsistent methodology? JazakAllahu khairan.

Imam Al-Nawawi, in his *Minhaj at-Talibin,* writes: > A person suffering from hunger who finds a corpse, and at the same time eatables not forbidden but belonging to another, should, according to our school, eat the corpse, rather then take the eatables that do not belong to him. This translation is bothersome because it at first appears as though he is speaking about human corpses. Within proper context however, it is clear he is speaking about animal corpses, i.e. carrion. However, this got me thinking about such a situation: in cases of absolute necessity, is it better to eat human corpses than to steal? We know that in cases of necessity, the *haram* becomes *halal.* However, this ruling is confusing, because it is not as though everything that is haram automatically becomes halal; some things become *halal,* and other things stay *haram.* Al-Nawawi makes it clear that eating unlawful food is a lesser sin than stealing property. This seems to prove the existence of a hierarchy of sins, in which eating unlawful food ranks as a better deed than stealing someone’s property. Is there a full hierarchy of sins? If so, where can I find it?

On a website name Jihadica, various fatwas containing Daesh insignia were collected by certain academicians and researchers in 2014. Fatwa No. 68 is translated by UC Berkeley medical anthropology doctoral candidate, Khashayar Beigi (below): *" the experts of the Shafi'i and Hanbali schools of Islamic jurisprudence permitted killing of the warring infidels or apostates under the constraining circumstances of eating their flesh to stay alive. Imam Alnawawi says, “**There is permission to kill the warring party, the apostate, and moreover to eat their flesh carries no punishment** .” If the experts of jurisprudence have allowed under war conditions believers to eat the flesh of the infidel in order to prevent harm and loss of life, these apply as well to the transplant of organs from the apostate to the Muslim. The life and organs of the apostate are not protected by Muslim jurisprudence."* While the opinions of Daesh certainly do not matter, I want to know whether the opinion they impute on Imam Shafi'i (RA) and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (RA) are accurate or not? Is cannibalism on the kuffar and murtadeen haram or halal?

I came across this claim: > Our school (Shafi'i) insists upon the payment of the poll-tax by sickly persons, old men, even if decrepit, blind men, monks, workmen, and poor persons incapable of exercising a trade. As for people who seem to be insolvent at the end of the year, the sum of the poll tax remained as debt to their account until they should become solvent." Imam nawawi My question is what is the official Shafi school opinion on who is exempt from paying Jizyah.

Can someone verify if this is true: > Ibn Al-Arabi said, “Lineage is an expression referring to the mixture > of fluids between a male and a female from a religious legal point of > view. However, if this union (between male and female) occurs through > disobedience (fornication) **then the resulting child is not considered** > **part of a person’s true lineage. That is why a daughter born from zina** > **is not mentioned in Allah’s saying, ‘Prohibited to you (for marriage)** > **are: your mothers and daughters’ (Surah 4:23) because she is not** > **considered a daughter according to the most authentic teaching of our** > **religion.. If there is no legal lineage then there is no legal** > **relationship; for zina does not prohibit (from marriage) the daughter** > of the mother (you committed zina with) nor the mother of a woman (you > committed zina with). […]I (Qurtubi) said: **The scholars have differed** > **on the permissibility of a man marrying his daughter who was the** > **result of an adulterous relationship; or for that matter marrying his** > **sister or granddaughter who was the result of zina.** Some prohibited > this type of relationship; among them was Ibn Al Qasim, which is also > the saying of Abu Hanifa and his companions. Others however al**lowed > this type of marriage such as Abdul Malik Al Maj’shun,** **which is also** > **the saying of Al-Shafi’i.** This was detailed in the explanation of > Surah 4 (Al Nisa’). > > Tafsir Al Qurtubi 25:54 Al Maududi seemed to have mentioned this and showed his disproval: > The prohibition about daughter also applies to the daughter of the son > and the daughter of the daughter. There is, however, a difference of > opinion in regard to a girl born of an illicit relationship. Imam Abu > Hanifah, Imam Malik and lmam Ahmad-bin-Hanbal (may Allah bless them > all) are of the opinion that she too is unlawful like the lawful > daughter, **but Imam Shafi 'i does not consider an illegitimate > daughter unlawful.** But the very idea is repugnant that one should > marry a girl about whom one has the knowledge that she is of one's own > seed. > > Tafsir Al Maududi 4:23 If this is true, why did Imam Al Shafi'i permit it. On what basis from the Qur'an and Sunnah? Or was it simply ijtihad?

I understand that insulting any prophet is kufr > Additionally, scholars have agreed unanimously that whoever insults, disrespects or belittles any one of the prophets, may Allaah exalt their mention, will be a Kaafir (disbeliever). -Ruling on the one who insulted or belittled a Prophet - IslamWeb However, it seems to me that Muslims react very strongly when Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is insulted, but don't seem to care much if any other prophet is insulted. **Is it Islamic to react more strongly to insults against Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) compared to other prophets?** Also, I understand that if someone insults Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) the insulter can be executed (punished with death). > The scholars are unanimously agreed that a Muslim who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) becomes a kaafir and an apostate who is to be **executed**. This consensus was narrated by more than one of the scholars, such as Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others. Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/13-16 -Ruling on one who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) - IslamQA **Is it Islamic to execute people who insult prophets other than Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)?** I understand that > To sum up, we prefer our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) over all the other Prophets and over all of mankind, because of the evidence that has been narrated concerning that, whilst also respecting the rights of the other Prophets and Messengers and believing in them and respecting them. - The superiority of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to all of creation - IslamQA However, I don't understand why execution, punishment and anger should only be when Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is insulted, shouldn't we care when the other Prophets and Messengers are insulted?

If I'm late for Zuhr prayer, can I combine it with Asr or must I pray the Zuhr separately from the Asr?

Why does the Shafi'i Madhab permit killing all non Muslim adult males during Jihad? Is it just because of their disbelief? Isn't that too cruel? **Bidayat al-Mujtahid** Ibn Rushd writes: > They disagreed about the case of hermits cut off from the world, the > blind, the chronically ill, the old who cannot fight, the idiot, and > the peasants and serfs. ... **According to al-Shafi'fs most authentic** > **opinion, all of these categories (of people) are to be put to death.** > > The Distinguished Jurist's Primer Vol. 1 p. 458 translated by Imran > Ahsan Khan Nyazee Ibn Rushd writes elswhere: > The basis for their disagreement stems from the conflict of the > specificity in some traditions with the general implication of (some > verses of) the Qur'an, and also the generality of the authentic saying > of the Prophet (God's peace and blessings be upon him), "I have been > commanded to fight mankind until they say, 'There is no God but > Allah.'" The words of the Exalted, "Then, when the sacred months have > passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them", **imply the slaying** > **of every nonbeliever** **whether or not he is a monk**, and so does the > saying of the Prophet (God's peace and blessings be upon him), "I have > been commanded to fight mankind until they say, 'There is no God but > Allah'". > > The Distinguished Jurist's Primer Vol. 1 p. 458-459 translated by > Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee **Al-Hidayah** > A woman, minor, enfeebled old man, an invalid, and a blind man are not > to be killed. ... **Al-Shafi'i (God bless him) goes against our opinion** > **in the case of the enfeebled old man, the invalid, and the blind. The** > **reason is that permitted killing in his view is based upon unbelief** > > Al-Hidayah Vol. 2 p. 293 translated by Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee **Reliance of the Traveller** > **It is permissible to kill old men ... and monks.** > > Reliance of the Traveller o9.10 translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller **Follow Up Question** Does this mean that not all non combatants are impermissible to kill?

"al umm al Shafi'i" is a book attributed to imam al Shafi'i. But everything in the book is "al shafi'i said: ...." so clearly he himself did not write the book. Some articles say it was dictated to his student. But that can't be true either because in many parts of the book al shafi'i is the second or third person in a chain. for example: أَخْبَرَنَا الرَّبِيعُ قَالَ أَخْبَرَنَا الشَّافِعِيُّ So who really wrote this book? thanks

When I was 10/11 I used to pray in both hanafee mosque and shafaee mosque as both were around 200 meters from house in opposite directions. Since as a layman I dont know which madhab to choose. Are the people who say adhering to a madhab is obligatory for layman, are inadvertently asking me to do ijtehad and choose a madhab?

Where does this quote from Al-Shafi'i originate from? And could I please get a source for the Arabic? Al-Shafii (d. 820) said: “He may marry off his female slave without her permission whether she is a virgin or non-virgin.” Quoted by Kecia Ali in Marriage and Slavery, pg. 40