asalamu alaikum
I will have to be as brief as possible which is why I made those posts pre-Ramadhaan as it was self explanatory.
However, Ibn Kathr does not censor the Mld but rather writes of it favourably.
Ibn Katheer is not speaking of the eid of milad, he is merely speaking of that particular day. More importantly, Ibn Katheer is not the author of the book that is commonly attributed to him rather it is of a particular Naasir-u-Deen ad-Dimashqi who is the actual author of this work attributed to Ibn Katheer.
The same people also claim that Ibn Taymiyyah is somehow for the milaad, thereby completely having no idea or context of what Ibn Taymiyyah says on the topic.
Also, the origin provided above is also disputed since there has been mention of it prior to the Fatimid rule. In his book Akhbar Makka, Vol. 2, p. 160, the 3rd-century historian of Mecca, al-Azraqi, mentions as one of the many places in Mecca in which the performance of sala is desirable (mustahabb), the house where the Prophet was born (Mawlid al-Nabi ). According to him, the house had previously been turned into a mosque by the mother of the caliphs Musa al-Hadi and Harun ar-Rashid.
what does this have to do with eid milaadu-nabi. This quote here speaks of making salah of the Prophet's relics, in this case his house, which has nothign to do with eid milaadu-nabi. Nor does holding his house sacred have anything to do with eid milaadu-nabi. In the sections of some fiqh works of some of the shafi'ees and maalikis, this topic enters the topic of ziyaaratul-quboor, even though ziyaaratul-quboor in and of itself is a bid'i topic that was never established as the fiqh of the salaf or anyone after them and was a topic that was expanded upon by those who erred in the doctrines of tabbarruk.
The Qur’anic scholar al-Naqqash (266-351) mentions the birthplace of the Prophet as a place where du`a by noon on Mondays is answered. He is quoted in al-Fasi’s Shifa’ al-gharam Vol. 1, p. 199, and others.
the same as above, this has absolutely nothign to do with eid milaadu-nabi. This is why your arguement is rather off base because you have been mixing more than one subject together thereby emitting some confusion on the topic. My stress is to stay on point and do not borrow what has been said in other aspects of fiqh to validate something else.
The same could be done of Imm ash-Shtibs discourse on this subject by bringing it in line with the clearly worded text of Mull `Al Qr, rahmahumallh.
no, it couldn't. Why, because Mullah Ali al-Qari's speech on the topic copies the same vagueness as that elucidated by the shafi'ees based on its purely linguistic import, which in essence needs some elaboration in order to clarify. On the other hand, ash-Shaatibee's speech on the subject in all honesty has spanned the subject unlike no other who has come before or who has come after. His speech on the subject is exhaustive and is used as the criterion to understand the topic. Whoever wants a simple statement on bida can go to any classical scholar, but whoever wants a doctors breakdown of the matter, his dissection if you will, then students of knowledge and the ulema refer back to ash-Shaatibee. That is just how it is my brother.
Shaykh Muhammad al-Ya`qubi has rejected the division of innovation into bid`a fid-din and bid`a fid-dunya.
thats good for him, however we want to keep the discussion centralized around orthodox sunni scholars.
It wouldn’t be taken only linguistically because Imam ash-Shafi’i uses the words “minal-umr – in the religion” and cites the statement of Sayyidun `Umar (radiyallhu ta`l `anhu) as evidence which is related to the Shar`a:
1. if you have the statement of Shafi'ee, then bring it
2. all things have to do with the religion, the topic of reprehensible bida has no claim on such matters.
3. The Imaams of sunnah have concluded the matter that reviewing bida as "good or bad" entails basing it on its linguistic import only. Thus you are mistaken in understanding Shafi'ees words which is most likely the case.
“Innovated matters in religion are of two kinds: 1) Whatever is innovated and contravenes the Book, or the Sunnah, or a narration, or Ijma` (consensus) – then that is an innovation of misguidance. 2) Whatever is innovated of [any and all good things - minal-khayr] and that does not contradict any of these – then this is a novelty which is not blameworthy. And `Umar (radiyallahu `anhu) said concerning the night-prayer in the month of Ramadan: ‘ni`matul-bida`atu hdhihi’ what a good innovation this is’ meaning it was innovated without having existed before and, even so, there was nothing in it that contradicted the above.”
(Bayhaqi, Manqib al-Shfi`, 1:469)
why would you quote a statement that essentially disproves your argument. As the statement expresses, the first bida is what contravenes the book, sunnah, athaar, ijmaa, and this is dalaalah. This is Bid'a shar'an (innovation in the revealed law). The second is the novelties that DOES NOT CONTRADICT the shariah. This is bida idaaree.
al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani in his commentary of `Umar’s saying related by Bukhari about Salat al-Tarawih: “What a fine innovation this is” (ni`mat al-bid`a hadhih):
قال عمر نعم البدعة في بعض الروايات نعمت البدعة بزياة تاء والبدعة أصلها ما أحدث على غير مثال سابق وتطلق في الشرع في مقابل السنة فتكون مذمومة والتحقيق أنها أن كانت مما تندرج تحت مستحسن في الشرع فهي حسنة وأن كانت مما تندرج تحت مستقبح في الشرع فهي مستقبحة وإلا فهي من قسم المباح وقد تنقسم إلى الأحكام الخمسة
“‘Umar said, “[What a] Fine innovation!” and in some narrations a (letter) ‘taa’ is added. The root meaning of innovation (bid`a) is what is produced without precedent. It is applied in the law in opposition to the Sunna and is, in that case, blameworthy. Strictly speaking, if it is part of what is classified as commendable by the law then it is an excellent innovation (hasana), while if it is part of what is classified as blameworthy by the law then it is blameworthy (mustaqbaha), otherwise it falls in the category of what is permitted (mubh). It can be divided into the five legal categories [(or rulings) ahkm al-khamsa)].”
I have already beaten the horse for the umpteenth time.
And the five categories are give categories of the law.
Notice that most jurists define bid`a dalāla (misguided) as an act or dogma that contradicts the Sunna and has no foundation in Islām. So if an act does not contradict the pure Sunna and does have a basis in law, it is not an evil bid`a but a good bid`a.
right, and you will as well notice that when an action is expressed as a "bida hasana" by the orthodox ulema, you will find that it is a bida linguistically and that it is essentially not a bida at all, because there is no additional import to the revealed law.
Is it possible for you to quote a book which has stated the above please as this is the first time I have read such a thing.
This was a hot topic in the mid to late 90s and the early part of the turn of the century. Since then, because pseudo Jahmis began to confound the issues surrounding ahlu-sunnah scholars, the truth also finds itself suppressed but not annihilated wal-hamdulillah. In one of the biographeis of the shaykh, here is a discussion that took place
Shaykh 'Asheesh narrates an incident when the Imaam of Hadeeth, the Shaykh - Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee (rahima-hullaah) was explaining the different scholarly levels of hadeeth, and Shaykh al-Albaanee went on to say:
"al-Haafidth is one who has memorised a hundred thousand hadeeth along with their chains of narration and the text (of each hadeeth)."
So Shaykh 'Asheesh responds:
"Is it possible for me to be satisfied in the knowledge that our Shaykh has memorised a hundred thousand hadeeth?"
Shaykh al-Albaanee said:
"This does not concern you."
Shaykh 'Asheesh said:
"Rather, it is from that which does concern me."
Shaykh al-Albaanee said:
"…does not concern you."
Shaykh 'Asheesh said:
"So is it possible for me to say that our Shaykh is a haafidth?"
So Shaykh al-Albaanee became quiet.
Shaykh 'Asheesh said:
"So is it possible for me to take your silence as an answer?"
Shaykh al-Albaanee said:
"Have I not told you that this does not concern you?"
Shaykh 'Asheesh said:
"Yes. This is from that which does concern me. Is it possible for me to interpret (your) lack of response as an answer?"
So the Shaykh became quiet.
And Shaykh 'Asheesh repeated his question to him a number of times.
Shaykh al-Albaanee recited:
"{And whatever you have of the blessings, then it is from Allaah**."
And Shaykh 'Asheesh quickly said:
"Can I interpret this as an answer?"
Shaykh al-Albaanee said:
"It is for you to interpret it as an answer and it is for you to interpret it as whatever you wish."
Shaykh 'Asheesh narrates:
"So I happily proclaimed: "Allaahu Akbar", and jubilantly exclaimed: "Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah", and said: "al-Hamdu Lillaah, indeed the Shaykh has memorised a hundred thousand hadeeth." So our Shaykh laughed; It was as if he confirmed what I was saying."
Shaykh 'Asheesh further narrates:
"From his responses from the beginning to the end there never was a clear answer from the Shaykh, so this does not imply anything except his extreme humility."
[Source: Safahaat baydhaa min hayaat Shaykhinaa al-Albaanee – Page 40]
Thus, in the view of al-Albanee, there is no one alive who is a muhadith. This is similar to an incident with Haafidh as-Suyootee regarding his being a mujtahid. The story is kind of funny and i love and commemorate the shaykh for his raw humor. He said that he was a mujtahid mutlaq. He also said that in order to determine who was a mujtahid mutlaq, there had to be another person who was likewise a mujtahid mutlaq to test him out. Since there was no one in his time who was like this, then he was the only self proclaimed mujtahid mutlaq of his era. Just a little side bar I wanted to note here..
When we have Hfiz Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalns [d. 852AH] statement, with all due respect, there is no need for the modern writer Shaykh Ahmad bin Hajar Aal Butami ash-Shaafi'ee (d. 1423H). Otherwise, several dozen modern scholars can be cited saying the opposite.
1. that is true, therefore, because ahlul-haq remain constant in their methodology and do not sidetrack with playing double standards, I can also brush aside any of your modern shaykh, like your quote of Muhammad Yaqoobi in the wake of mujtahid Maalikis whom I have quoted who represent the classical orthodox sunni persuasion.
2. However, in reality the use of shiyookh is to bring forth further elucidation regarding a topic and to bring some clarity to what might have ambiguous meanings behind what others have said prior.
And yes, Ibn Hajr has indeed spoken clearly, it is jus that you seem unwillingly to accept the whole of his view and rather opt for a particular aspect of his view.
This is just an assumption. The quote from Hafiz Ibn Hajar above clearly describes it with the words: في الشرع.
nothing I said is an assumption. Everything Im saying to you has already been established as the legal precedent on the topic. When i decide to bring forth my own personal view, then I will.
His name is Nas’ because he was from “Nas’” and that has nothing to do with Arabic lugha.
Im not going to beat this topic after this so this will be the last time say anything on this as this is not an argument that is ilmiyyah.
I asked two of my shaykhs about the topic and I will give you the more comprehensive answer. However I will acknowledge that I mis-reported the phenomenon between ahlul-lugha and ahlul-hadeeth and for that I apologize as I have construed his affair with others like Ibn Maajah, Sibawayh, or Ibn Rahuyah (aka Rahaweih.)
The ulema differed with regards to the state of the city where he came from. Haafidh as-Sam'aanee records that the town became known as "Nisa" because when the arab mujahideen came there (a city in Khurasaan) the men left and the women remained and the town became known with this attribution. However in al-M'ujam al-Buldaan (a reference source on cities and places), the author brings forth the argument (which is the stronger argument) that the ulema differed with regards to the name of the place i.e.
a. whether it was an arabic word (asli)
b. whether is was imported
and based on that difference there were those who sided to arabize it to Nasa and others who kept it Nisa, and thus has nothing to do with "women" whatsoever.
my other teacher said that due to this difference, others who came to know the Imaam used the term "Nisaa'i as an academic joke to him with regards to being around women and had nothing to do with some type of disparagement towards his honor, person, and credibility.
Imm an-Nawaw clearly mentions the Shar`i definition (see below) and in relation to the Hadith, he has clarified this issue of bid`a in further depth in the Chapter on Jumu’ah:
وَقَدْ سَبَقَ بَيَان هَذَا فِي كِتَاب صَلَاة الْجُمُعَة , وَذَكَرْنَا هُنَاكَ أَنَّ الْبِدَع خَمْسَة أَقْسَام : وَاجِبَة وَمَنْدُوبَة وَمُحَرَّمَة وَمَكْرُوهَة وَمُبَاحَة .
“…that bida’ah is divided into 5 branches: obligatory, recommended, forbidden, hated, and permitted - Wjib, mandb, harm, makrh and mubh are Shar` classifications."
i smell an already beaten dead horse here.
The term kull ("every") in the Hadith to be all encompassing without exception, whereas in Arabic it may mean "Nearly all" or "the vast majority."
I understand that. What Im trying to help you realize is that the term "kull" with regards to that hadeeth was NOT LOOKED AT BY ITSELF by the jumhoor of the ulema of the madhaahibs and others, rather they incorporated the hadeeth of Aisha radhiyallahu anha as a filter to that hadeeth and said "bida fi deen", thus the "absoluteness" if you will pertains to those matters that are muhdathaat fi deen, and not with regards to its broad general linguistic sense. Unlike the jumhoor, some of the Shafi'ees DID look at that term "kull" BY ITSELF and commenced with classifying it into good and bad and then proceed to define how it was good or bad by categorizing them into the five category of rulings. I don't know how many times I can express brother.
This is how al-Shafi'i understood it or else he would have never allowed for any innovation whatsoever to be considered good, and he is considered a hujja or "Proof," that is, reference without peer for questions regarding the Arabic language.
do you even know what a "hujjah" is. There is a no person on the planet who is a "hujjah". You seem operate under the idea that praises for Imaams somehow define the criteria of determining the truth.
The stylistic figure of meaning the part by the whole, or nechdoche in English is in Arabic: 'abbara 'an al-kathrat bil-kulliyya. This is illustrated by the use of kull in the following verse 46:25 of the Quran which Imam an-Nawaw cites to prove its usage in a selective or partial sense not a universal sense:
"Destroying all things by commandment of its Lord. And morning found them so that naught could be seen save their dwellings". Thus, the dwellings were not destroyed although "all" things had been destroyed. "All" here means specifically the lives of the unbelievers of 'Ad and their properties except their houses.
I understand the ibaarah here, however, in both cases your failiing to register some facts here. Allow me to point it out bi ithnillah
1. in its "asl", kull is by default mutalqan.
2. It looses its absoluteness when in relation to another thing, it restricts it.
Lets look at the statement of Ibn Hajr again while shedding some light on this aspect of the topic.
وأما " البدع " فهو جمع بدعة وهي كل شيء ليس له مثال تقدم فيشمل لغة ما يحمد ويذم ، ويختص في عرف أهل الشرع بما يذم وإن وردت في المحمود فعلى معناها اللغوي
As for innovations (البدع), it is the plural of innovation (بدعة) and it is everything which does not have any prior example. Linguistically, [the word] encompasses what is both praiseworthy and blameworthy. In the usage of the people of the legislation (i.e. Scholars) it is specifically for what is blameworthy and if it is used in connection to what is praiseworthy, then it is upon its linguistic meaning.
What is he saying here? Ibn Hajr claims that "linguistically", it is absolute and covers everything. THEN he goes on to explain that with regards to the shariah, it becomes restricted to ONLY blameworthy innovation BY DEFAULT. Then he contines by saying that if it escapes the ruling of blame, then it does so because it is looked at on its purely liinguistic meaning, again ACCORDING TO the people of legislation (the fuqaha).
Now for the term "kul" applied to bid'a, according to the speech of Ibn Hajr above, entails ALL that is good and bad and thus requires some form of filtering to ascertain what exactly a bida falls into. THUS because of this necessity, there is bida that is idaaree, or what these Imaams classified as bida hasana and then there is muhdathaat fi deen, which is condemn-able bid'a. That means ALL bid'a that is muhdathaat fi deen is condemn-able.
3. As for an-Nawawee's argument. If you look at the ayaah, the ayaah itself "restricts" the term kull from its absoluteness. You see, kul will always be kul mutlaqan and it leaves its asl when an ibaarah restricts the term "kul" into a particular.
In our sunni argument which is the one Im arguing for in clarifying to you, when the Messenger said "kullu bida", it is restricted (as you say) to what is muhdathaat fi deen because the jumhoor of the ulema took into consideration the hadeeth of Aisha to restrict what the Messenger alaihi salatu salam was speaking of that is condemn-able.
This is Shaykh al-Islm, Sultn al-`Ulm' Imm al-`Izz Ibn `Abd al-Salm classification from his own book:
“There are different types of innovations (bida`). The first type is whatever the Law indicated as praiseworthy or obligatory and the like of which was not done in the first period of Islm. The second type is whatever the Law indicated as forbidden or disliked, and which was not done in the first period of Islm. The third type is whatever the Law indicated as indifferently permitted and which was not done in the first period of Islm.”
(Ibn `Abd al-Salm, al-Fatw al-Mawsiliyya, p. 129)
do I have to keep beating the horse here?
Shaykh al-Islm, Imm al-Nawaw simply endorses his view:
“Al-Bid`a in the Law is the innovating of what did not exist in the time of the Messenger of Allh and is divided into “excellent” and “bad” (wahya munqasimatun il hasana wa qabha). The Shaykh, the Imm on whose foremost leadership, greatness, standing, and brilliance in all kinds of Islamic sciences there is consensus, Ab Muhammad `Abd al-`Azz ibn `Abd al-Salm - Allh have mercy on him and be well-pleased with him! - said toward the end of his book, al-Qaw`id [al-Kubr]:
We already know he endorses his view, I pretty much established that in my first post. There is nothing wrong with this view if one understands what they are implying. Unfortunately, people who do not follow ahlu-sunnah are somehow unable to see the full process of their stance.
from this point out i will simply ignore the division of bida into the five categories as this is becoming a red herring distraction from the actual point of contention.
Further quotes can be found in Shaykh al-`Amrawi's work, along with further analysis and research on the topic. The following is one of the quotes from Qadi Abu Bakr in al-`Arabi as cited by the Shaykh on p.46 of his book:
وقال القاضي أبو بكر بن العربي: "اعلموا –علَّمَكُم الله- أنَّ المحدثَ على قسمين: محدثٌ ليس له أصل إلا الشهوة والعمل بمقتضى الإرادة، فهذا باطل قطعاً، ومحدَّثٌ بحمل النظير على النظير، فهذه سنة الخلفاء، والأئمة الفضلاء، وليس المحدث والبدعة مذمومين للفظ محدث وبدعة، ولا لمعناهما
[انظر (عارضة الأحوذي) 10/147]
“Know - May Allh grant you knowledge! - that innovated matters are two kinds (al-muh.dathtu d.arbn).
1.) An innovated matter that has no basis other than lust and arbitrary practice. Such is categorically invalid. And
2.) An innovated matter understood to correspond to something [established]. Such is the Sunna of the Caliphs and that of the eminent Imms. Innovated matters and innovations are not blameworthy merely for being called muh.dath and bid`a nor because of their meaning! Allh Most High has said, { Never comes there unto them a new (muh.dath) reminder from their Lord **(21:2) and `Umar (ra) said: “What a fine bid`a this is!” Rather, only the bid`a that contradicts the Sunna is blameworthy and only the innovated matters that invite to misguidance are blameworthy.”
(Ibn al-`Arab, `rid.at al-Ahwadh (10:146-147))
I was going to delete this as well, but I found that you have helped my argument more with this quote than the other quotes. Here is why
the second dissection of bida explained above by Qadhi Abu Bakr has virtually manifested the "salafi manifesto" on the topic. He says of the second type of innovation, that is good, the following
a. an innovated matter to correspond with something else, something already established. He brings the incident of Umar to reveal this. THUS UMAR did not establish anything new, rather he re-instated what was already established. Thus Qaadhi Abi Bakr here completely vanquishes the arguments of the mubtadia who sanction muhdathaat fi deen under the Umar premise.
b. Secondly, Qadi Abu Bakr furthermore vanquishes the shubhuhaat of the mubtadia by stressing that bida is not blameworthy on the sole basis of it being muhdath, but rather it is blameworthy when it contravenes the shariah i.e. muhdathaat fi deen.
This basic distinction between acceptable and unacceptable forms of bid'a is recognised by the overwhelming majority of classical ulema.
I believe we have all understood this and its ramifications and the only one failing to see what these ramifications are is yourself.
In conclusion, the position of the majority of the scholars is clear:
the handful of shafi'ees you quote is not "the majority of scholars"
"To invent" (ahdatha - ) a "new practice" (bid'at - ) may refer either to the matter that is new linguistically speaking (lafzan), e.g. stone masjids, all the Islamic sciences, writing books about religion, etc. or the matter that is new legally speaking (shar`an - ), e.g. a sixth daily prayer.
thank you for agreeing with me
Since bid`a usually applies to innovations in religion in the legal sense, the former kind of "new matter" does not qualify as a bid`a and therefore is not prohibited.
if you mean "former" those issues like stone masjids, islamic methods of studying, books, etc, then your still correct.
The celebration of mawlid falls under its heading.
With all due respect my brother, this is nothing more than gibberish.This quote right here is a contradiction to the quote before it. either you believe that muhdathaat fi deen is a reprehensible innovation, or it is not. an instituted third eid to the orthodox two eids established by the Messenger of Allah does not fall under this heading as you claim. it is a muhdath fi deen.
There is a lot of Mawlid related material in Kitb al-Madkhal by Ibn al-Hjj where he describes the merits related to it:
"It is an obligation that on every Monday of Rabi` ul- Awwal we increase our worship to thank Allah for what He gave us as a great favor -- the favor of sending us His beloved Prophet to direct us to Islam and to peace... The Prophet, when answering someone questioning him about fasting on Mondays, mentioned: On that day I was born. Therefore that day gives honor to that month, because that is the day of the Prophet... and he said: I am the master of the children of Adam and I say that without pride... and he said: Adam and whoever is descended from him are under my flag on the day of Judgment. These hadiths were transmitted by the Shaikhayn [Bukhari and Muslim]. And Muslim quotes in his Sahih, the Prophet said, On that day, Monday, I was born and on that day the first message was sent to me."
(Ibn Hjj, al-Madkhal, 1:261)
what does this have to do with "EID milaadu-nabi". Ibnul-Hajj merely says that on that day, you are to increase your worship, and then he quotes two authentic hadeeths about his being the master of the children of Adam and the other hadeeth on the message being send to him, and a weak hadeeth in the beginning of his quote. whatever the case, what does this have to do with making a "holiday" out of the day he was born. You see, an eid is to have fun and celebrate that day with activities, not to simply worship Allah. Ibnul-Hajj says to "increase" your worship.
Imm Suyt explains Imm Ibnul-Hjjs opinion to avoid others getting confused:
“He did not decry mawlid per se, but only denounced the forbidden and reprehensible actions that [people] include in the mawlid.”
this was a futile attempt on the part of Imaam Suyuti, may Allah forgive him, in trying to lesson the impact of what Ibnul-Hajj actually said. There is no confusion at all, rather to quote this statement of Suyuti is a pathetic attempt to legitimize the illegitimate "holiday".
the same is the case with Zarqaani's statement therefore no need to reply.
Other than the [few page] tract ascribed to al-Fkihn, you would be hard pressed to find a work by a scholar disapproving of the Mawlid prior to about 150 years ago. Who are these new comers compared to the numerous authorities who agree with marking it?
this is my actual contention here
1. people who adhere to your persuasion are stuck in a time warp. When ahlu-sunnah bring forth the views of the classical ulema from Shaatibee (7 centuries ago) to Ibnul-Hajj, or other than them, the time warp fever kicks in and somehow reinterprets reality as it ahlu-sunnah operates from only within "150" years ago. Our tradition spans over 14 hundred years, before any of your innovated ideologies have ever been thought of, much less invalidly laid down as a madhaab (I don't mean the madhaabs of fiqh either).
2. What is more hilarious is the hypocrisy that whatever does not coincide with some concocted theories that unorthodox scholars have brought forth, then it is relayed off as "ascribed".
This can go back and fro on and on which I certainly don’t have time for whilst trying to reap the rewards of Ramadn. At the end of the day, there are masses of classical authorities of this Dn who agreed with marking the Mawlid.
there are some classical authorities who do view the mawlid as valid, while most do not, but their proximity to orthodoxy does nothing to validate the invalid like the eid milaadu-nabi.
Were they going against the Qur’n and Sunna?
everybody makes mistakes. Who do you know in existence who is perfect who is not the Messenger of Allah? I would like to meet that person.
Are the modern day scholars who disapprove of it
there is nothing modern about Ibn Taymiyyah, Shaatibee, Fakihaani, Ibnul-Hajj, Ibn Qudamaah, or others.
yet who make excuses for the practices of their leaders (kings/princes) the only ones who have following the Qur’n and Sunna for the past 1000 years?
the position of ahlu-sunnah from time immemorial was to make excuse for the leaders. I don't see how making excuses for leaders of kings and princes back in the day is somehow fundamentally different to making excuses for the same kind of people today. What was dhulm, kufr and shirk back then is dhulm, kufr and shirk today with no change.
and quoting some works of each madhaab does nothing to help validate your argument of the same cane be done for its opposite.
asalamu alaikum warahmatullah
