Makruh (Abominable)

I.4 Makruh (Abominable)

Makruh is a demand of the Lawgiver which requires the mukallaf to avoid something, but not in strictly prohibitory terms. Makruh is the opposite of mandub, which means that neglecting the mandub amounts to makruh. Since makruh does not constitute a binding law, we merely say that omitting something

praise and gains closeness to God. [27. Khallaf, 'Ilm, p. 114; Abu Zahrah, Usul, p.36.]

The textual authority for makruh may consist of a reference to something which is specifically identified as makruh, or may be so identified by words that may convey an equivalent meaning. There is a Hadith, for example, in which the Prophet discouraged any prayers at midday until the decline of the sun, with the exception of Friday. The actual word used in the Hadith is that the Prophet disliked

[kariha al-nabi) prayers at that particular time. [28. Tabrizi, Mishkat, I, 330, Hadith no. 1047.]

An equivalent term to makruh occurs, for example, in the Hadith which reads: 'The most abominable of permissible things [abghad al-halal] in the sight of God is divorce.' [29. Tabrizi, Mishkat, II, 978, Hadith no. 3280; Abu 'Id,

Mubahith, p. 80.]

Makruh may also be conveyed in the form of a prohibition but in language that indicates only reprehensibility. An example of this is the Qur'anic text which provides, in an address directed to the believers, 'Ask not about things which, if made clear to you, would trouble you, but if you ask about them when the Qur'an is being revealed, then they will be explained to you' (al-Ma'idah, 5:101). An example of this style of communication in the Hadith is as follows: 'Leave that of which you are

doubtful in favour of that which you do not doubt [. . .]' [30. Tabrizi, Mishkat, II, 845, Hadith no. 2773.]

Makruh is the lowest degree of prohibition (tahrim), and in this sense is used as a convenient category for matters which fall in the gray areas between halal and haram, that is, matters which are definitely

discouraged but where the evidence to establish them as haram is less than certain. [31. Qasim, Usul, p. 225.]

As already noted, the Hanafis have divided makruh into the two types of makruh tanzihi and makruh tahrimi. The former is considered abominable for purposes of keeping pure such as avoiding raw onion and garlic just before going to congregational prayers, or neglecting salat al-nafl, that is, supererogatory prayers preceding, for example, the salat al-zuhr (early afternoon prayers). This kind of makruh is nearer to mubah than to haram. Its commission is not punished but its omission is rewarded. The Hanafi description of makruh tanzihi is the same as that which the majority of ulema have given to makruh in general. The majority of ulema have characterised the value of makruh to be that 'committing it is not punishable but omitting it is praiseworthy'. Makruh tahrimi, or 'abominable to the degree of prohibition' is, on the other hand, nearer to haram. An act is haram when its prohibition is decreed in definitive terms, otherwise it is makruh tahrimi. An example of makruh tahrimi is the wearing of gold jewellry and silk garments for men, which are forbidden by an Ahad (solitary) Hadith. While referring

Similarly, it is makruh tahrimi for a person to offer to buy something for which another person has already made an offer. There is a Hadith which forbids this kind of purchase in the same way as it

forbids making an offer of engagement to a woman who is already betrothed to another man. [33. Abu Dawud, Sunan, II, 556, Hadith no. 2075] Since both of the foregoing ahadith are Ahad whose authenticity is not devoid of

doubt, the prohibition therein is reduced from haram to makruh tahrimi.

The difference between the Hanafis and the majority of ulema relates to the nature of the evidence on which the makruh is founded. When a prohibition is conveyed in an imperative demand of the Lawgiver but there is some doubt over its authenticity or meaning, the majority of ulema classify it as haram, whereas the Hanafis classify it as makruh tahrimi. The Hanafi position in regard to the division of makruh into these two types is essentially similar to their approach in regard to drawing a distinction

between fard and wajib. [34. Abu 'Id, Mabahith, pp, 80-82; Khallaf, 'Ilm, p. 116; Aghnides, Muhammedan Theories, p. 89.]