Is hair transplantation permissible?
Hair transplantation is a form of treatment for baldness. It involves taking hair follicles from parts of the body/head and attaching it to the balding area.
Hair transplantation entails making use of detached solid parts of the human body for medical treatment which as a rule is not permissible.
Making use of a detached solid part of the human body for treatment is only permissible when the detached part is returned to its original place (e.g. a fallen tooth or a cut finger is put back in its place).
Hence, hair transplantation is not permissible as it would fall under the general impermissibility of making medical use of detached solid parts of the human body.
Are a woman’s feet part of her ‘awrah? Do they have to be covered in ṣalāh?
According to the strongest opinion in the Ḥanafī madhhab, a woman’s feet are not ‘awrah and hence do not have to be covered in ṣalāh. However, since there is a difference of opinion (even within the Ḥanafī madhhab), it would be better to cover them.
Some people have the misunderstanding that the early Hanafī scholars whose books are in wide use today, like Shams al-A’immah al-Sarakhsī (d. 490 H), Malik al-‘Ulamā’ al-Kāsānī (d. 587 H) and Burhān al-Dīn al-Marghīnānī (d. 593), were unacquainted with hadīth. They base this on the absence of many hadīths quoted in their works in the available hadīth collections or their apparent weakness. These early scholars, however, took hadīths not only from the well-known collections, but also from the works of the earlier Hanafī ‘ulamā’, many of which have not reached us today. The narrations are found in these earlier works generally with their full chains of transmission. Hence, one may not dismiss the hadīths mentioned in al-Hidāyah, al-Mabsūt, al-Badā‘i’ etc. as baseless or forged merely on the grounds that they are not found in the available collections of hadīth. Continue Reading
Bismillāhir Rahmānir Rahīm
In the following, we will address a 9-page essay authored by Sheikh Hategekimana Hassan of Botswana called, “Perspective on Trimming/Shaving beard.” Sheikh Hategekimana attempts to show that growing the beard is not a precept of religion or Sharī‘ah, but merely a recommended cultural practice inherited from Rasūlullāh (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). He further argues that there is no sin in shaving the beard, and the widely-held notion that a person who shaves his beard should not be appointed an imam is an innovation in Islamic thought with no basis in earlier jurisprudential writings. Continue Reading
If the obligation of a non-mujtahid is only to follow, or make taqlid, of qualified mujtahids, why do scholars insist on the added obligation of restricting one’s taqlid to a single madhhab?
The paper linked below addresses this question, providing a detailed explanation for the necessity of adhering to a single madhhab in all its rulings.
The obligation and its legal basis are supported by statements and opinions from major early authorities across the recognised schools of jurisprudence. It is argued that this ruling is not only more sound in the present context, but is also supported by strong positions from within each of the four madhhabs, with some of the early scholars having quoted consensus.