When something is permissible in itself, and a jurist says it is haram due to sadd Al dharayi, does this mean haram in a different technical sense to something which is haram in itself? For example, wine is haram in itself and a person is sinful for drinking it. What is scholar x says action y is haram due to sadd Al dharayi- yet in itself, it would have been permissible. Is a layperson sinful for engaging in action y? What if one scholar rules it haram but others don't? What if the majority rule it haram but a minority don't? In fact, on what basis can a halal action be declared to be haram due to sadd Al dharayi if it is permissible in itself i.e. Is this not making haram what Allah has made halal? Is it haram in a different sense? Such as sayyiduna Umar preventing people from eating meat two days in a row. He declares it haram (meaning forbidden for people from an administrative legal standpoint due to maslaha as opposed to being forbidden in the sharia) - is this how this works?
New link from Shaykh Abu Hasan's excellent website: https://archive.org/download/rasayil-e-ridawiyah-3/145 hadi al-naas.pdf
well this is such a common sensical subject that any clear thinking person (not blinded by ta'assub, ignorance or nafs) will immediately attest to it's soundness - one does not have to be an admirer of Alahazrat ('alayhirraHmah) to grasp the sheer wisdom behind it. For example I chanced across this blog and was surprised to see an ibn qayyim/ibn taymiyyah admirer promote madhhab fidelity and that too by quoting the very same ibn taymiyyah - of all people! https://thehumblei.com/2018/01/04/understanding-taqlid-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-2-2/
As an aside it might be useful to have a chart with the Sources of sharia and some description how each are considered in uṣūl al-fiqh. Love to see how Sadd al-Dharayi would be considered.
Just seen a video of a disco "na'at khwan" doing all sorts in the name of na'at. (Yes, I've used inverted commas because for me, they're not na'at khwans). For the past few years, I'm seeing the immense wisdom of jurists who rule something forbidden even if per se (fī nafsihī) it's allowed. Because they see beyond the outward and look at repercussions and the principle of sadd al-dharayi, blocking the means. As Alahazrat said in Ajla al-Iylam regarding going outside one's madh'hab, the ruling is twofold. Innately, a practice might be permitted but extraneous factors come into play and a wise jurist rules it forbidden. Not everything that cautious ulama rule haram is forbidden per se and by consensus. But they see a much broader picture and that A leads to B leads to C leads to D. So what started as khilaf al-awla led to tanzihan which led to isa'ah which led to tahriman which led to haram. Don't deride ulama who work along these lines. They're protecting us. So next time they rule against clean shavers or trimmers or musical instruments or sticking to one school or wearing a hat whilst on stage - don't blow a fuse. They're simply trying to prevent worse things.
This applies to the current debate about doing tafsiq on things that are forbidden within a school. Sadd al-Dharayi' is an important principle.
http://www.alahazratnetwork.org/modules/booksofalahazrat/item.php?page=5&itemid=186 Alahazrat's monograph on wedding rituals is a must in our times. Look how he says that though something is permitted, it isn't expected that people will stick to only that which is allowed; therefore it should all be stopped.