Sheikh Wasiullah Abbas confirms Mufti Menk is not a Salafi, but Hanafi

On the contrary! I am trying (unsuccessfully) to drag you to a level of discussion about principles. You are trying to drag it down to your level (of intelligence), maturity and competency.

In any Academic field (including Islam) you discuss principles and then you let the principles guide you to solutions.

You don’t jump straight ahead and start discussing scenarios and then try to deduce principles from solutions to principles.

We look at the principles which have been given to us in the Qur’aan and Sunnah and then we apply it to our lives to get to the right answer.

1. Taqleed Shaksi: Protection for laymen and greater empowerment for the laymen to research and investigate a Scholar before seeking an opinion
2. Taqleed Mutlaq: Easy access and fit solution for the problem

Once principles are established, sometimes you will get a solution to your liking and sometimes you won’t. That’s what Islam tells us, life is easy sometimes and sometimes it isn’t.

You keep imploring in every thread for everyone to explore your point of view so we urge you to do the same.

Try to raise your level of intellect (it may be difficult for you but try) and learn to discuss principles instead of stating hypothetical scenarios (which your mind conjures) up. Once we have settled principles, we can argue about women attending Mosques (which if I am not mistaken) you have been arguing about for close to a decade without understanding the underlying principles. 

Your whole stance  is to look at an issue (in isolation) and then argue and debate about it, rather than zooming out and looking at the fuller picture.

[QUOTE:Concerned]Everyone will have their personal situations to deal with, but they would not necessarily consider leaving their madhab on every single issue. They would practice according to what they learnt for the most part.[/quote]

It is the most persuasive argument in favour of Taqleed Shaksi.

1. Lives have personal situation have to BEND to fit Islam
2. Islam cannot be BENT to fit lives have personal situation

[QUOTE:Concerned]Both combining salah and eating lobster is allowed according to the MAJORITY. What on earth does this have to do with character and morals? [/quote]

Shariah is not Westminster where the laws can be decided by majority and minority. 

If we lived in a country where “Hijab” is banned and majority doesn’t wear it….Shariah will be bent to cater for that?

Many Arab states banned beard in 1980 so the Shariah can becomes to not have a Beard because it is the majority opinion.

That’s why it’s important to discuss principles. Since you lack the intellectual depth and academic research, you will jump on the two points above and start talking about beards and Hijab because it is most suited to your level of intellect.

Diminishing the argument and humiliating the discourse by coming down to the intellect level of concerned.

[QUOTE:Concerned]Both combining salah and eating lobster is allowed according to the MAJORITY. What on earth does this have to do with character and morals? [/quote]

Tajikistan: State religion is Islam and State Madhab is Hanafi

1. Hijab BANNED
2. Beard BANNED
3. Majority have neither

Does it become the defacto ruling for Muslims in Tajikistan and defacto ruling of the Hanafi Madhab?

The issue isn't of squids or lobsters (although in your mind) these must be earth shattering matters.

Both of these can be easily accommodated for while still adhering to Taqleed Shakhsi.

It’s the principles of Islamic which need to be argued but since your reach is to your stomach (only)….Your grasp is only equal to your reach.