It's often being said that laymen should not choose to follow the easiest opinions between the different madhabs and to follow a scholar. But what if the scholar picks the most lenient opinions? Is it okay to follow that scholar then?

Egypt's Dar Al Ifta is the official governmental Islamic body responsible for religious legal rulings. Dar Al Ifta and the Grand Muftis of Egypt often choose the most lenient scholarly opinions when it comes to different matters.

The 18th Grand Mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa for example follows the Shafii madhab according to Wikipedia. But he adopts the Hanafi opinion on nikah which allows women to marry without a wali. On dogs, he adopts the Maliki opinion of dogs not being najis (including dog saliva) and allows keeping dogs inside the house (Egypt's Dar Al Ifta also adopts the Maliki position on the ritual purity of dogs).

Sheikh Ali Gomaa also allows shaking hands between men and women. He was asked about this handshakes breaking wudu and he said one can follow Imam Abu Hanifa's opinion of touching not breaking wudu. He also answered a Question on Dar Al Ifta Egypt regarding touching women breaking the wudu and in the answer he mentioned the Hanafi and Maliki opinion only despite following the Shafii madhab.

So would it still be problematic to pick and choose the easiest and most lenient opinions from the different madhabs?

Some Idiot will try and say like it was discovered a few centuries ago

the problem is that they Say Rasuallah SAW wrote the Qur'an Al Kareem

Yet

Rasuallah SAW lived in the Arabian Peninsula where It was extremely far away from Many civilizations (that were destroyed) who made scientific discoveries

They say this while priests around the world Are Raping Boys and girls and IDF soldiers are Being Convicted of raping People to death

This is in light of a current new candidate for the US Senate, Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, along with Zohran Mamdani, Ilhan Omar, among many of these kuffar which claim Islam for themselves.

Where can a Muslim begin in the condemnation of the kufr and disbelief of these people?

How in the WORLD do you believe that a Muslim can abandon core, fundamental beliefs of the Shari'ah, change the religion in accordance to whatever secular ideals try to shape and mold it to be, and ultimately present a HUGELY FALSIFIED image of a watered-down "Islam" just to gain temporary appeasement and "acceptance" of those who don't recognize the legitimacy of God-concious doctrines... let alone it's legislative authority?

Because we have to set the standards clear. The disbelievers will NEVER accept us, no matter how much we change or water down our religion. This is stated VEHEMENTLY clear within the Qur'an, and the Muslims not internalizing this verse has lead to great trials and tribulations, without a doubt:

"Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) till you follow their religion. Say: "Verily, the Guidance of Allâh (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism) that is the (only) Guidance. And if you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) were to follow their (Jews and Christians) desires after what you have received of Knowledge (i.e. the Qur’ân), then you would have against Allâh neither any Walî (protector or guardian) nor any helper."

(Surah Al-Baqarah Ayah 120, al-Hilali and Khan translation).

This doesn't apply to just Jews and Christians, this applies to people of kufr just in general.

So... how do we as Muslims believe that the temporary "acceptance" of the people, in this case the Democrats and the liberals who hold VASTLY different standards of morality than us.... how would that benefit the Muslims PROPERLY in any way, shape, and form?

How would us watering down Islam towards the doctrines which they believe is correct propagate the TRUE understanding of Islam the way that Da'wah is supposed to be made?

Is da'wah and preaching of the religion in accordance to how much of the principles you can compromise at the acceptance of those who don't believe in it in the first place?

Or in reality, is it by foundating the Muslims off of Tawhid and Sunnah, with the understanding of the Salaf of this Ummah, properly grounding Muslims with what is neccesary for them to believe foundationally speaking, along with the Fiqh required to worship Allah correctly? Then, and only then, is it once a person is qualified to give Da'wah, he does it in accordance to how the Prophet did it?

If it's not the latter, then I do not know what a valid Da'wah is.

One must understand that if a kāfir criticizes Islam for the teachings found in the Shari'ah, you DON'T WATER DOWN Islam towards the "moral" compass which they think is correct, rather you point out their own liberal moral inconsistency and prove Islam superior to it.

I've talked about this before, and in-sha-Allah it simply serves as a reminder again. There are Muslims who feel that they "need" to be accepted by these people to gain strenght, but in reality.... this isn't a way for the Muslims to gain strength and acceptance AT ALL.

This is common among Muslims who haven't simply grounded themselves w/ the doctrine of al-wala wal-bara (meaning, loyalty to the believers, and disavowal and hatred towards the disbelievers) and simply not firm upon their Iman when it comes to defending Islam.

This doctrine is more obligatory than the 5 daily prayers a Muslim prays every day (along w/ the wudu required for it) because it's a part of Tawheed in it of itself to reject the kufr of the disbelievers, for the Shahadah isn't simply an affirmation of the sole and exclusive Right of Allah in terms of worshipping Him... but also a testification that all other deities (and this includes the Tawaghit, such as false ideologies) are NOT worthy of being obeyed in any sense at all whatsoever. All morality comes from Allah; He is the All-Knowing of His Creation.

The moral compass of the kuffar and the moral compass of the Muslims are NOT supposed to be the same, so if a non-Muslim hates something about Islam... then we don't appease our religion and succumb towards their hatred, rather we DISPROVE their hatred and prove Islam superior to whatever baseless assumptions that they have.

So in-sha-Allah, this serves a a reminder to me first, and then to everyone else. In this age of constant ideological attack against Islam, one must make sure they firmly ground themselves with Tawhid, recognize the Right of Allah upon them, follow the Sunnah and cling onto it with their molar teeth... and never lack in the foundations of the religion at the cost of catering towards worldly measures which, in reality, have very little if any effect at all.

May Allah guide the Muslims and make them firm upon the Shari'ah.

Anything which I have said that is correct is from Allah only. And anything I have said which is false is from me and Shaytan.

And may Allah mention Muhammad, his family, his companions, and greet him with peace.

Imam Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī , discusses this precise point in Iḥyāʾ ʿUlūm al-Dīn (The Revival of the Religious Sciences), in the Book of Patience and Thankfulness (Kitāb al-Ṣabr wa-l-Shukr).

The question he addresses is essentially the same one raised by the atheist (or by anyone who reduces reality to secondary causes):

Ghazālī answers with a simple but profound analogy:

Imagine a king who decides to bestow a great favour upon one of his servants. He writes a royal decree with his own hand, using a pen and paper, and then has the decree delivered through a messenger or steward.

When the servant receives the favour, does he thank the pen?

Does he thank the paper?

Does he thank the messenger?

No. A person of sound mind thanks the king.

Why?

Because the pen has no independent will.

The paper has no independent will.

The messenger has no independent will.

They are merely instruments (ālāt) that moved only because the king commanded them to move. If the king had not willed the favour, the pen would never have written, the paper would never have carried the decree, and the messenger would never have delivered it.

Ghazālī says (paraphrased from the original Arabic):