Due to the conflict of evidence regarding it and the ruling of prohibition being dominant. Thus, it is necessary to abstain from it. Their view is the correct one (ṣaḥīḥ), as stated in Majmaʾ al-Anhur 2:523, because it is reported: ‘Whenever the permissible and the forbidden are combined, the forbidden prevails over the permissible.’ This is attributed to Ibn Masʿud in Muṣannaf ’Abd al-Razzaq 7:199, and in al-Sunan al-Kubra by al-Bayḥaqi 7:169. al-Bayḥaqi stated: Jabir al-Juʾfi narrated it from al-Shaʾbi, from Ibn Masʾūd. Jābir is weak, and the chain from al-Sha’bi to Ibn Mas’ud is disconnected, as mentioned in Nasb al-Raya 4:314. They explained that if a matter has evidence supporting both its permissibility and its prohibition, the ruling of prohibition takes precedence. This is because what is forbidden must be abstained from, while what is permissible can be acted upon. As in al-Ikhtiyār 5:413, and Ḥusn al-Dirāya 4:95. Makrūh to Ḥarām is like the relation of wājib to the farḍ; it is established by what establishes wājib actions. Thus, one sins by committing the makrūh just as one sins by neglecting an obligation, similar to the confirmed Sunnah. This is all regarding makrūh taḥrīmī, as for tanzīhī this is closer to being permissible by agreement. As such, the one who performs such an action is not sinful but the one who leaves it is rewarded. This is because it is not permissible. Note: it does not follow that something not permissible is ḥarām. This is because makrūh tanzīhī revolves around leaving that which is better (tark al-awlā). See: Radd al-Muḥtār. 6:337.