Is there a distinction between the husk and the kernel in religion?

Al-Halabi : Shaykh, a follow-up to the topic may be necessary. Satan may confuse some people, so they soften the wording by saying that this is one of the trivial matters or something similar. They say, "These are just husks," implying that what matters to us is the kernel, and so on. We often hear this, and it may find a place in some hearts, especially since your speech was about two issues regarding the Islamic personality or the appearance of the Islamic personality. It would be desirable if you would clarify this principle.

The Shaykh : In fact, we also sometimes hear this word that the brother mentioned. But all roads lead to the mill, whether one says "this is one of the trivial matters" or "this is one of the husks." Both expressions are among the major sins. Why? Because it is not permissible for us, as we said regarding those who say "this is a trivial matter," to say, "This is a trivial matter." Likewise, it is not permissible for us, after knowing the rulings and hadiths related to the issue of letting the beard grow, to say that this is one of the husks. However, if this expression is used instead of the other, another matter opens up to explain this word, if it were correct to utter it. They undoubtedly mean, when they say that this issue or that one is one of the husks, and "let us leave the husks and focus on the kernel," that these are matters that a Muslim is permitted to leave off. But if they mean that, they have made two errors. The first error is that they gave the ruling of a sunnah—whether it is permissible for a Muslim to leave it off without sin—to what is an obligatory duty. This is the first error. The second error is: suppose the matter is a sunnah, but describing the sunnah with the word "husk" is also an error. Why? Because when they utter this word, they mean that we should not care about these sunnas. Even on the assumption, and we say this for the sake of argument, that they mean only the sunnas, it is still not permissible to apply the term "husks" to the sunnas that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) practiced to draw near to Allah. Why is it not permissible? For two reasons. The first reason is that these sunnas have a weight in the Shari'ah, but they do not know their weight in the Shari'ah. That they are, in many cases, a means to make up for what is lacking in the obligatory duties. This is explicit in his (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: And in another hadith, if it is deficient, Allah the Exalted said to His angels, "Look, does My servant have any voluntary acts? If so, complete his obligatory duty with them." Voluntary acts mean sunnas, meaning non-obligatory acts—may Allah have mercy on you. This hadith explicitly states that sunnas complete the obligatory duties. So how is it fitting for a Muslim not to encourage Muslims to perform them, but rather to drive them away from them with a repulsive word: "These are husks, they have no value"? This is a double error. First, in terms of meaning, because they do have value, as we mentioned an example regarding Second, in terms of them applying the word "husks," like "trivial matters," to what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) legislated, even if by way of recommendation. At that point, we ask: Where did they take the word "husks" from? They took it from some fruits, from some fruits that have husks, whose kernels are eaten and whose husks are thrown away. Well, this usage is taken from analogizing the rulings of the Shari'ah to the husks that Allah created on some fruits. Let us return here to ask: Did Allah create this husk, which protects and surrounds the kernel, in vain? Without this husk, the kernel would not be preserved. And this, my brothers, is very clear in this material example, meaning in fruits. These husks were not created in vain, and their benefit is known even to the proponents of the word "husks." This material benefit is known to them, but, glory be to Allah, If the husk of a fruit is beneficial to that fruit and protects the kernel, and this is known even to disbelievers, should it not be known to Muslims that what they call among the rulings of the Shari'ah "husks" is exactly the same as the husks in fruits? The husks in fruits were not a creation of Allah in vain. Exalted is Allah above what the wrongdoers say, greatly. Likewise, these "husks," in their terminology, which they apply to the sunnas, were not a legislation of Allah in vain. Rather, this matter is very clear. The person who frequently performs these acts of worship, even if they are at the level of sunnas and recommended acts, undoubtedly draws closer to Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, by them, and increases in good deeds and ranks with Allah. Especially the previous hadith that the Lord of the Worlds makes up for His servants who are deficient in some of the obligatory duties, completing those obligatory duties from these sunnas and voluntary acts. So, the end of this discussion is that using the word "husks," like the word "trivial matters," is an error in the Shari'ah from all aspects, whether from the legal aspect or the analogical aspect. It is very clear that the husk of a fruit is necessary for its existence; otherwise, without it, we would not eat the fruit. Likewise, these sunnas, which they unjustly, oppressively, and transgressively call "husks," without these sunnas, a person would not draw closer to Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, by them, nor would they make up for a deficiency that occurred in their obligatory duty. This is a comment on the brother's question, may Allah reward him with good.

The questioner : We see some of our brothers letting their beards grow a little, so when it grows, they take some of it and shorten it. So it is not long as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: