(If a dog licks the vessel of any of you, let him wash it seven times, one of them with soil) and the opinion of those who say let him wash it three times.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: regarding its meaning.

The questioner: meaning that the statement may contradict ... .

The Shaykh: the contradiction is not accepted.

The questioner: ... is the narration relied upon?

The Shaykh: upon his narration.

The questioner: Okay; ... is it ... a contradiction?

The Shaykh: No, it is not a contradiction; the contradiction occurs ... in a corporealist manner; meaning - for example - a hadith ... says: , and he says with his opinion: let him wash it three times; this is a contradiction that clashes. Look now at this contradiction; if the narration and the opinion were exactly the opposite; that is: if the marfu' hadith said: let him wash it three times, and he said let him wash it seven times, the three are included in the seven, so there would be no contradiction of mutual opposition and divergence; is this clear?

The questioner: but regarding ... .

The Shaykh: I say: is this clear?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: When you say "you and others did it" but; "hey" is an explanatory clause, what is it correcting? Since you are saying this is clear, listen to the complete statement. I am telling you that you and others did it because this is a consistent rule among all people when we discuss with them, we say a word and move on, and I want to understand whether my companion with whom I am discussing understands me or not. If he understands, I will proceed, and if he does not understand, I must repeat it, otherwise we will be speaking ... into the air. So I hardly say "clear" but; what does "but" correct? This is a statement that is proceeding and we agree on it, but listen to the rest.
If we return to the hadith that you and others think contradicts the rule I adopted in the hadith of a dog licking, and I said ... it is not so; because the command to let the beard grow is a general command that can be subject to specification, this is possible, and since it is established that the witness sees what the absent one does not see, and that the narrator - here remains another rule - and that the narrator is more aware of his narration than others who narrate from him; then in that case, the opinion of this narrator is better than the opinion of one who was first not a narrator, and secondly was not a witness.
Here Ibn 'Umar - may Allah be pleased with him - first, he is a witness; because he is a Companion as is known, and secondly - and this is not known to many of those who cling to the absolute letting of the beard grow - he is a narrator among the narrators of the hadiths of the beard, so the hadith is in "Sahih Muslim" which contains that the Prophet - peace and blessings be upon him - said: , so now let us imagine Ibn 'Umar - may Allah be pleased with him - and his intense eagerness to follow the Prophet - peace and blessings be upon him and his family - even in matters that are not from acts of worship but are from customs, imagine this noble man and the great Companion seeing the Prophet - peace and blessings be upon him and his family - and his Companions letting their beards grow, however much it increased beyond the fist, this increase he takes; do you imagine with me that this person can be imagined to contradict the Prophetic command if it was understood by him in its generality and comprehensiveness, and he sees the Messenger - peace be upon him -? And the Messenger - peace and blessings be upon him - in this state or one of two states; either he was taking from it or he was not taking from it at all, so what do you think of this Companion contradicting the Prophet - peace be upon him - while he followed him in leading his camel in a place; he was asked: why did you do this? I saw the Messenger of Allah - peace and blessings be upon him - doing so. Muslim, the leadership of his mind and brain to the action of the Messenger - peace be upon him -; meaning he does not have this philosophy that we say today, this philosophy is for him, we divide the actions of the Messenger - peace be upon him - into two categories; acts of worship and customs, so we say: - His saying, the Exalted - : meaning in acts of worship, but in customs, as he - peace be upon him - said: , this Companion who does not ... , and follows the Messenger - peace be upon him - even in ordinary matters, and it is not imagined that the Prophet - peace and blessings be upon him and his family - intends in them to draw near to Allah - Blessed and Exalted is He - , but the beard is mentioned as being to be let grow as you know, so it is an act of worship, so if Ibn 'Umar saw the Messenger - peace be upon him - not taking from his beard, it is impossible for this immense person in his love for the Messenger - peace be upon him - a love that does not distinguish between what is to be followed and what ... upon him; it is impossible for him to contradict him when he takes less than the fist, this is one thing, but before we continue, I stop at this thing and say: so this is completely different from the issue of taking the lesson from the narrator's narration and not his opinion; because this statement - and upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah and His blessings - because this statement is only taken in the place - welcome - if there is a divergence between them.
-- ... welcome, did you come alone or with someone ... --
We know - and upon you be peace and the mercy of Allah - we know that those of our brothers from the people of the Sunnah in India, Pakistan, in these lands and others who go to apply the generality of the hadith: rely on this generality first, then on their saying that it is not reported from the Prophet - peace and blessings be upon him - that he was taking from his beard, nor from any of his Companions, so I say: there is a scientific rule intended and known to the people of knowledge, but the important thing is to pay attention to it and apply it practically; and it is their saying: "The lack of knowledge of a thing does not necessitate knowledge of its non-existence"; meaning when I say: I do not know this hadith, I have not seen it; it does not mean that it does not exist, it may exist and I have not seen it, and therefore there was an etiquette pointed out by the scholars of hadith; and it is that if one searches for a hadith and finds for it a weak path; he does not say about this hadith that it is a weak hadith, but rather he says its chain is weak, due to the possibility that this hadith has another chain, and with this chain it escapes from weakness and enters the rank of hasan or more than that, so he says: its chain is weak, then they made an exception and said: except if he is a scholar, a memorizer, and proficient in the science of hadith, encompassing most of the paths of the hadith; then he alone can say: this is a weak hadith.
And for this distinction, we differentiate between one who grew up in the science of hadith and did not become proficient in it, and one who was proficient; therefore we find that some scholars differ in their expressions regarding a hadith for which they did not find a chain, some of them are decisive and say: this hadith has no basis, some of them soften their expression and say: I do not know ... , there is no harm if you do not know, it is possible that others know, regardless of whether the one who knew it has a weak chain or a good one or an authentic one; the important thing is that the general statement that it has no basis means there is boldness, and only one who is broad in knowledge and broad in acquaintance with this science would venture to do it.
Now, when it is said that the exemption is absolute, and the absolute is applied in its absoluteness, and this has not been transmitted from the Salaf—this is within the limits of what is known. Otherwise, the first thing that comes is the hadith of Ibn 'Umar, who used to trim his beard during Hajj and 'Umrah. Here, they say: this is his practice in Hajj and 'Umrah. And here the disagreement begins. Do those who go to applying the hadith in its absoluteness and comprehensiveness trim their beards as Ibn 'Umar did in Hajj and 'Umrah? They do not do that. So, they are contradicting this Companion. And within these narrow limits, especially if this bearded man who exempts his beard is one who performs Hajj and 'Umrah frequently; then his beard will remain as it was, just as Ibn 'Umar did. In that case, everyone who contradicts this Companion in this specific action will be forced to fall into one of two things: either they prioritize their own opinion over the opinion of Ibn 'Umar, and Ibn 'Umar is more knowledgeable about his narration than these later people like us, or they prioritize the opinion of Ibn 'Umar over their personal opinion. This is first. Second, there remains another contradiction; it is established from Ibn 'Umar himself—also—with a chain of narration that I will mention, which is at its lowest level good (hasan); that he used to trim without restriction to Hajj and 'Umrah. And a third thing is that al-Hafiz Ibn Jarir al-Tabari mentioned in his "Tafsir" what preceded from Ibn 'Umar, from Abu Hurayrah and from Mujahid—also. So here, the claim of the one who says "we do not know anyone from the Salaf who used to trim their beard" has collapsed.

The questioner : In which reference is Ibn Jarir al-Tabari...?

The Shaykh : In his "Tafsir".

The questioner : ... ؟

The Shaykh : By Allah, perhaps, Allah knows best... This is one thing. And the other thing, and finally regarding the narrations, al-Hafiz al-Bayhaqi narrated with his authentic chain from Ibrahim ibn Yazid al-Nakha'i, who said: "They used to trim their beards." And Ibrahim ibn Yazid al-Nakha'i is a Tabi'i.

The questioner : Specifically, O Shaykh, do they trim?

The Shaykh : No, there is no specification here. We narrate what came.
-- ... --

The Shaykh : I have not looked into it, and we have not reached it yet.

The questioner : In a manuscript copy. I looked into a hadith in... but time did not allow me... so it would be good...

The Shaykh : It would be good if you sent me the book at its price.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No, my brother, do not be stingy.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : ... at my expense.

The questioner : ... If Allah wills.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. So, the first of the rain is a drop, then it pours down.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No, I did not understand me. Do not rush; the first of the rain is a drop. Show me the page, then send us the rest of the images. That is what I intended. And what is the narration that you did not have the opportunity to study...? What do you say?

The questioner : ... I am not sure, but it is about trimming the beard, and that I was interested in this page but I did not reach it.

The Shaykh : Meaning this narration supports the narrations I mentioned; you want to say that? But... you did not have the opportunity to study it; so from the sum of these narrations, we conclude this conclusion; and that is that we have known a group of the Salaf who acted upon the hadith not in its absoluteness. And in that case, acting upon this absoluteness contradicts the practice of the Salaf. This is an important point; because you know that "Al-Mughni" by Ibn Qudamah, in his book "Al-Mughni," in many issues says: "And it is narrated from so-and-so of the Companions thus, and we do not know a contradictor for it," so it is as if it is consensus, of course, this is not the consensus that... but it becomes a proof when there is no other proof better than it. So if... we trace all these narrations, the issue comes out—also—even if we assume that Ibn 'Umar's opinion contradicted his narration; because he is not alone in this field, but others from the Salaf followed him in that, as I mentioned earlier.
Then here is an issue with extreme precision; let us assume that this text is absolute , then the absolute is applied in its absoluteness, just as the general is applied in its generality, unless something comes that restricts the absolute and specifies the general. The issue of exempting the beard is a practical issue, not a theoretical intellectual issue that does not appear to the eye. So when we find these narrations, it is said that these narrations contradict this absolute text. We will say: we come from another angle; did anyone from the Salaf act upon this absoluteness? If that is established... the issue is a matter of dispute, and at that time we resort to applying His saying—Exalted is He—: . In what we know, we did not find anyone who transmitted from anyone of the Salaf that he exempted his beard no matter how long it became. We did not find this. In that case, the rule I pointed to comes, which is general and very precise, and it is something that the student of knowledge quotes, not as a stated text as you will hear from me, but scattered in their actions and in their jurisprudential branches. This rule I say: every general or absolute text where the practice of the Salaf did not proceed upon its generality or absoluteness, then acting upon its generality and absoluteness is an innovation in the religion. In other words: every general text contains many parts, and we know that a part of these parts was not acted upon by the Salaf; in that case, this specific part we do not use the general text as evidence for it; because if it were included in it, the Salaf would have acted upon it. Is the speech clear up to here now?
The following example.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : ... the rule from...

The Shaykh : I say: every general text usually contains many parts. A part of these parts, we know that the Salaf did not proceed upon its practice or did not act upon it; so acting upon this part is an innovation in the religion. And if we do not pay attention to this rule which we understood from the starting points of the old jurists, we would establish thousands of innovations which we all share in denying. There is no innovation except that it has a general origin. And the best book in this regard, I urge students of knowledge to acquire it, read it, reflect upon it, and benefit from it, is the book "Al-I'tisam" by Imam al-Shatibi (may Allah have mercy on him).
And it proceeded in the same mannerThe Shaykh : "Ali Mahfuz" the Egyptian, in his book "Al-Ibtida' fi Mudarrat al-Ibtida'", and although he quoted his rules and principles in this book from the book "Al-I'tisam," but it benefits the students, and especially the beginners among them, in the examples he mentioned and models of many of the pioneering innovations in our era, showing how they are innovations and misguidances, even though they have origins and witnesses from general proofs.
From the jurisprudence and knowledge of al-Shatibi (may Allah have mercy on him), he divided innovation into two sections; one section is original innovations, and the other section is additional innovations. He means by the first section doctrinal innovations which are not supposed to have a general proof that includes that innovation. He gives some examples of that, such as rebelling against the imams, and the doctrine of the Murji'ah in the issue of faith, and the like. But the important thing in the subject is the second section, which are additional innovations. He says: if they are looked at from one side, we find them prescribed; because they fall under general proofs. But if we look at them from another side, we find them an innovation of misguidance, due to what was attached to them, either in quantity or description, that did not come in the Sunnah. He mentions a good example. He says—for example—like seeking forgiveness after the prayer. The origin of this seeking forgiveness is a Sunnah, but gathering for this seeking forgiveness with one voice is an innovation. And by this consideration, it is attached to innovations, and by the first consideration, it is a Sunnah. So whoever preserves this seeking forgiveness as it came in the Sunnah is following the Sunnah, and whoever comes with this seeking forgiveness added to it the loudness of voice and the collective voice has innovated in the religion what was not from it.