On the issue of the beard, and whether it is permissible to take from it what is less than a handful?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : ... - may Allah be pleased with him - it is established from him that he used to take what was less than a handful, ... that every matter, as we used to discuss in the past, should remain in its generality, comprehensiveness, and absoluteness; so on this basis, the opinion is to leave the beard as it is, so that nothing is taken from it. However, what stands in the way of this is what we referred to regarding what is established from Ibn 'Umar - may Allah be pleased with him - of taking what is less than a handful. In my opinion, it is not easy to turn away from such a report and leave it merely for the sake of adhering to the general texts that have reached us; for this general text is one that, as we said, was narrated by 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar himself. It is very, very far-fetched to say that Ibn 'Umar, in terms of his understanding of the Shari'ah, let alone the Arabic language, did not understand that this text, without looking at anything else, does not indicate absoluteness and generality. This is the furthest thing one could say about such a noble Companion.
So, there remains only the possibility that it is said that Ibn 'Umar understood, or did not understand. As for not understanding, we have ruled that out for him and his like. So the other possibility remains, which is that he understood, just as we understand it now completely, but he saw something that made him restrict this understanding that we have today, which is absoluteness. He saw the Messenger - peace and blessings be upon him - taking from his beard. Of course, we say that there is no one among you who asks: Is there evidence that the Messenger took? The issue is not about this. We do not have evidence that any Companion explicitly transmitted that the Messenger - peace be upon him - used to take from his beard, even though there is a hadith we narrated in "Silsilat al-Ahadith" where we clarified that it is fabricated, that he used to take from its width and length. But the issue now is that we want to find an exit that is consistent with the narrator of the hadith and the understanding of the narrator, who here is 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar. It is not easy for us to say, as they say, with the stroke of a pen: This is his opinion. That is said in theoretical issues, in issues that cannot be grasped except in terms of understanding. But in issues that were present before the Companions throughout their lives, we cannot imagine that Ibn 'Umar did not see the Messenger - peace be upon him - taking from his beard while he was taking from it, or that we cannot imagine that he saw the Messenger - peace be upon him - not taking from his beard while he did not know that he was not taking from his beard; because this is a clear and obvious matter.
Ibn 'Umar might not know how the Messenger - peace be upon him - would behave with his wives if he entered his house and sat with them; in this case, we would need to infer about the internal marital affairs of the wives of the Messenger - peace be upon him - where Ibn 'Umar's sight does not reach. But as for him sitting with the Messenger - peace be upon him - repeatedly and often, we imagine one of two things, and there is no choice but one: either the Messenger was taking, or he was not taking, and neither of these could be hidden from a Companion; because these matters face this person, this Companion, and in particular, they are matters that concern the face. The face is not called a face except because it faces the person with its face. So what do we assume? We must assume things, and in this situation, we must take the things closest to sound logic. Either we imagine that Ibn 'Umar saw the Messenger - peace be upon him - taking, so he took, or we imagine that he saw the Messenger not taking, so he took. The first matter is closer to logic: he saw the Messenger taking, so he took. As for the other matter, it is the furthest from the logic of a Muslim who knows the biography of Ibn 'Umar, claiming that he saw the Messenger not taking from his beard and then he took. This is the furthest from our view of the Companions in general, and especially of Ibn 'Umar, for what we know of his strictness in adhering to the Sunnah, for what we know of his strictness in adhering to the Sunnah of the Prophet - peace and blessings be upon him -; indeed, and his exaggeration in following him - peace and blessings be upon him - ... in it.
Perhaps you all know that Ibn 'Umar reached the point in his exaggeration in following him - peace and blessings be upon him - that he used to follow his tracks - peace and blessings be upon him - contrary to his father, and that he was seen one day urinating in a place, so he was asked about it, and he said: "I saw the Messenger of Allah - peace and blessings be upon him - doing this," and other things of his exaggeration in following the tracks of the Messenger - peace be upon him - some of which al-Mundhiri mentioned in the first book of his books on following the Sunnah, from his book "al-Targhib."
So the point is: if this is our knowledge of Ibn 'Umar, then I at least rule out, to the utmost extent, that he saw the Messenger - peace be upon him - not taking from his beard, but leaving it as it is, and then he contradicted the Prophet - peace and blessings be upon him -; and in this, he contradicted the absolute command he narrated from him:. He does things the Messenger did by virtue of his humanity, by virtue of a habit of his, so he follows him in them. How would he not follow him in letting his beard grow - peace be upon him - ... while it is accompanied by the absolute command to let it grow?! This is something I cannot imagine in Ibn 'Umar.
For this reason, I say: Ibn 'Umar's taking from his beard less than a handful is his application of something he saw in his Prophet - peace be upon him - and in his beard. And the one who does not take this view has no answer except to say: This is the opinion of Ibn 'Umar.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Ah, and this rule - also - helps us with that; that the consideration is in the narration of the narrator, not in his opinion. But I have answered this before; this is regarding the understanding of the text. If the narrator understood the text with an absolute understanding, and we have no basis there from observation or sight, then this rule applies, which is the one upon which jurisprudential rulings must be built: "The consideration is in what the narrator narrated, not in his opinion." But we do not say: The consideration is in what the narrator narrated, not in his sight and observation; that is another matter. Therefore, the answer here to this rule is not precise; that is: we do not take the action of Ibn 'Umar because the consideration is in the narration of the narrator, not in his opinion, because we said something more than saying that this is his opinion. We must answer these conceptions that we presented. Either Ibn 'Umar saw the Messenger taking, so he took; then the argument stands with the action of Ibn 'Umar; because his action depicts his observation for us. Or we say: he did not see the Messenger - peace be upon him - and yet he took; this contradicts the entire life of Ibn 'Umar, which was focused on following the Messenger - peace be upon him - in every matter, even in ordinary matters. So this is far, and very far, from Ibn 'Umar. Therefore, I see that arguing with the action of Ibn 'Umar as a narrator of the hadith, and the narrator of the hadith here, we say, knows his narration better than others, I see that this argument is in its place.
The answer remains regarding a point that came in the question; which is taking from less than a handful, or rather from above?
So I say then: that here we have a pause. The original rule is to apply the general text in its generality, except for what is specified. And the action of Ibn 'Umar we made specific. And what is less than that is contrary to this original rule. So we stop at what came from Ibn 'Umar.
Yes.
The questioner: ... Ibn 'Umar takes what is less than a handful, it is what remained from it ... .
The Shaykh: Less than a handful is what is permissible to take.
The questioner: What remained from the handful ... because "less than" a thing is less than the thing.
The Shaykh: "Less than" may come to mean lower.
The questioner : So...
The Shaykh : In any case.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: I mean by "less than a handful" what is more than a handful; yes, and in any case, I thank you for this point.
Is that enough?
So, there remains only the possibility that it is said that Ibn 'Umar understood, or did not understand. As for not understanding, we have ruled that out for him and his like. So the other possibility remains, which is that he understood, just as we understand it now completely, but he saw something that made him restrict this understanding that we have today, which is absoluteness. He saw the Messenger - peace and blessings be upon him - taking from his beard. Of course, we say that there is no one among you who asks: Is there evidence that the Messenger took? The issue is not about this. We do not have evidence that any Companion explicitly transmitted that the Messenger - peace be upon him - used to take from his beard, even though there is a hadith we narrated in "Silsilat al-Ahadith" where we clarified that it is fabricated, that he used to take from its width and length. But the issue now is that we want to find an exit that is consistent with the narrator of the hadith and the understanding of the narrator, who here is 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar. It is not easy for us to say, as they say, with the stroke of a pen: This is his opinion. That is said in theoretical issues, in issues that cannot be grasped except in terms of understanding. But in issues that were present before the Companions throughout their lives, we cannot imagine that Ibn 'Umar did not see the Messenger - peace be upon him - taking from his beard while he was taking from it, or that we cannot imagine that he saw the Messenger - peace be upon him - not taking from his beard while he did not know that he was not taking from his beard; because this is a clear and obvious matter.
Ibn 'Umar might not know how the Messenger - peace be upon him - would behave with his wives if he entered his house and sat with them; in this case, we would need to infer about the internal marital affairs of the wives of the Messenger - peace be upon him - where Ibn 'Umar's sight does not reach. But as for him sitting with the Messenger - peace be upon him - repeatedly and often, we imagine one of two things, and there is no choice but one: either the Messenger was taking, or he was not taking, and neither of these could be hidden from a Companion; because these matters face this person, this Companion, and in particular, they are matters that concern the face. The face is not called a face except because it faces the person with its face. So what do we assume? We must assume things, and in this situation, we must take the things closest to sound logic. Either we imagine that Ibn 'Umar saw the Messenger - peace be upon him - taking, so he took, or we imagine that he saw the Messenger not taking, so he took. The first matter is closer to logic: he saw the Messenger taking, so he took. As for the other matter, it is the furthest from the logic of a Muslim who knows the biography of Ibn 'Umar, claiming that he saw the Messenger not taking from his beard and then he took. This is the furthest from our view of the Companions in general, and especially of Ibn 'Umar, for what we know of his strictness in adhering to the Sunnah, for what we know of his strictness in adhering to the Sunnah of the Prophet - peace and blessings be upon him -; indeed, and his exaggeration in following him - peace and blessings be upon him - ... in it.
Perhaps you all know that Ibn 'Umar reached the point in his exaggeration in following him - peace and blessings be upon him - that he used to follow his tracks - peace and blessings be upon him - contrary to his father, and that he was seen one day urinating in a place, so he was asked about it, and he said: "I saw the Messenger of Allah - peace and blessings be upon him - doing this," and other things of his exaggeration in following the tracks of the Messenger - peace be upon him - some of which al-Mundhiri mentioned in the first book of his books on following the Sunnah, from his book "al-Targhib."
So the point is: if this is our knowledge of Ibn 'Umar, then I at least rule out, to the utmost extent, that he saw the Messenger - peace be upon him - not taking from his beard, but leaving it as it is, and then he contradicted the Prophet - peace and blessings be upon him -; and in this, he contradicted the absolute command he narrated from him:
And let the beards grow
وأعفوا اللحىFor this reason, I say: Ibn 'Umar's taking from his beard less than a handful is his application of something he saw in his Prophet - peace be upon him - and in his beard. And the one who does not take this view has no answer except to say: This is the opinion of Ibn 'Umar.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: Ah, and this rule - also - helps us with that; that the consideration is in the narration of the narrator, not in his opinion. But I have answered this before; this is regarding the understanding of the text. If the narrator understood the text with an absolute understanding, and we have no basis there from observation or sight, then this rule applies, which is the one upon which jurisprudential rulings must be built: "The consideration is in what the narrator narrated, not in his opinion." But we do not say: The consideration is in what the narrator narrated, not in his sight and observation; that is another matter. Therefore, the answer here to this rule is not precise; that is: we do not take the action of Ibn 'Umar because the consideration is in the narration of the narrator, not in his opinion, because we said something more than saying that this is his opinion. We must answer these conceptions that we presented. Either Ibn 'Umar saw the Messenger taking, so he took; then the argument stands with the action of Ibn 'Umar; because his action depicts his observation for us. Or we say: he did not see the Messenger - peace be upon him - and yet he took; this contradicts the entire life of Ibn 'Umar, which was focused on following the Messenger - peace be upon him - in every matter, even in ordinary matters. So this is far, and very far, from Ibn 'Umar. Therefore, I see that arguing with the action of Ibn 'Umar as a narrator of the hadith, and the narrator of the hadith here, we say, knows his narration better than others, I see that this argument is in its place.
The answer remains regarding a point that came in the question; which is taking from less than a handful, or rather from above?
So I say then: that here we have a pause. The original rule is to apply the general text in its generality, except for what is specified. And the action of Ibn 'Umar we made specific. And what is less than that is contrary to this original rule. So we stop at what came from Ibn 'Umar.
Yes.
The questioner: ... Ibn 'Umar takes what is less than a handful, it is what remained from it ... .
The Shaykh: Less than a handful is what is permissible to take.
The questioner: What remained from the handful ... because "less than" a thing is less than the thing.
The Shaykh: "Less than" may come to mean lower.
The questioner : So...
The Shaykh : In any case.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh: I mean by "less than a handful" what is more than a handful; yes, and in any case, I thank you for this point.
Is that enough?
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.