Is it correct to restrict the prohibition against dyeing with black to those who are of the age of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq's (may Allah be pleased with him) father?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : All right; O Shaykh, may Allah reward you with good.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible to interpret the prohibition against dyeing with black specifically as applying to certain specific people.
The Shaykh : HowSunan Abi Dawud 4613Hasan (Al-Albani), how is this possible?
The questioner : Do you mean those who are in the category of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq's (may Allah be pleased with him) father?
The Shaykh : What do you mean? So clarify your question, I did not understand you?
The questioner : I mean, the people who are prohibited from dyeing with black are those who are of the age or appearance that Abu Bakr al-Siddiq's (may Allah be pleased with him) father had?
The Shaykh : And what about those who are younger than that age?
The questioner : I mean, if it is henna and katam.
The Shaykh : Leave it... You have a problem with mixing henna and katam, and others have a problem with it too. Let us set aside this mixture for now. We are talking about black, whether it is a mixture or standalone. We are talking about black. So you are asking: Is there a barrier to interpreting the prohibition of black as applying to specific people? When you clarified the matter to me, you said: like Abu Quhafah, for example; meaning his beard was as white as a thugamah.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : All right; so I told you: Then who is permitted to mix or dye with black? Who is younger than him in age?!
The questioner : I mean, his beard would not be like a thugamah, but a mixture, meaning strands.
The Shaykh : I know, I know, meaning younger than him in age.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : All right; what is the difference between this and that? And who is more deserving of dye, the one who has turned completely white, or the one whom gray has touched with a few strands?
The questioner : No, I am not talking about that. I am saying this so that we can interpret all these texts.
The Shaykh : I told you... the texts in a way that there is absolutely no evasion regarding them!
The questioner : Yes, but the mixing in general, we qualified the mixing as leading to a dye that is not...
The Shaykh : Of course... Why? Because you cannot say that the text is absolute, and students of knowledge fall into a great error. Why? An absolute text is when the Messenger speaks a word. But when the narrator is telling a story, telling something he witnessed, you cannot say: This is absolute; because you do not know what he meant. For example, if you saw a person named Zayd dyeing with henna and katam and you told me about it; can I take from you a specific image that it was like the first example I gave, with this, or half of this, or three-quarters of it, or a quarter of it? Can I take from your report any of these details?
The questioner : A specific thing? Of course, it is not possible.
The Shaykh : Good; and if you say a specific thing is not possible; then it is not correct for you to say: I take the report in its absolute sense; because this absoluteness did not give us a specific meaning, whether it was pure black or close to it or further from black or whatever. We cannot take merely the narrator's report about the thing he witnessed; unlike when the Wise Lawgiver came and presented us with an absolute text, like what came in the story of the Children of Israel:[Al-Baqarah 2:67] absolute. This has absoluteness; because this is legislation. Therefore, they were attributed to stubbornness and misguidance when they said: What is its color? What is such and such? and so on. But a narrator tells you about a specific person that he was dyeing with henna and katam. From where can you take that it means dark black or does not mean dark black? Is this point clear to you?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Since the matter is so; this person, regardless of whether he is the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) or the one next to him in virtue and perfection, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, is a Muslim. You have been informed that he was dyeing with katam and what? Henna. Good opinion of him leads you to believe that he is explicitly contradicting the prohibition of black, whether for Abu Bakr or as a general text in the second hadith? Does it lead you to imagine that he was dyeing with black that contradicts both hadiths, or to say: close to black, not dark black? Good opinion leads you to this reconciliation; that is: to interpret the report that reached you about that Muslim in a way that is consistent with the hadith; because it is a legislative hadith and it is absolute. Do you see? Or the opposite, to interpret the hadith that came from the speech of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and narrow its meaning so that it matches the action of that person, of whom you do not know in reality whether it was dark black or light black. Is it perhaps clear?
The questioner : If Allah wills.
The Shaykh : If Allah wills.
The questioner : I mean, the hadith of prohibition is restricted, restricting the issue of mixing.
The Shaykh : Yes, it restricts the action of the doer, who is a Muslim. We restrict it and interpret it in a way that does not conflict with the general, absolute statement of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Or the opposite; because it is not permissible to impose the action of a person on what? On the legislation of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). And I am clarifying that the scholars mentioned this; meaning, when they came to the hadith that the Messenger was dyeing with henna and katam, you find them saying this meaning. And perhaps it is in "Fath al-Bari" here?
Another questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Go back to "Fath al-Bari" and see what it says? Of course, I advise that your research not be in this way; meaning, you go back to the dictionary to understand what results from mixing henna with katam. The dictionary does not give you this. It gives you what color is henna? What color is katam? But what is the ratio of the mixture and what is the result? This has several images. For example, if I took a white dye and put a drop of black in it, you might say this is a mixture of black and white. But does this small drop in the white, barely changing its whiteness, turn it yellow a bit, what is shown? Its effect. But what will prevail in this color or this mixture or this blend, black or white? You say: white. When does black prevail? When black overpowers white. So you go back to the dictionary to explain to you what white is. It may explain what black is. But any mixture that one mixes between the white and black substances, the dictionary does not address this. Who addresses it? The one who explains to you the hadiths of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and the biography of the Messenger and the biography of the Companions. So in this case, do not go back to dictionaries. Go back to dictionaries if the meaning of a word is difficult for you. Do you see how? But here the speech is clear: henna and katam. But does the mixture have black prevailing over it, or does it have red or yellow prevailing over it? This is the function of the explanations of the books of hadith.
The Shaykh : It is not permissible to interpret the prohibition against dyeing with black specifically as applying to certain specific people.
The Shaykh : How
Among my community there will be people who will falsify Divine decree
يكون في أمَّتي أقوام يصبغون بالسوادThe questioner : Do you mean those who are in the category of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq's (may Allah be pleased with him) father?
The Shaykh : What do you mean? So clarify your question, I did not understand you?
The questioner : I mean, the people who are prohibited from dyeing with black are those who are of the age or appearance that Abu Bakr al-Siddiq's (may Allah be pleased with him) father had?
The Shaykh : And what about those who are younger than that age?
The questioner : I mean, if it is henna and katam.
The Shaykh : Leave it... You have a problem with mixing henna and katam, and others have a problem with it too. Let us set aside this mixture for now. We are talking about black, whether it is a mixture or standalone. We are talking about black. So you are asking: Is there a barrier to interpreting the prohibition of black as applying to specific people? When you clarified the matter to me, you said: like Abu Quhafah, for example; meaning his beard was as white as a thugamah.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : All right; so I told you: Then who is permitted to mix or dye with black? Who is younger than him in age?!
The questioner : I mean, his beard would not be like a thugamah, but a mixture, meaning strands.
The Shaykh : I know, I know, meaning younger than him in age.
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : All right; what is the difference between this and that? And who is more deserving of dye, the one who has turned completely white, or the one whom gray has touched with a few strands?
The questioner : No, I am not talking about that. I am saying this so that we can interpret all these texts.
The Shaykh : I told you... the texts in a way that there is absolutely no evasion regarding them!
The questioner : Yes, but the mixing in general, we qualified the mixing as leading to a dye that is not...
The Shaykh : Of course... Why? Because you cannot say that the text is absolute, and students of knowledge fall into a great error. Why? An absolute text is when the Messenger speaks a word. But when the narrator is telling a story, telling something he witnessed, you cannot say: This is absolute; because you do not know what he meant. For example, if you saw a person named Zayd dyeing with henna and katam and you told me about it; can I take from you a specific image that it was like the first example I gave, with this, or half of this, or three-quarters of it, or a quarter of it? Can I take from your report any of these details?
The questioner : A specific thing? Of course, it is not possible.
The Shaykh : Good; and if you say a specific thing is not possible; then it is not correct for you to say: I take the report in its absolute sense; because this absoluteness did not give us a specific meaning, whether it was pure black or close to it or further from black or whatever. We cannot take merely the narrator's report about the thing he witnessed; unlike when the Wise Lawgiver came and presented us with an absolute text, like what came in the story of the Children of Israel:
Indeed, Allah commands you to slaughter a cow
إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُكُمْ أَنْ تَذْبَحُوا بَقَرَةًThe questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Since the matter is so; this person, regardless of whether he is the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) or the one next to him in virtue and perfection, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, is a Muslim. You have been informed that he was dyeing with katam and what? Henna. Good opinion of him leads you to believe that he is explicitly contradicting the prohibition of black, whether for Abu Bakr or as a general text in the second hadith? Does it lead you to imagine that he was dyeing with black that contradicts both hadiths, or to say: close to black, not dark black? Good opinion leads you to this reconciliation; that is: to interpret the report that reached you about that Muslim in a way that is consistent with the hadith; because it is a legislative hadith and it is absolute. Do you see? Or the opposite, to interpret the hadith that came from the speech of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and narrow its meaning so that it matches the action of that person, of whom you do not know in reality whether it was dark black or light black. Is it perhaps clear?
The questioner : If Allah wills.
The Shaykh : If Allah wills.
The questioner : I mean, the hadith of prohibition is restricted, restricting the issue of mixing.
The Shaykh : Yes, it restricts the action of the doer, who is a Muslim. We restrict it and interpret it in a way that does not conflict with the general, absolute statement of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Or the opposite; because it is not permissible to impose the action of a person on what? On the legislation of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). And I am clarifying that the scholars mentioned this; meaning, when they came to the hadith that the Messenger was dyeing with henna and katam, you find them saying this meaning. And perhaps it is in "Fath al-Bari" here?
Another questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Go back to "Fath al-Bari" and see what it says? Of course, I advise that your research not be in this way; meaning, you go back to the dictionary to understand what results from mixing henna with katam. The dictionary does not give you this. It gives you what color is henna? What color is katam? But what is the ratio of the mixture and what is the result? This has several images. For example, if I took a white dye and put a drop of black in it, you might say this is a mixture of black and white. But does this small drop in the white, barely changing its whiteness, turn it yellow a bit, what is shown? Its effect. But what will prevail in this color or this mixture or this blend, black or white? You say: white. When does black prevail? When black overpowers white. So you go back to the dictionary to explain to you what white is. It may explain what black is. But any mixture that one mixes between the white and black substances, the dictionary does not address this. Who addresses it? The one who explains to you the hadiths of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and the biography of the Messenger and the biography of the Companions. So in this case, do not go back to dictionaries. Go back to dictionaries if the meaning of a word is difficult for you. Do you see how? But here the speech is clear: henna and katam. But does the mixture have black prevailing over it, or does it have red or yellow prevailing over it? This is the function of the explanations of the books of hadith.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.