Discussion of the research on trimming the beard.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : In the hadith mentioned by our brother there, there is a more authentic hadith than it, meaning it is good, but more explicit in its indication. He said, "O Messenger of Allah, Once we know that ... is what is meant, especially the tips of it, as indicated in the linguistic books, perhaps it will clarify something for us.
The Shaykh : It is not with us.
The questioner : Yes, we understood that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded us to let the beard grow. Perhaps the hadith explains the hadith of Abu Umamah regarding the prayer; it is a long hadith. Here, the general terms are intended, indicating the entire beard, and it is not restricted to a specific amount.
The Shaykh : Fine, this question, may Allah bless you, contains something that has not been raised before by the people of the extremes, and the answer has not been presented in most of the applications of the text of the beard in its entirety.
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : If so,
The questioner : But I told you that the evidence of 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar is clearer than the general terms of the hadiths.
The Shaykh : I am saying, yes, the answer of the text becomes clear when what preceded is fully clarified. We say that the original principle in every general text is that it must be known in its generality, for the original principle in every general text is that it must be known in its generality. This is not a place of research or disagreement at all. But we add to it an addition and restrict it with a very necessary statement: except for a general text where it becomes clear to us that the righteous Salaf, who are more understanding than us and more pious than us, and so on from the connected items, did not understand that this general text is in its generality and comprehensiveness. And therefore, I say I do not find anything new in your question, because I gave an example to clarify this rule with a Qur'anic text:[Al-Ma'idah 5:38] The thief, linguistically, and I raised my hand; the one who steals is a thief. Do we apply the text within the limits of this linguistic understanding, or do we apply it within the limits of what they understood? It moved from the thief to the stolen item to the one being judged: The hand here, the hand here, and the hand here are all a hand, as they placed it in the language. Do we accept from the one who takes the indication of the general text in this Qur'anic text? We are all agreed that the answer is no. So if we want to elaborate or clarify why the answer is no, and we also all say that the original principle is that it must be acted upon with the general text in every part of the general text, why did we leave this text here in this example? The answer is because the righteous Salaf did not act with this concept of this general text. So the answer repeats whenever the question repeats: we do not deny the first rule, which is that it is permissible to take the general text in its generality and comprehensiveness, until evidence arises that it is restricted. Then I will mention that there is nothing new in terms of explanation and clarification, otherwise the idea is trivial, meaning I will say: it is obligatory to take the general text in its generality and comprehensiveness, unless evidence comes that specifies or restricts it. This is agreed upon by the scholars of principles. But look now at what restricts the text. They said the text that is established in the minds is either a hadith from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that restricted it, or from his action. This is mentioned with complete clarity. But the second thing is not mentioned here, and what is most asked about by the objectors is: I restrict the text with the practical life of the Salaf. If the Salaf in their practical life did not take the indication of the general text, then I add to the text from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), whether by his saying or his action, the action of the righteous Salaf. So then, this general text, which we originally agreed must be acted upon in its generality and comprehensiveness, can also be restricted by what the righteous Salaf were upon. This is not necessary, and this is what I mention on such an occasion. The brother who was arguing just now could have said, and the answer is that it is practiced: fine, we have a text that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) took from his beard. I blocked the way beforehand; we do not have a text, neither this nor that. I do not say this in defense of my understanding, nor that the Messenger did not take, nor that it is permissible for him to have a victory for his opinion that he did not take, because we do not have a specification in it. But how do I know the life of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in matters we do not know from his saying or his action, from the environment in which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) lived? Because many of the innovators, when we deny one of their innovations, say, "Do you have, my brother, a text that the Messenger did this thing?" Just as I say to you, "You want a text detailed to your liking, my brother." I say there is a text for those who understand; the general people who do not understand do not find such a text. First, I start from his saying (peace and blessings be upon him), may Allah have mercy on you: Sunan Abi Dawud 4607Sahih (Al-Albani) Here I have a short pause. The one who can say that this command is an innovation is the one who has the greatest possible knowledge of what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and the righteous Salaf were upon. For example, if we now say that the female muezzin is an innovation, and they ask us, "Do you have a text that the female muezzin was not in the time of the Messenger? Do you have a text that the celebration of the Mawlid was not celebrated?" There is no text like this, of course. But when the scholars say that the celebration is an innovation, the female muezzin is an innovation, and so on, where do they take it from? They take it from their knowledge of the life of the righteous Salaf, that the celebration was not mentioned, the celebration of the day of 'Ashura was not mentioned, nor the wailing and crying on the day of 'Ashura according to the method of the Shi'ah, and so on. They understand from these abandoned matters that they did not exist. And from this extensive study, a person can benefit from this hadith: Sahih Muslim 1718a We should know meaning our religion. So the one who does not know our religion will never distinguish between the Sunnah and innovation. And therefore, their understanding is very important in our subject here. When we want to say that this part is not acted upon, we should know the situation of the righteous Salaf, the Companions, the Successors, and their followers, the three famous centuries known for their excellence. Was this thing present? We read these texts; all of them mention taking (trimming) and do not mention absolute leaving (growing). So this absolute leaving is not practiced. This is what I believe and testify to Allah. And I add to this belief that without this, we cannot revive the Sunnah, but rather we open the field for innovations and innovators to spread their wares in our lands, even we, the people of the Sunnah and the community. And I gave you an example of one of the scholars of hadith in Pakistan who supported the innovation that Imam al-Shatibi denied, because he is an imam who specialized in studying that every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Fire. And therefore, I believe it is very, very important to study the science of the principles of hadith practically, and the science of the principles of jurisprude scientifically, otherwise a person will stumble in a very strange way in his jurisprudence and his hadith. And perhaps this is sufficient, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.
The questioner : Letting your beard grow is a matter of widespread concern.
The Shaykh : Letting your beard grow is a matter of widespread concern. How do you mean?
The questioner : It is known among people that the requirement of the command of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is known among people that it is not absolute.
The Shaykh : Not absolute.
The questioner : Only the dissenters were mentioned.
The Shaykh : It is known that they did not take from it absolutely. Do you want to say?
The questioner : It was not an exaggerated action of a Companion.
The Shaykh : Where do we take this exaggeration from?
The questioner : From the mention of the dissenters to the entire scope of the Companions.
The Shaykh : The strange thing is that we erase the mentioned one and establish the unmentioned one absolutely.
The questioner : Why did they mention it?
The Shaykh : As an explanation of the hadith, and as a warning that someone might understand the hadith in its absolute sense. This is very clear. Then what do you say, Professor? The Hanafi scholars all let it grow and explicitly state that not taking from the beard, I do not know if they call it an innovation or forbidden, because the era is very distant. If they specify that the Sunnah is the handful, that is their school.
The questioner : The one who takes less than the handful is a effeminate man.
The Shaykh : We are talking about the increase in shortening. With the increase here, they would be like the Moroccans who used to take it like the tribes today, meaning there were some from the Muslim Brotherhood who would groom it like this and twist it, not letting it grow absolutely. So the one who established the symbol of the people of the Sunnah intended that Imam Ahmad, the Imam of the Sunnah, also says like what you heard from Ibn 'Umar and Abu Hurayrah. So they mentioned these things as an explanation of the Sunnah. I do not think this question is valid at all.
The questioner : What is the reference?
The Shaykh : The reference for you is in the book al-Tarjal by Abu Bakr al-Khallal. Yes.
The questioner : Against the user, our brother 'Abdullah.
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : If leaving it is a matter of widespread concern.
The Shaykh : We found it strange and disapproved of it.
The questioner : It is widespread among people.
The Shaykh : It is widespread among people
The questioner : that they understood what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said
The Shaykh : the height of the affliction
The questioner : Yes, indeed
The Shaykh : Is the exemption from the Sunnah
The questioner : You do not know the affliction; the meaning of trial
The questioner : I do not like this style; a person should be clear and frank. Either he says, "I did not understand this, so explain it to me," or he does not say to me, "Your words are wrong." I do not like you to answer the Shaykh by answering me
The Shaykh : Well, he answers you, may Allah reward you, with something that is in his mind, and he may not be able to express it. The prevalence of the affliction—take your time. It is said regarding practical matters and scholarly matters that differ from what you say. The prevalence of the affliction now is shaving and shortening, as we said about the Shams, "the best of beards." An indication is here. The prevalence of the affliction is not the prevalence of the affliction of the mind. This is not said regarding the mind among the jurists. So you are speaking about a mental aspect, that what is in the minds of the predecessors is absolute exemption. The prevalence of the affliction requires occurrence, scientifically and practically. That we can have these extremists for the beard, absolutely, and they wish that all beards were like the beard of Ibn Umar and Abu Hurayrah, and so on. Because the prevalence of the affliction is contrary to this. Truly, using the term "prevalence of the affliction" for what you expressed is not precise. Then, my brother, from where do we understand this mental meaning? From the ignorant people present, or from the jurists? You will say, as I told our brother many times, not from the jurists, is that not so?
The questioner : I want him, he is the one who corrected me, he is the one who answered him. I listen to you with politeness and am ready to listen to you for four hours, but I am not a student, and I cannot have you answer for one person. Any person who criticizes me, he criticizes me, he does not remove me to you. This is a rule of the established principles for me
The Shaykh : But this rule is open to discussion
The questioner : Between you and me, I will try
The Shaykh : It is open to discussion
The questioner : But not from the youth
The Shaykh : Why, between you and me
The questioner : I listen to you with politeness, but that I accept this, no
The Shaykh : My brother, may Allah reward you, leave the word "with politeness"
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : The truth is shared, so it must be publicized by every means. The issue of politeness is going on among Muslims, meaning politeness leads us to conceal the statement in a certain gathering. Yes, the young one is honored, the elder is honored, the scholar is honored by those below him, and so on. These are other issues. But scientific research does not accept "between you and me" only, or "between you and me and another person." Why are we brothers on opposite beds? If you err, you correct my error. If I err, I correct your error. If he errs, you correct his error, without provoking him and without stirring up resentments in the soul
Another questioner: Regarding the brother Abdullah, he asks...
The Shaykh : There is no god but Allah
Another questioner: He asks, saying, the word "general" and the word "affliction," is it correct? He is inquiring
The Shaykh : Yes
Another questioner: He is inquiring so that he sees the Shaykh's answer
The questioner : The question is still standing regarding the issue of arguing with the brother Abdullah that "affliction" is a general word, perhaps an explanation in Islamic knowledge. But "affliction" makes me feel that it is in certain things, not applied to anything. But that "affliction" is specific things, is this correct?
The Shaykh : I said, my brother, this speech applies to practical matters that spread by the prevalence of the affliction. As for mental matters, they have no relation to this speech. Meaning, if Abu Abdullah sees otherwise, we hear his opinion or postpone it, and it is up to him. We do not impose on the person
The questioner : Abu Abdullah is with the Merciful, busy. Meaning, I praise Allah, I am one of the regular attendees. If I could, I would attend. I reached the point where in the session of the ablutions, I could not attend. And I testify to Allah that there is no time that I leave with a prizeThe Shaykh : Welcome
The questioner : But I feel that some of the youth around you intend to speak, and I do not mean a specific person now. They are just working to belittle the Shaykh for whoever speaks and trying to heat up the speech. I am certain that there is no person who speaks except a student of knowledge
The Shaykh : But your saying, "I do not like it is wrong," what do you think?
The questioner : I mean, I do not like doing this
The Shaykh : Yes, your saying, "I do not like doing it is wrong"The questioner : Show me this error
The Shaykh : Because we are all that man. So when you say "I," it means you are not me
The questioner : I intended "I" so that I do not oblige othersThe Shaykh : How do you not oblige him? Because is this not from the etiquettes of the neighbor? So we are all, and praise be to Allah, nothing of what you are pointing to happened in this gathering. It may happen. I do not deny. I did not say that you said "I." I say that it did not happen. But I said in my complete speech that it may happen. But none of us is free from sin. Therefore,[Al-'Asr 103:1-3] So now, if there is someone who has a question, it is necessary to end the session to the extent of necessity, or else we said, "Go, may you be guided"
The questioner : The questions, I say, we postpone them, especially in declaring someone a disbeliever. So let us not cut off the gatherings in it. May Allah will it, next time, with the permission of Allah
The Shaykh : May Allah will it
Another questioner: Glory be to You, O Allah, and with Your praise
The questioner : For example, in a session, we have "hit you" "I hit you"
The Shaykh : It is not permissible
The questioner : You say
The Shaykh : She read in a recitation "hit you" and then a second time "hit you"
The questioner : Another session, meaning
The Shaykh : This is it
Indeed, the People of the Book throw their excrement... So he said, "Oppose the People of the Book and cut off your excrement"
إن أهل الكتاب يلقون سبالهم ... فقال خالفوا أهل الكتاب و قصو سبالكمThe Shaykh : It is not with us.
The questioner : Yes, we understood that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded us to let the beard grow. Perhaps the hadith explains the hadith of Abu Umamah regarding the prayer; it is a long hadith. Here, the general terms are intended, indicating the entire beard, and it is not restricted to a specific amount.
The Shaykh : Fine, this question, may Allah bless you, contains something that has not been raised before by the people of the extremes, and the answer has not been presented in most of the applications of the text of the beard in its entirety.
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : If so,
The questioner : But I told you that the evidence of 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar is clearer than the general terms of the hadiths.
The Shaykh : I am saying, yes, the answer of the text becomes clear when what preceded is fully clarified. We say that the original principle in every general text is that it must be known in its generality, for the original principle in every general text is that it must be known in its generality. This is not a place of research or disagreement at all. But we add to it an addition and restrict it with a very necessary statement: except for a general text where it becomes clear to us that the righteous Salaf, who are more understanding than us and more pious than us, and so on from the connected items, did not understand that this general text is in its generality and comprehensiveness. And therefore, I say I do not find anything new in your question, because I gave an example to clarify this rule with a Qur'anic text:
[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands
وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَاCut off their hands
فَاقْطَعُوا أَيْدِيَهُمَاAvoid novelties, for every novelty is an innovation, and every innovation is an error
وإياكم ومحدثات الأمور فإن كل محدثةٍ بدعة وكل بدعةٍ ضلالة وكل ضلالة في النارBeware of newly invented matters
إياكم ومحدثات الأمور'A'isha reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: He who innovates things in our affairs for which there is no valid (reason) (commits sin) and these are to be rejected.
من أحدث في أمرنا هذا ما ليس منه فهو ردOur matter
أمرنا هذاThe questioner : Letting your beard grow is a matter of widespread concern.
The Shaykh : Letting your beard grow is a matter of widespread concern. How do you mean?
The questioner : It is known among people that the requirement of the command of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) is known among people that it is not absolute.
The Shaykh : Not absolute.
The questioner : Only the dissenters were mentioned.
The Shaykh : It is known that they did not take from it absolutely. Do you want to say?
The questioner : It was not an exaggerated action of a Companion.
The Shaykh : Where do we take this exaggeration from?
The questioner : From the mention of the dissenters to the entire scope of the Companions.
The Shaykh : The strange thing is that we erase the mentioned one and establish the unmentioned one absolutely.
The questioner : Why did they mention it?
The Shaykh : As an explanation of the hadith, and as a warning that someone might understand the hadith in its absolute sense. This is very clear. Then what do you say, Professor? The Hanafi scholars all let it grow and explicitly state that not taking from the beard, I do not know if they call it an innovation or forbidden, because the era is very distant. If they specify that the Sunnah is the handful, that is their school.
The questioner : The one who takes less than the handful is a effeminate man.
The Shaykh : We are talking about the increase in shortening. With the increase here, they would be like the Moroccans who used to take it like the tribes today, meaning there were some from the Muslim Brotherhood who would groom it like this and twist it, not letting it grow absolutely. So the one who established the symbol of the people of the Sunnah intended that Imam Ahmad, the Imam of the Sunnah, also says like what you heard from Ibn 'Umar and Abu Hurayrah. So they mentioned these things as an explanation of the Sunnah. I do not think this question is valid at all.
The questioner : What is the reference?
The Shaykh : The reference for you is in the book al-Tarjal by Abu Bakr al-Khallal. Yes.
The questioner : Against the user, our brother 'Abdullah.
The Shaykh : What?
The questioner : If leaving it is a matter of widespread concern.
The Shaykh : We found it strange and disapproved of it.
The questioner : It is widespread among people.
The Shaykh : It is widespread among people
The questioner : that they understood what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said
The Shaykh : the height of the affliction
The questioner : Yes, indeed
The Shaykh : Is the exemption from the Sunnah
The questioner : You do not know the affliction; the meaning of trial
The questioner : I do not like this style; a person should be clear and frank. Either he says, "I did not understand this, so explain it to me," or he does not say to me, "Your words are wrong." I do not like you to answer the Shaykh by answering me
The Shaykh : Well, he answers you, may Allah reward you, with something that is in his mind, and he may not be able to express it. The prevalence of the affliction—take your time. It is said regarding practical matters and scholarly matters that differ from what you say. The prevalence of the affliction now is shaving and shortening, as we said about the Shams, "the best of beards." An indication is here. The prevalence of the affliction is not the prevalence of the affliction of the mind. This is not said regarding the mind among the jurists. So you are speaking about a mental aspect, that what is in the minds of the predecessors is absolute exemption. The prevalence of the affliction requires occurrence, scientifically and practically. That we can have these extremists for the beard, absolutely, and they wish that all beards were like the beard of Ibn Umar and Abu Hurayrah, and so on. Because the prevalence of the affliction is contrary to this. Truly, using the term "prevalence of the affliction" for what you expressed is not precise. Then, my brother, from where do we understand this mental meaning? From the ignorant people present, or from the jurists? You will say, as I told our brother many times, not from the jurists, is that not so?
The questioner : I want him, he is the one who corrected me, he is the one who answered him. I listen to you with politeness and am ready to listen to you for four hours, but I am not a student, and I cannot have you answer for one person. Any person who criticizes me, he criticizes me, he does not remove me to you. This is a rule of the established principles for me
The Shaykh : But this rule is open to discussion
The questioner : Between you and me, I will try
The Shaykh : It is open to discussion
The questioner : But not from the youth
The Shaykh : Why, between you and me
The questioner : I listen to you with politeness, but that I accept this, no
The Shaykh : My brother, may Allah reward you, leave the word "with politeness"
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : The truth is shared, so it must be publicized by every means. The issue of politeness is going on among Muslims, meaning politeness leads us to conceal the statement in a certain gathering. Yes, the young one is honored, the elder is honored, the scholar is honored by those below him, and so on. These are other issues. But scientific research does not accept "between you and me" only, or "between you and me and another person." Why are we brothers on opposite beds? If you err, you correct my error. If I err, I correct your error. If he errs, you correct his error, without provoking him and without stirring up resentments in the soul
Another questioner: Regarding the brother Abdullah, he asks...
The Shaykh : There is no god but Allah
Another questioner: He asks, saying, the word "general" and the word "affliction," is it correct? He is inquiring
The Shaykh : Yes
Another questioner: He is inquiring so that he sees the Shaykh's answer
The questioner : The question is still standing regarding the issue of arguing with the brother Abdullah that "affliction" is a general word, perhaps an explanation in Islamic knowledge. But "affliction" makes me feel that it is in certain things, not applied to anything. But that "affliction" is specific things, is this correct?
The Shaykh : I said, my brother, this speech applies to practical matters that spread by the prevalence of the affliction. As for mental matters, they have no relation to this speech. Meaning, if Abu Abdullah sees otherwise, we hear his opinion or postpone it, and it is up to him. We do not impose on the person
The questioner : Abu Abdullah is with the Merciful, busy. Meaning, I praise Allah, I am one of the regular attendees. If I could, I would attend. I reached the point where in the session of the ablutions, I could not attend. And I testify to Allah that there is no time that I leave with a prizeThe Shaykh : Welcome
The questioner : But I feel that some of the youth around you intend to speak, and I do not mean a specific person now. They are just working to belittle the Shaykh for whoever speaks and trying to heat up the speech. I am certain that there is no person who speaks except a student of knowledge
The Shaykh : But your saying, "I do not like it is wrong," what do you think?
The questioner : I mean, I do not like doing this
The Shaykh : Yes, your saying, "I do not like doing it is wrong"The questioner : Show me this error
The Shaykh : Because we are all that man. So when you say "I," it means you are not me
The questioner : I intended "I" so that I do not oblige othersThe Shaykh : How do you not oblige him? Because is this not from the etiquettes of the neighbor? So we are all, and praise be to Allah, nothing of what you are pointing to happened in this gathering. It may happen. I do not deny. I did not say that you said "I." I say that it did not happen. But I said in my complete speech that it may happen. But none of us is free from sin. Therefore,
(1) By time, (2) Indeed, mankind is in loss, (3) Except for those who have believed and done righteous deeds and advised each other to truth and advised each other to patience.
وَالْعَصْرِ إِنَّ الإِنسَانَ لَفِي خُسْرٍ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالْحَقِّ وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالصَّبْرِThe questioner : The questions, I say, we postpone them, especially in declaring someone a disbeliever. So let us not cut off the gatherings in it. May Allah will it, next time, with the permission of Allah
The Shaykh : May Allah will it
Another questioner: Glory be to You, O Allah, and with Your praise
The questioner : For example, in a session, we have "hit you" "I hit you"
The Shaykh : It is not permissible
The questioner : You say
The Shaykh : She read in a recitation "hit you" and then a second time "hit you"
The questioner : Another session, meaning
The Shaykh : This is it