What is the ruling on trimming the beard beyond a fistful?

The questioner : O Shaykh, regarding trimming the beard beyond a fistful, what is its ruling?

The Shaykh : It is obligatory. As for the generality that some scholars today rely on in their criticism of me, it is impossible for a scholar to apply a general text without it being supported by the practice of the righteous predecessors, because I firmly believe that the root of every religious innovation that the true people of the Sunnah agree is an innovation must fall under a general text. And you, I mean, now have a very wide field in which you can recall any innovation and think with me that it has a basis in the Book or in the Sunnah. Let us give a very clear example: adding to the adhan, whether at the beginning or at the end. This exists in some countries, such as in our country, Syria, but it falls under the generalities in the Book and the Sunnah, and so on. So what is the answer of the people of the Sunnah to these general proofs, in brief? Because I think you do not need the details. If it were good, they would have preceded us to it. Is this summary correct? Now, we have here a general text. This command to let it grow and to leave it is an absolute command, without doubt. Did the practice of the predecessors follow this or not? I personally am very careful, and you must have heard some of the tapes or some of the lessons or calls where I always and forever advise my brothers, the students of knowledge with us on the line, regarding taking from the Book and the Sunnah, that this is not enough today. We must say the Book and the Sunnah, but we must also add to that taking the path of the believers, meaning what the righteous predecessors were upon. And I think you do not need any detail on this, because these are self-evident matters, apparent, I believe, to students of knowledge. If that is the case, did the practice of the predecessors follow leaving the beard, no matter how long it got? When we hear some of the distinguished ones saying, "The text is general; it is known that the text is general," but the previous question remains, standing and without an answer. In fact, the answer is the exact opposite, from some reports from the predecessors, from the Companions and the Successors, and from some of the mujtahid imams. How is this general text to be followed when there is no practice that followed it, but rather the practice that followed is the opposite? So whoever says that, in that case, one should follow the general text, if the door of innovation in religion is thrown wide open, there is no one among the true people of the Sunnah who permits clinging to the general text in such a detail who has any ability to respond to the innovators. Because any innovator, no matter how extreme he is in innovating in religion, will be met with the same general texts we have. But when we say, by the word of the Lord of the Worlds, I remind you of a statement mentioned by some of the great scholars of the Hanbali school, and I mean Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi in his book "Al-Mughni." He mentions a report from a Companion that obligates following it, claiming that he does not know of any one who contradicts it. I think you know this expression?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Because this expression has become, I mean, known to many jurists: "He does not know of any one who contradicts it." So how is it when we have a group of the predecessors who act contrary to this general text, and no one is known to contradict them? How do we contradict them? If we negate what we always argue with, "So-and-so said such and such, and no one is known to contradict him," how do we contradict them when they are a group? We have Ibn Umar, and this is a report known to you. But what is not known, because it is still in the world of manuscripts, is from Abu Hurayrah, with a sound chain, "that he used to take what exceeded a fistful." And we have from Mujahid, and we have from Ibrahim ibn Yazid al-Nakha'i. And all these reports have sound chains. There is not a single text from a single Companion, let alone from the Messenger of Allah, that he did not take from his beard at all. So it is not permissible to act on this general text. Therefore, in my following of such details, I established for myself a jurisprudential and usuli rule from which I proceed, and I have been greatly relieved and have remained on the straight path, if Allah wills: "Every general text that the righteous predecessors did not act upon in any of its parts, acting upon that part is an innovation in religion." It is an introduction into religion, by the brief argument I mentioned earlier: if it were good, they would have preceded us to it.

The questioner : Regarding the specification now, is it not a condition for a text to be specified that the specifier be equal to it, for example?

The Shaykh : No.

The questioner : It is not a condition.

The Shaykh : How? No, you are now entangling yourself in something.

The questioner : I am not entangling myself, but I am asking about this matter.

The Shaykh : If you want this, I have answered you.

The questioner : Okay, O Shaykh, the issue of interpreting this statement to mean that Ibn Umar was interpreting the word of Allah, the verse in al-Hajj, Some scholars say that Ibn Umar interpreted this verse by shaving his head and also shortening his beard.

The Shaykh : We say to them, "Bring your proof if you are truthful." Do they have a proof?

The questioner : I mean, reconciling the action of Ibn Umar with the text.

The Shaykh : I hope you do not deviate. Do they have a proof?

The questioner : By Allah, I do not know, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Know that they do not say it is with a proof, but rather it is with their claim of reconciliation. And this reconciliation is based on a narration, "in Hajj and 'Umrah." But there is another narration that is absolutely sound, not in Hajj and 'Umrah. This is first. And second, do those who interpret the report of Umar with this interpretation do it?

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : Is the implication of my question, or not?

The questioner : They do not do it.

The Shaykh : They do not do it. What is behind this interpretation? Following the predecessors or contradicting the predecessors?

The questioner : No, they rule it as an error because he interpreted the text.

The Shaykh : My brother, the fact that he interpreted it is from them, not from him. If we had a narration that he interpreted it, it would be correct to say about Ibn Umar that he interpreted it. But they say it in their minds to refute the argument with the report of Ibn Umar that the Sunnah is taking what exceeds a fistful. But I refuted this with an absolute narration about Ibn Umar that does not include Hajj and does not include 'Umrah. And do not forget, if that interpretation were consistent for them—and it will not be consistent—what is their position regarding the report of Abu Hurayrah? The answer is that they have not yet reached the report of Abu Hurayrah in the book of Abu Bakr al-Khallal, which is still in the world of manuscripts, with a sound chain from the narration of the Imam of the Sunnah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, from Abu Hurayrah, that he used to take what exceeded a fistful. Then Imam Ahmad himself, the Imam of the Sunnah, used to do that. Where do they go?

The questioner : The description of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in al-Shama'il.

The Shaykh : Do not take the generalities, because in that case the expression "the soldier, stay in your place, rotate" applies to you.

The questioner : Is there anything sound established regarding the description of the beard of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)?

The Shaykh : If we wanted to cite what is not authentic, we would say that Imam al-Tirmidhi narrated in his Sunan from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) But it is far from us to cite a hadith that is not authentic, because it aligns with what we have that is authentic. No, we always say, and forever, that what is authentic from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the dhikr and the regular recitations, specifically, and in the Shari'ah, generally, is sufficient for the Muslim so that he does not need to draw near to Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) with what is not authentic. In fact, I believe, and I have said this more than once, that if Dawud (peace be upon him) were in this Ummah, and the Prophet of this Ummah had testified that he was the most worshipful of people, he would not have been able to worship Allah with everything that the Master of Mankind brought from the Creator of Mankind. He would not have been able to encompass it all in action, because the acts of worship, and especially the dhikr and the regular recitations, are so numerous that the capacity which Allah has granted to man can never accommodate performing all these types of worship: dhikr, prayers, fasting, and so on. Therefore, what is authentic from the Messenger (peace be upon him) is sufficient for us, and indeed exceeds our capacities and energies in what we wish to draw near to Allah (Mighty and Majestic) with. The point is that it is absolutely authentic from Abu Hurayrah, just as it is absolutely authentic from Ibn 'Umar in the second narration, which they do not dwell upon because it does not help them with the interpretation mentioned earlier. Then we also say, and you are descending to Mujahid, to Ibrahim ibn Yazid al-Nakha'i, and the like. The important thing is that there is no report that is not from the Messenger of Allah. And here is a common error, because we hear some students of knowledge, if not some scholars, say that the Messenger did not trim his beard. This has no basis. They take this from the general wording of the verbal narration. It does not follow from the generality of the Messenger's verbal statement in a matter of the Sunnah that he did not do it. I do not say that he did not do what contradicts the verbal text, but at least that he did not do what specifies its generality or restricts its absoluteness. There is no necessary connection. Therefore, it is not permissible for us to say, "Since the Messenger said , he did not trim his beard." There is absolutely no necessary connection between the two matters, even if we did not have such authentic Salafi reports. How much more so when we do have them, and praise be to Allah, as I mentioned to you earlier. Anyone else?
Please go ahead.