What is the operative cause of the prohibition of shaving the beard, and if this cause is absent, does the ruling cease to exist?

The Shaykh : It is as if the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) conditioned the obligation of the beard, or following it, on differing from the Zoroastrians. And just as we say that the ruling revolves with its cause in existence and absence, because of differing from the Zoroastrians, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded letting the beard grow. So is this actually the cause from these transmitted evidences? Is the cause differing from the Zoroastrians, or is there another cause in letting the beard grow?

The Shaykh : Well, of course, there is another cause, but I ask you that the path of research not be vague, not be aimless, but be specific. You are now telling me, we want to hear your opinion on what? You want to hear the opinion on what? I repeat to your ears the message I read, and more. This is not reasonable!

The questioner : In brief.

The Shaykh : Rather, as you did recently, meaning you bring an example that you understood from us, and you still have a point of difficulty, you raise it. But to muddy the subject means we need to stay up all night around an issue like this one. So now, your last question is limited in scope: you say this Prophetic command is attributed to a cause. Do you see if there is another cause or not? This is a scientific, sound, and precise question. Before we enter the topic of whether there is another cause or not—and it actually exists—we say: Is this statement of his (peace be upon him): the cause for this ruling, such that the matter differs if the command to let the beard grow came alone, versus when it came followed by—and I do not say attributed to—his statement (peace be upon him): And you built on that that if it is a cause, the cause revolves with the caused in existence and absence. Does the ruling differ in your opinion between if this phrase were not in the hadith, and the reality that this phrase is present in the hadith? Is there a difference?

The questioner : As long as the cause is mentioned, if the cause is absent, the ruling must be absent based on this. This is my understanding, and it may be...

The Shaykh : No problem, no problem. Okay, this phrase, let us call it with you, and as we say with our brothers, we are in Syria, when the phrase "what does not come with you, come with it" is used. We are now coming with you. We assume this phrase is explanatory. What does the command here indicate in your knowledge? Does it indicate obligation or does it indicate recommendation?

The questioner : We say, as the scholars of usul al-fiqh say, every command in the Arabic language means obligation, unless there is a context that diverts it from obligation.

The Shaykh : Very good. Is there a context that diverts the command here from obligation to recommendation?

The questioner : No, there is no room for obligation and recommendation in that it is a ruling or not a ruling.

The Shaykh : No, excuse me, you did not answer me, and a believer is not bitten twice from the same hole! My question, may Allah reward you, if the science of usul al-fiqh says the default of a command is obligation unless there is a context...

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, we are proceeding. Did you find a context here that diverts the command from obligation to recommendation?

The questioner : I did not find one, but I found the command linked to a cause!

The Shaykh : We have not yet reached that, may Allah reward you?

The questioner: Go ahead.

The Shaykh : Because this cause, as is known to the scholars of usul al-fiqh and you mentioned that, the existence of the cause establishes the ruling attributed to it, and its absence removes the ruling. We now want to know the ruling established by the Shari'ah: is it obligatory? If the cause is removed, is the caused removed? Or is it recommended? If the cause is removed, is the caused removed? If the cause is removed and the caused is removed, the caused may be the obligation, and the caused may be the recommendation. Is this clear?

The questioner : Yes, yes.

The Shaykh : Before we resort to the explanatory phrase, we need to understand that this command indicates obligation or indicates recommendation. If the cause is not removed, the command remains either on obligation or on recommendation.

The questioner : And if the cause is cut, the obligation is certainly cut, just as the command is, so the obligation is.

The Shaykh : Now you have deviated from your speech, and this is a long matter with you, because at that time you did not say this. We, may Allah reward you, are in a scholarly session, we intend, as you said earlier, understanding and reaching the truth. Why do you say now "if it is cut by it," and before you did not say "if it is cut by it"? This is not acceptable at all, because this is like putting a stick in the wheel. We were going to walk in agreement, and if you put the stick in the wheel, meaning in the Syrian expression, you shaped it... you shaped it with what? If it is cut, brother, the topic is cut. Either this command is for obligation or for recommendation. If no context is found, it is certain that it is for obligation. If a context is found, it is certain that it is for recommendation. And you acknowledged, sir, that there is no context!

The questioner : There is no context, there is a cause.

The Shaykh : If you return to your old habit... we have not yet reached, may Allah reward you, the explanatory phrase, and I explained it to you, and I think you agree.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : The explanatory phrase for this ruling, is that not so?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : We now want to understand this ruling: is it obligation or recommendation?

The questioner : The command indicates obligation.

The Shaykh : So stay with me here, no stick in the wheel, okay?

The questioner: All right.