Is it true that you say it is obligatory to take what exceeds a handful from the beard?

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : It has reached us from some of our brothers that you mentioned regarding the matter of the beard that it is obligatory to take from it.

Another questioner : Obligatory.

The questioner : Obligatory, may Allah reward you with good, obligatory to take from it, and that is...

The Shaykh : Where did you get this from? You are more in error than he is...

The questioner : I mean, and they mentioned, O Shaykh, that you argued or mentioned the evidence for that in the action of 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), that he used to take from his beard, and since he is the narrator of the hadith, he is more aware of the meaning of what he narrates. So we do not know the truth of this statement, and what is your opinion on this? May Allah reward you with good?

The Shaykh : I will answer you about this, but we want to draw the attention of the one who makes the error, linguistically, to correct it. Know that this statement contains an error. Can you correct it?

Another questioner : Our Shaykh, after... after your comment, our Shaykh...

The Shaykh : Your error is in your generalization of "taking." Do you understand me?

Another questioner : A handful, yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, and therefore, based on this, it also needs to be corrected.
Ali Hasan: In another point, O our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : And what is it?
Ali Hasan: And the issue of using the action of Ibn 'Umar alone as the reason...

The Shaykh : No, he mentioned a narrator, his being a narrator.
Ali: I understand, but the understanding of the Salaf or the guidance of the Salaf by the general text.

The Shaykh : Leave it, no, that is a second thing.

Another questioner : This is what reached...

The Shaykh : Yes, that is a second thing. We say: The truth is that we have a very important rule, and I hope our brothers, the students of knowledge, will grasp it and understand it well, because hundreds of jurisprudential branches, if not thousands, depend on it. It is: "It is not permissible to act upon general texts that, by the nature of their generality, include many details, when it has been established that a part of these details was not practiced by the Salaf. In that case, it is not permissible to act upon the generality of this text for this specific detail." Is this clear? But it will become clearer by giving an example or more than one. First, before we bring a new, invented example, we draw attention to the fact that none of the widespread innovations among Muslims today are without the innovators, or those who beautify them, always finding a text in the Book or the Sunnah, a general text, that supports this innovative detail they are performing. Take, for example, the Muhammadan adhan begins with Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar and ends with La ilaha illa Allah. All Muslims acknowledge this fact. So no one has been found, and I hope none will be found, no matter how far they go in ignorance and misguidance, who says that Bilal, 'Amr ibn Umm Maktum, and Abu Mahdhura used to say after La ilaha illa Allah the salutation upon the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). This did not happen, and I hope it will not happen. Yet they argue against us, the callers to the Sunnah and to following the Salaf and the Imams, with the saying of Allah the Exalted: They say this is a general text, and they are right, it is a general text, because He did not say "pray in such and such a place" nor did He say "do not pray in such and such a place," but rather "pray" absolutely. What is our response to these people? The previous rule. Now I will give a hypothetical example, because the imagination sometimes broadens the horizons of the thinker and his grasp of the truth he is discussing. We are now discussing that generality in a detail that was not practiced is not to be acted upon. If we say a man entered the mosque at the time of prayer, for example the midday prayer, and people entered with him, and each of them took a corner of the mosque wanting to pray the two rak'ahs of the sunnah or four rak'ahs of the preceding sunnah, and one of them said, "Come, let us pray in congregation," and immediately he argued with two hadiths and . Is this argument correct? Of course, you will all say, even if there were among you, God forbid, an innovator, he would say, "No, it is not permissible." And why? We have no answer except the same answer regarding the addition after the adhan and before the adhan, and the addition after the prayer, and examples by the dozens, by the hundreds, indeed by the thousands. Our answer is that if this had been good, they would have preceded us to it. If it had been good, congregation in the voluntary prayers, in the regular voluntary prayers, and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: and so on. They are more understanding than us, first, and more eager than us to draw near to Allah, second. So if they did not do it, it is proof that they did not understand this understanding that you understand. I think the rule is now clear. Applying the issue to the rule: We know that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said in many hadiths: as in some hadiths . "Let the beards grow" is an absolute text, just as we exemplified earlier with the congregational prayer and "the hand of Allah is with the congregation," and as we exemplified before with the verse .