How do we reconcile the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to let the beard grow with the practice of Ibn 'Umar in trimming it to less than a fistful?

The questioner : The second question, and a question attached to it.

The Shaykh : What Allah willed.
Naturally, we know that numerous hadiths have been transmitted regarding letting the beard grow, and their apparent meaning is a command and obligation. And we know the hadith of 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar that if he was performing Hajj or 'Umrah...

The Shaykh : Pay attention, pay attention. There is an error in your question. Do you understand? That is enough for you. Pay attention, pay attention. It is enough for others.

The questioner : Grammatically?

The Shaykh : No, no, legally; yes, that is right.

The questioner : We know that there are hadiths transmitted regarding letting the beard grow with a command. Then we, or the scholars, found here, O Shaykh, a report from 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that if he was performing Hajj or 'Umrah. Is this evidence for the permissibility of taking from the beard, whether what exceeds a fistful or from the sides?

The Shaykh : Yes. The issue has no relation to the topic of whether it is obligatory to let the beard grow or not, but rather whether it is permissible to take from it or not permissible, correct?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : As for the report of Ibn 'Umar, if your holding onto it is specifically regarding the condition of Hajj or 'Umrah, it has an answer. And if it is not with this specificity, it has an answer. So which of the two specificities do you mean?

The questioner : Specifically regarding the condition of when he was performing Hajj or 'Umrah.

The Shaykh : Good. So if this condition of Hajj or 'Umrah is lifted, does the issue change for you?

The questioner : Unless another proof is established, yes, the issue changes for me.

The Shaykh : I mean, if it were established from Ibn 'Umar that he used to take from it even in other than Hajj and 'Umrah, would the problem end? I do not think so.

The questioner : As far as I am concerned, the problem does not end.

The Shaykh : So that is why this condition of specificity has no place in the parsing. This is what I sensed, while you were rambling around it. Well, for the sake of benefit, I say: it was established from him both the condition and the generalization. That is, he used to take from it in Hajj and 'Umrah, and he used to take from his beard without the condition of Hajj and 'Umrah. And what I understand from you is that you seem to want to say: Is it permissible to specify the generality of the Messenger's command to let the beard grow by the absolute action of Ibn 'Umar, meaning without the condition of Hajj and 'Umrah, but absolutely? I think this is your question, is that so?

The questioner : Yes, that is the question, but initially I was just brief regarding the condition.

The Shaykh : Yes, so take it as it is, as a benefit. The condition came, and the generalization also came. So Ibn 'Umar used to do it in Hajj and 'Umrah and in other than Hajj and 'Umrah. And take it as another benefit that taking from it was reported from other than Ibn 'Umar as well. Yes, and this is in fact one of the matters that is absent from the minds of many people of knowledge and virtue. Therefore, they forbid the committed people from taking from their beards because they want to stand by the generality of the text and this is the principle, namely that the Muslim should stand by the general or absolute text and not go beyond it with specification or condition except with proof. So now I see that the proof for us in the condition is the action of Ibn 'Umar, and not the specific action of Hajj and 'Umrah, although this benefits half the way, because those who say to implement the command in its generality or absoluteness do not permit that, not in Hajj nor in 'Umrah. Is that clear?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : So I say that the action of Ibn 'Umar here is a proof, and that is for what will be explained. And peace be upon you, welcome.
Abu Layla : Our Shaykh, Doctor... a veterinary doctor... he was coming to the topic.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward him with good, welcome. Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both). To understand the condition by his action, we must keep in mind a fact related to the previously mentioned hadith that Ibn 'Umar is one of its narrators. And here comes a jurisprudential rule that scholars often point out during their discussions with each other in some disputed issues, and they say: "The narrator is more aware of his narration than others." And this is sound speech derived from some hadith texts, such as his saying (peace be upon him): And this hadith has another narration And the reason for this hadith is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) narrated the story of Musa (peace be upon him) with his brother Harun from one side and his people from the other side. That when he went to converse with his Lord (Blessed and Exalted is He) and left his brother with the Jews, with the Children of Israel When Musa returned and informed him of the news, religious jealousy did not take him until he saw it. When he saw it, he said (peace be upon him): And this is a fact, meaning a self-evident innate truth known to people by practice and experience, as the matter is. So Ibn 'Umar, as we all know, lived with the Messenger (peace be upon him) for years and heard this hadith from him. So in my belief, if Ibn 'Umar knew by observation from him (may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him) that he does not take from it absolutely, it is impossible for Ibn 'Umar to take a hair from it, given what is known of him as being the most of the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah and his family upon him) in eagerness to follow him, even in some matters that might be criticized in him by others. And I think this is known to you?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : So if this noble Companion, some of whose biography we mentioned earlier, was the most eager of the Companions to follow the Messenger (peace be upon him), if he had not seen it or at least heard from him something that would allow him room to take from it, he would never have done it. Is that clear up to here?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : So if that is added to some of the Salaf, like Abu Hurayrah and Ibrahim al-Nakha'i and so on, and others, they also used to do it, taking from their beards. Then if that is added to the fact that those who do not say I know, "and whoever sees the lesson in others, let him take heed," but those who argue with the absolute hadith or its generality say that no one has transmitted from any of the Companions that he used to take. So we said to them: No, take from those who took from their beards, so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so. It remains for them now to prove to us the opposite, and without that, as it is said, "spinning the thorn." What is the opposite? That they did not take. They have nothing but mere lack of knowledge, and the scholars of knowledge say very sound speech: "Lack of knowledge of a thing does not necessitate knowledge of its absence." So the fact that I and Zayd and Bakr do not know that any of the Companions used to take, this does not mean that any of the Companions did not take. This is not knowledge, this is ignorance. We do not know it. It is possible like this and it is possible like that. But one of the two possibilities was negated by what we mentioned earlier about Ibn 'Umar and Abu Hurayrah and others of the righteous Salaf. And in my mind, Ibrahim al-Nakha'i narrates, and Ibrahim, as we know, is from the Tabi'un, narrates that they used to take from their beards. And this is a very important text. And on this basis, we can say that the command of the Messenger (peace be upon him) to let the beard grow is not in its absoluteness and comprehensiveness, because it was established practically from those who have their weight in knowledge and following that they did not apply this hadith in its absoluteness. From here and from other examples, I said in many discussions, and it is in fact a very important scientific rule, that whoever understands it will realize dozens of issues that confuse minds in knowing the reality of their matter, whether it is permissible legally or not. So I say...