If the language indicates that the 'athnan is the tip of the beard, is there evidence in this for not trimming it?

The questioner : If you grant me a clarification, meaning to increase understanding of the topic.

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.

The questioner : There are two questions. The command comes to us from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in a general term.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : So we set aside, for example, the action of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) for now. We want to understand the general term of the Messenger (may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him). And as you always say, we do not understand the language, so our reference is the books of language. When he says: "Let your beards grow long and trim your sideburns," the meaning of that is that the People of the Book, or the Christians, or the majority of the People of the Book, or the polytheists, used to trim their beards. So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded us to differ from them. We want to understand the meaning of the beard: what is its extent? The general terms direct us to it, and then the hadith. When we returned to the books of language, we found that the 'athnan refers to the entire beard without exception. The hadith mentioned by our brother there is more authentic than that one, or rather, it is good, but more explicit in its indication. They said: "O Messenger of Allah, the People of the Book let their sideburns grow long and trim their 'athnan." He said: If we know that the 'athnan is the entire beard, and especially its tips, as indicated in the books of language, perhaps it will clarify for us something definite, or not?

The Shaykh : We do not yet know if it is definite or not.

The questioner : Because I do not intend...

The Shaykh : We understand from the question that it is definite.

The questioner : So we understood that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded us to let the entire beard grow. And perhaps this hadith that clarifies the extent of the beard is the hadith of Abu Umamah in the Musnad of the Ansar. It is a long hadith, and the part I mentioned is a portion of it. Here, the general terms indicate that it is the entire beard, O Shaykh, and it is not restricted to a specific amount.

The Shaykh : Okay, does this question, may Allah bless you, contain something that has not been raised previously by any party, and for which the answer has not been given, regarding the application of the beard text in its entirety?

The questioner : No

The Shaykh : So if

The questioner : But I told you, we set aside the action of 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar, O Shaykh, for now. We want to understand the general terms of the hadiths.

The Shaykh : I am saying with you...

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : The answer becomes clear from what has preceded with complete clarity. We say that the original rule for every general text is that it is obligatory to act according to its generality.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : The original rule for every general text is that it is obligatory to act according to its generality.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : This is not a matter of research or disagreement at all. But we add to it an addition and restrict it with a very necessary restriction: 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, did not understand that this general text is in its generality and comprehensiveness. I gave you an example earlier for this. And therefore I say, do not take it against me, I do not find anything new in your question because I gave an example to clarify this rule with a Qur'anic text: A thief, linguistically, and I raised my hand: the one who steals this paper 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? We moved from the thief to the stolen item to what is cut off, the one being judged: The hand here, and the hand here, and the hand here, are all a hand, as is known in the language. Do we accept from the one who takes the indication of the general text in this Qur'anic text? We all agree that the answer is no. Okay, if we want to elaborate and clarify, why? The answer is no, and we all say that the original rule is that it is obligatory to act according to the general text with every part of the general text. Why did we leave this text here in this example? The answer is that the righteous Salaf did not act according to this concept of this general text. So the answer, which is repeated whenever the question is repeated, is: We do not deny the first rule, which is the obligation to take the general text in its generality and comprehensiveness, except if there is evidence that it is restricted. Now I will mention something new in terms of clarification and explanation, or rather it is the same idea exactly. In other words, I will say: It is obligatory to take the general text in its generality and comprehensiveness, except if there is evidence that specifies or restricts it. This is also agreed upon by the scholars of usul al-fiqh. But look now at what restricts or specifies the text. What is present in the minds is either a hadith from the Messenger (peace be upon him), from his saying or his action. This is mentioned with complete clarity. But the third thing is not mentioned here, and most people are unaware of it. 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 (peace be upon him), whether by saying or action, the action of the righteous Salaf. And then there is this general text, which we originally agreed is obligatory to act according to its generality and comprehensiveness, which can also be specified by what the righteous Salaf were upon. It is not necessary, and this is also part of the clarification I mention on this occasion. Brother Abu Jabir earlier could have said, and the answer is known: Okay, we have a text that the Messenger (peace be upon him) trimmed his beard. I have blocked the path beforehand. There is no text, neither this way nor that way. So I do not say, in defense of my understanding, that the Messenger trimmed, nor is it permissible for anyone else to say, in defense of his understanding, that he did not trim, because we do not have a specification in this. But how do I know the life of the Messenger (peace be upon him) in things we did not know from his saying or his action? From the environment in which he lived (peace be upon him). For example, now many of the innovators, when we deny one of their innovations, they say: "Brother, do you have a text that the Messenger forbade this thing?" As I say, you want a detailed text exactly as you wish. Brother, I say there is a text for the one who understands, but the general people who do not understand do not find such a text.