A discussion regarding the beard.

The Shaykh : Now, you have brought a valid example for the rule we were discussing recently, is that not so? Your argument relies on the general text, do you not agree?

The questioner : No, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : No, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : How is it "no"? You are arguing now

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : with two general texts. The first text is Is that not so?

The questioner : This is what I argued with, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : I did not mention that, Shaykh. I mentioned this specific text.

The Shaykh : I am saying with two general texts, is that not so? Did I not say two general texts?

The questioner : I did not mention that, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : I, I...

The questioner : is it

The Shaykh : I said, and to be more explicit, I am accusing you of having brought two general texts.

The questioner : What are they, Shaykh?

The Shaykh : So I brought the first text. I brought the first text.

The questioner : What are the two texts?

The Shaykh : It went like what you say: "You did not say it," but you did say it when you mentioned the other text, which is "they trim their beards."

The questioner: Yes

The Shaykh : Is "they trim their beards" here absolute? "They take their beards," is it not absolute? "They take their beards," is it not absolute?

The questioner : Yes, they trim their beards.

The Shaykh : They trim, yes, it carries one meaning.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Is it not absolute?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Well, if we return to the rule, you are arguing now with the general text. So if we take what is below the fist, what do we contradict? Two general texts. One is "they trim," so we should not trim. And the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said "Let the beard grow," so we should not trim. If your argument revolves around two general texts, you did not say: But this is implied by the context of your speech.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : So if this bothers you, we withdraw this general text that you did not utter. So we are going around in circles regarding

The questioner : I add this.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : I add this.

The Shaykh : Heh, you add it, of course, because it is in your interest. But the truth is that you are now going around in circles regarding the argument with a general text, which is "they take their beards," "they trim." So trimming is not permissible absolutely. That is the meaning of the general text, is it not so?

The questioner: Yes, Shaykh

The Shaykh : Well, we ask you now: Has practice been established with this general text, like the example we brought up recently? In it, there are general texts, including, as you know, So if a person supplicates in a place where the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not raise his hands, is that not acting according to the general text? We said yes. And is it permissible? We said no, correct?

The questioner : Correct.

The Shaykh : Now, the same issue arises now, and it is a clear question to you: Has practice been established with this absoluteness that you understood from the hadith? We have a backup answer, we have a backup answer, but before we finish with the fundamental answer, before we reach this backup, we finish with the fundamental one. So now, the question, with some clarification: Did the Jews, or the Christians, or the Zoroastrians take what is below the fist, or what is above the fist? Does this question not arise?

The questioner : It applies.

The Shaykh : It arises. So do you know how they did it? I say with you: No.

The questioner : No, but I have a comment.

The Shaykh : No, before the comment, and I am going with you.

The questioner: Okay

The Shaykh : I told you, I say with you: No, and you contradicted me?

The questioner : No, I did not contradict you.

The Shaykh : No, that is it.

The questioner : But I want...

The Shaykh : Therefore, no. Let us go, let us go, and then speak. Well, if this text does not indicate generality, because we are facing a text that speaks about a reality of those polytheists, and we do not have a description of this reality except that they used to take, but the manner of taking is unknown to us, correct?

The questioner : Correct.

The Shaykh : Well, do we, we Muslims, have a known taking? Can you, in that case, with your hadith, repel the Islamic taking with an unknown taking of those polytheists?

The questioner : Shaykh, before I answer this question, I have an addition to your previous words, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : I do not think it will benefit you, given the rule we are following: "If it does not come with you, come with it."

The questioner: May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.

The questioner : First, the trimming that was done by the Jews is not known, because it was from many people.

The Shaykh : How? How?!

The questioner : I say the trimming that was done by the Jews is not known, because it was from many people.

The Shaykh : May Allah guide you, may Allah guide you. This is what you want to say.

The questioner : Well, wait for me.

The Shaykh : No, my brother, no, I do not want to wait. This is a repetition of what I taught you when I asked you, do you know? You said: No, and I said with you: We do not know. Now say the words, my brother, that benefit you.

The questioner : Now, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : As for repeating the past...

The questioner : There is, there is a connection to it, Shaykh, may Allah bless you. Your patience with me, but Shaykh...

The Shaykh : It is nothing, my brother, but do not waste time. Do I repeat my previous words?

The questioner : Perhaps, Shaykh...

The Shaykh : Listen, my brother, may Allah bless you. Do you think it is good that I repeat my previous words?

The questioner : No, O our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : And I am like you. I say to you: Do not repeat the previous words, especially if we agree on them.

The questioner : Shaykh, well, I want to add to the words, meaning I must remind you of the words and mention them so that, may Allah have mercy on you...

The Shaykh : My brother, I reminded you of this. May Allah guide you. I said to you: Is it known? You said: No, and you will say with me: No, and I said: No.

The questioner : Shaykh, this text is general, Shaykh. We do not know how they used to trim.

The Shaykh : Response...

The questioner : So how do we judge that this is below the fist or before?

The Shaykh : We did not judge, Shaykh. I did not tell you we judged. If you did not grasp my question, I am telling you: We have a known Islamic taking, which is taking what is below the fist. I said this, and you understood it, I think, correct?

The questioner : I understood it, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : The question was: Is it permissible to repel the Islamic taking with a polytheistic taking that is not known? That is my second question.

The questioner : How did it become an Islamic taking, Shaykh? Where did we take from that this is an Islamic taking?

The Shaykh : This is what you should ask about, not put, as they say, the stick in the donkey. You say: I have a continuation of words, and if it is a repetition of the past. My question is like this: Is it permissible to repel the known Islamic taking, which is taking what is below the fist, with a polytheistic taking that is not known what it is? So you did not answer, and you said: Excuse me, I have an addition. What is the addition? We waited for you, we were patient with you, and we went with the rule that we are going with, with all our brothers, the agreeing and the disagreeing: "If it does not come with you, come with it." What did I benefit? I came with you?

The questioner : I mean, Shaykh, I say that this is a general text.

The Shaykh : I am asking you now: What did I benefit? I came with you, nothing. You did not present anything new.

The questioner : I mean, I say this is a taking, Shaykh, that is specific, not general. Meaning it specifies any trimming. Meaning any trimming we do not accept.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you. This is your perception, but it will become clear to you that your perception is wrong.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Just as it became clear to you recently when they argue with the strongest evidence for the permissibility of seeking help from disbelievers. When I depicted the reality to you: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was the strong one. If the hadith is authentic, he wanted to seek help from the Jews. Is our reality today, when we sought help from disbelievers like America and Britain, etc., the strong seeking help from the weak, or the opposite? May Allah bless you. You said: No, by Allah, it is the opposite. So now you fall into the same problem. I am telling you, so please understand the question first, well, and think about it correctly, then prepare the answer if you have one. My question: We have a known Islamic taking, which is taking what is below the fist. We have in the hadith you mentioned a polytheistic taking that is not known. Was it, is it now clear to you something? Is it in the manner of the common people of Syria, "trim the chin," meaning they attach to their beard instead of Moses with the machine, so it is as if he shaved today and the hair grew after a day or two, "trim the chins," meaning the beard, as a sign that if it grew a little, half a year, a year, etc., it is not known to us the form that the polytheists had, which the hadith refers to by saying "they trim their beards." Their beards, is it not known to us the manner of this taking? So the question, for the third or fourth time: Is it permissible that we repel the Islamic taking, which is taking what is below the fist, not what is above, with the polytheistic taking whose manner we do not know? Think about the answer and say yes or no, and then the research will proceed. But if you repeat the past words, and we agreed that the polytheistic taking is not known, there is no benefit. Now, is the question clear to you?

The questioner : Clear?

The Shaykh : Well, is it permissible to repel the Islamic taking with the polytheistic taking, and this polytheistic taking is not known to us, and the Islamic taking is known to us?

The questioner : Shaykh, you agreed with me in my question to you when I said to you: Where did we take from that this is an Islamic taking?

The Shaykh : My brother, may Allah guide you. This is a second question. Say first of all: is it permissible or not? If you say it is not permissible, then your second question follows. But if I give you the second answer and say it is not permissible, what is the benefit? Do you believe in the validity of the Islamic adoption? Let me enlarge the picture for you now. It is a hypothetical picture just to clarify the matter. Is it permissible to replace the Sunni adoption, or to be more explicit, the Prophetic adoption of the beard, with the unknown polytheistic adoption that we have? You will immediately say no.

The questioner : Yes, no, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes, no! Well, if it is not permissible?

The questioner : It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : Well, now I have risen above and they say in Syria that we have struck the Alawites. Now I will descend with you step by step so that we reach the goal, agreed? Now, it is not permissible to replace the Prophetic adoption with the unknown polytheistic adoption that we have, correct? Well, we leave that and say it is not permissible to replace the Sunni adoption. Of course, this is established in my mind; we do not need to add the well-known, for we have finished with that. The second question, or the second agreement, is: it is not permissible to replace the Sunni adoption with the unknown polytheistic adoption, understood?

The questioner : It is not permissible to replace the Sunni adoption.

The Shaykh : Ah, the Sunni adoption of the beard with the polytheistic adoption.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Is that not so?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Now I arrive at the third level, which I shocked you with when I told you about the Islamic adoption. In truth, I see no difference between these three expressions, but the difference here is only in my knowledge. As for the practical result, there is no difference. This can be researched later, but I want you to live up to my good opinion of you, which is that you take and give in the same topic without wandering. Because if you do this with me, you will do this with me, and you will do this with others, and more than this. The point is the same two previous questions, which we agreed are not permissible, not permissible. Now the question is: is it permissible to replace the Islamic adoption of the beard, whose limits are known, with the polytheistic adoption, whose limits are unknown? Obviously, the answer will be as in number one and number two, and this is number three. What is the difference?

The questioner : Clarify for me, give me an example, Shaykh. I mean, all this now you are talking about this, but I want an example.

The Shaykh : Why? Just tell me, my brother, why did you first tell me it is not permissible? Why did you secondly say it is not permissible? Why did you thirdly say give me an example? Why, when this is like this, like this?

The questioner : I, I...

The Shaykh : I will give you an example and I will answer your question that you are keeping under your armpit, which is: how did we know that they take? We will enter this, but I do not like this leapfrog research. I want logical, sequential research so that it enters the brain well. I am now facing the general text Do you know that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) let his beard grow absolutely? He did not take a single hair, or anything from below it, or from its right or left side. Do you know this?

The questioner : No

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. This is what I like about a student of knowledge: that he is frank and does not twist his words, going east and west, and so on. No, well, if you do not know, and I am with you, I do not know. Be assured, I am with you, I do not know. In that case, is it correct to say that it is from the Sunnah that the Muslim does not take from his beard at all?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : This contradicts what I said just now.

The questioner : How, my Shaykh?

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. Subhan Allah, my brother, if you did not know that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) took from his beard, or did not take from his beard, how do you now say that it is from the Sunnah not to take from the beard?

The questioner : Because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered us to let our beards grow, and he would not contradict us regarding what he forbade us.

The Shaykh : May Allah guide us and you. May Allah guide us and you.

The questioner : O Allah, amen.

The Shaykh : My brother, what is my question?

The questioner : Please, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Do you know that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), in truth, oh, I forgot, what was Abu...? We agreed, Abu Jabir.

The questioner : Abu Jabir.

The Shaykh : Do you know, Abu Jabir...

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : ...that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) used to, when he heard the mu'adhdhin say: "O Allah, Lord of this perfect call," or say: "O Allah, send blessings upon Muhammad and upon the family of Muhammad"?

The questioner : I do not know.

The Shaykh : You do not know. Well, is it permissible for you to say he used to say it, or that he did not say it?

The questioner: No.

The Shaykh : If so, I tell you: is it from the Sunnah to take from the beard, or not to take? This is exactly like that. I am not asking you what the Messenger said; I am asking you what the Messenger did?

The questioner : I understood, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Did you understand it?

The questioner : is it

The Shaykh : But I wished that this understanding had come beforehand, so that you would not remind me of the hadith until I started and reminded you of it. And I said in your first words, I did not say it, did you remember this?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Well, why are you repeating to me this hadith that I reminded you of? I have no need for it now, because I am asking you about what the Messenger did with his beard, and I am not asking you about what he ordered his ummah to do. The Messenger ordered his ummah then, then, and so on. I am not asking you about this. I am asking you: did the Messenger do such and such? You answered here: no, or I do not know.

The questioner : I do not know.

The Shaykh : I do not know, huh? And there you also said I do not know. So how did "I do not know" become a Sunnah? This is an error in fiqh and in knowledge.

The questioner : Do you think, Shaykh, that this is analogous to that? Is this the example you mentioned?

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you. This is not analogy (qiyas); this is approximation. May Allah reward you. This is not analogy. I am not establishing a legal ruling for you by analogy so that you would say this is analogous. I am telling you: Zayd is a lion. You would say Zayd is analogous to a lion. May Allah forgive you. This is a simile, not analogy. Similing Zayd to a lion in bravery is a simile. Yes, this is correct, but it is not legal analogy. There is no difference between this and that at all. In the sense that you will now say: I take by his saying (peace and blessings be upon him), "When you hear the mu'adhdhin, say as he says," and I tell you: here there is no disagreement. But I am asking you: did the Messenger do this? You say: I do not know. Likewise, I will tell you: you take by letting the beards grow, you take by his saying which you understand in a specific way, and this specific understanding is the general understanding without exception, is it not? Well, I am not researching this with you now. This will come in its time, very soon. But as I told you just now, I do not like leapfrog research, because this is not knowledge; this is hasty research. Now, no one on the face of the earth knows absolutely that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to take from his beard, or did not take. And therefore, whoever says that the Sunnah of the Messenger, meaning the practical Sunnah—and yesterday we said the Sunnah has three sections, and we are now talking about the practical Sunnah, not the verbal Sunnah—while we are researching the verbal Sunnah, you jump to the practical Sunnah. This is an error. So now I tell you: everyone who says that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not take from his beard is saying what he has no knowledge of. And therefore, may Allah protect you from saying what you have no knowledge of. Well, we are finished with this aspect. We return now to his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) This is exactly the research from yesterday. Are you not now arguing with the general text?

The questioner : The hadith of Waleed?

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : The hadith of Waleed, Shaykh?

The Shaykh : I did not understand.

The questioner :

Another questioner : The hadith of Waleed regarding the prayer, or regarding...?

The Shaykh : No, no.

The questioner :

The Shaykh : Now, now I have designated for you to argue with the generality of his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): Is that not so?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Well, from the beginning of the research, I told you that you are arguing with the general text, whether in this hadith that orders us, or in that one that forbids us. That one also says "cut your beards." It is a general text; the type of cutting here is not known. The legal command is also a general text. So you are still arguing here and there with the general text. The question now, and I remind you that I gave you an example with the issue of raising the hands, is that you are now exactly like the one who recommends raising his hands in every supplication in the prayer because the Messenger said—I reminded you of the hadith —what do you answer him with? You say: We did not know that the Messenger did that.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : We have not learned that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did that. Their argument is the general text. Your argument is that we have not learned that the Messenger applied this general text. Now, this argument is your argument against the innovator; it is my argument against you now. My argument against you now is that you are in need of clarification from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding this text. And as long as you said, "I do not know," then you have no argument. This leaves me with an additional argument over you. I say: It is not known that any of the Salaf held your view, and we know that many of the Salaf took what is less than a handful. So why do we depart from our Salafi methodology and force ourselves into the group of innovators who argue with general texts that have not been acted upon? Some of our brothers present here now remember well with me that we always emphasize and instill in their minds that the Qur'an cannot be understood except through the Sunnah in its three categories, especially the practical Sunnah. So we take, for example, an illustration of this topic: As you see, the thief here is absolute, and the hand is absolute. If a person came and said, "Taking from the general text, the thief, if he steals a paper, is called a thief, so we cut off his hand," with what do we respond to him? We say: No action has been taken based on this; rather, action has been taken contrary to this. Likewise, if he said, "I am free to cut off his hand from here, or from here, or from here, because Allah the Exalted did not restrict it," we say to him: No, our Lord said: The Messenger clarified for the people the clarifications of the words of Allah, let alone that he clarified his own words (peace and blessings be upon him). Now, this clarification, whether it was in the form of speech, action, or approval, what is the path by which we know it? It is the righteous Salaf, correct?