Why did you follow Ibn 'Umar's action of taking what is beyond the fistful, but did not follow his action of raising his hands in the takbirs of the funeral prayer?

Al-Halabi: Here, the brotherThe questioner : says, "It is known that what you issue rulings on and defend regarding the length of the beard and the impermissibility of taking it beyond the fistful—is there a type of contradiction between this and your not taking Ibn 'Umar's narration regarding the takbir in the funeral prayer?"

The Shaykh: They are not the same. Here, we have the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and the application of the Salaf of this noble saying. We have a saying from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) that indicates generality, but we understood this generality to not be absolute based on the application of the righteous Salaf. As for raising the hands, there is no text that explains it as the general text regarding the beard was explained. There is no general text regarding the takbir over the deceased and raising the hands, so that we could say that Ibn 'Umar's raising of his hands in the takbirs of the funeral prayer is an explanation of that general text. Thus, the thing being compared differs from the thing it is compared to. This is the first point. Second, if there had been another person with Ibn 'Umar in raising the hands in the takbirs of funeral prayers, we would have taken the agreement of these two Companions. But we found him alone in this, and then we found the hadiths that describe the prayer of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) over the funeral; in none of them is there mention of raising the hands except in the first takbir. This was a barrier for us from following Ibn 'Umar in his raising of his hands with every takbir of the funeral prayer. Another thing: you are being long-winded with me. Another thing: Ibn 'Umar did not act alone in applying or explaining that the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is not absolute and comprehensive. Rather, another Companion followed him in that. And this other Companion meets with Ibn 'Umar because he also shared with him in narrating the hadith from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) . So the two Companions share in narrating a text from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) whose apparent meaning is to let the beard grow, however long it becomes, even if it reaches the ground. The general text is like this. Their understanding of this text is that, as they applied it, they took a fistful and cut what was in excess. This is proof that they received this Sunnah practically from the Messenger, which we understood from them practically. And it is not only this, but the practice of those who came after them from the Tabi'un was also on this action and that pattern. Some of the Imams, the Imams of the Sunnah and the Imams of jurisprudence, also followed this. For example, the Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) said what the action of Ibn 'Umar and Abu Hurayrah indicated, and considered it their understanding of the text they heard directly from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). The Hanafis, specifically as a school, stated that it is not permissible to take from the beard what is below the fistful or what is above it. This is because they saw the Salaf doing this. And this is a Salafi stance from them, which is rare. Yes, so what about the Imam of the Salaf, the Imam of the Sunnah, Imam Ahmad? If a student of knowledge brings this group to mind, it is not correct for him to counter it with the example raised earlier regarding raising the hands in the takbirs of the funeral prayer. So I return to say: they are not equal as examples.

The questioner: What is the difference ... ?

The Shaykh: I say it is obligatory if it is established from some of the Imams.

The questioner: Our Shaykh, with respect, the action of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), I mean Ibn 'Umar and Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with them both), in taking what is long or in excess of the fistful—this is, according to the scholars of jurisprudence, possible for three things: it is possible that this is permissible, or recommended, or obligatory. Why, for example, did we go to the side of obligatory and not go to it being permissible, for example, or recommended?

The Shaykh: Where do we take the recommendation from?

The questioner: We take the recommendation from the text?

The Shaykh: What is the text?

The questioner : No, it is a text.

The Shaykh: The matter is finished as long as there is no text, is it not? Is not the recommendation a legal ruling?

The questioner: Why obligatory? The recommendation is a legal ruling.

The Shaykh: I see now that you have retreated and said that the recommended has no text, but the obligatory has a text.

The questioner: I understood, with respect, that taking it is obligatory.

The Shaykh: I understood. Good. And what is the recommended?

The questioner: The recommended in what? What is it recommended in?

The Shaykh: You, may Allah reward you, between what do you want to say?

The questioner: The action of Ibn 'Umar and so on of Abu Hurayrah in taking what is long beyond the fistful—their action can be described as them seeing that if it exceeds the fistful, it is permissible to take it, so they acted on the permissibility.

The Shaykh: Where did they take the permissibility from?

The questioner: From the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). They understood that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), in letting the beard grow, it is permissible to take what is in excess.

The Shaykh: Good. So the excess is either good or bad. What do you say?

The questioner: Or it is excused.

The Shaykh: No.

The questioner : Why?

The Shaykh: Because the excess in a matter that you say they took from the Messenger in a matter—even if it is a debate and discussion that they took it from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)—is there room to say that something the Messenger did to explain permissibility, and we say the better is contrary to what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did regarding permissibility? Here, we must have a proof as a rule, is it not? Good. The previous question returns: what is the proof?

The questioner: Our Shaykh, I am now painting a jurisprudential picture.

The Shaykh: My brother, may Allah reward you, it is not good to have a bad thought, and we are also considering the guest, and here the time is its time; we do not waste time in a discussion that resembles argumentation. But—if you allow me—I ask a question to prepare for receiving the answer. If you or anyone else turns away from answering and says, "I am giving an example," my brother, before you give an example, answer me this question and relieve me and relieve yourself and save time for our brother here. I say, as long as you consider that they took it from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), I mean as you want to say permissibility, what is the better? The better is to let it grow on its natural state. Good. What is the proof for this better, as long as the Messenger did not do it? And I think, I think, and this is the duty of the Muslim toward his Muslim brother, that you believe with us that in every act of worship, if it were an act of worship, we were preceded to it. I think, I believe you are with us in this. Good. So now, let us say that lengthening the beard, as long as it is good, is an act of worship. So we need a proof to establish that this thing is an act of worship. And there is no way at all to establish that the excess over what the Salaf did is an act of worship, or else you have contradicted your school from its root. And what is your school? I mean your school, in my belief, is the school of everyone: every newly invented matter is an innovation, every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Fire "And every good is in following the Salaf *** And every evil is in the innovation of the Khalaf." We do not say this poetry; we say it following the generality of his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) in our religion. This everything, may Allah reward you. And take this as a rule and apply it: everything we say is good, we do not say it is just permissible, no, we add that it is good. Any act of good that is left behind, if it were good, we would have been preceded to it. And if we do not close this gap with such an explanation from a rule and an example for this branch, it means our denial of the people of innovation who say to us, "My brother, what is wrong with this? What is wrong with this?" will transfer to them that you have thought ill of them, like the saying of Allah the Exalted—and even if it did not come in this context— And the strongest argument is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him) . So if lengthening the beard contrary to what came to us from the Salaf were good, we would have been preceded to it. And my brother, do you not consider it unlikely with me that this would be good, and we have not seen one of the Companions, even with a weak chain, that his beard was as it is said to be to his navel? We have not seen even a narration, meaning they were proceeding on this pattern from what we conveyed to you from Ibn 'Umar, from Abu Hurayrah, from Mujahid in the Tafsir of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, who narrates reports in this regard from the Imam of the Sunnah, from those of the Imams who explicitly stated, as I mentioned to you earlier, that it is not permissible to take from the beard what is below it or what is above it. Thus, I consider it extremely unlikely that it is good. We, the Khalaf, corrected those who preceded us from the Salaf. This is very far, very far away.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: I say that from what we believe, we say by the apparent meaning of the texts always, when we find those who preceded us to that. Because at the time we claim following, but we fear deviation, we may fall into such a matter. So we want to have an Imam who precedes us in understanding, which is, as it is said today, a safety valve from deviation to the right or to the left. Please.