Continuation of the Chapter on the Permissibility of Shaving the Head for the One in Ihram When There Is Harm, and the Obligation of Expiation for Shaving It, and the Explanation of
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Yes, we said that it is not permissible for the one in ihram to shave his head, except if there is harm or illness. As for harm, it is like what happened to Ka'b ibn Ujr (may Allah be pleased with him), where he had many lice in his head that were scattering onto his face. And as for illness, it is like if he had a headache that would not go away except by shaving, so he shaves it.
But does he owe an expiation?
The answer: There is a detail in this. If he shaves the entire head and what is removed to eliminate the harm, he owes an expiation. If it is a small amount, he owes no expiation. It is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he applied cupping while in ihram, and cupping requires shaving the area where it is applied, and it is not reported that he (peace and blessings be upon him) paid an expiation.
And as for when the shaving includes the entire head, or most of the head, or what is removed to eliminate the harm, then he pays an expiation.
And regarding the expiation, Allah the Exalted said about it:[Al-Baqarah 2:196]
And does the rest of the hair, other than the head, fall under this ruling?
There is scholarly disagreement on this. Some say: It does not fall under it, because it is not for us to prohibit except what Allah and His Messenger prohibited, which is[Maryam 19:64]. If the rest of the hair were forbidden, Allah (Mighty and Majestic) would have clarified it, either in the Qur'an or in the Sunnah. So what is not mentioned, the original ruling is permissibility.
And based on this, if a person trims his mustache while in ihram—according to this opinion—he owes nothing, no sin and no expiation, because the original ruling is permissibility, and this was only mentioned regarding the head.
And analogical reasoning is not valid here. The reason analogical reasoning is not valid is that the hair of the head is connected to the rites of pilgrimage, unlike the rest of the hair. So one is prohibited from shaving the hair of the head because the person will be commanded, when he finishes his rites, to shave it or shorten it.
As for the rest of the hair, it has no connection to that.
And from a further and more appropriate category regarding the ruling are the nails. Is it forbidden to cut the nails in ihram or not?
Some scholars said that it is forbidden, and this is the well-known view among the jurists. And some scholars said: It is not forbidden.
And it is not valid to include it with the head, because no rite is connected to it, and it is not called hair, so it is not included with it.
And those who said it is included made the operative cause indulgence, and they said: He indulges by shaving the mustache, trimming the nails, shaving the pubic hair, plucking the armpit hair, and the like. So the common operative cause is indulgence.
But this can be opposed, and it can be said: Who said the operative cause is indulgence? This is an operative cause that is not valid in application or reversal. For this reason, if a person wanted to indulge while in ihram with food, vehicles, camping, and bedding, and bathe in the morning and evening, would he be prevented from that? He is not prevented, even though it is indulgence of the greatest indulgence. So seeking an operative cause that is not mentioned in the Qur'an or the Sunnah and which we see is refuted is not a jurisprudential method.
But in any case, caution is appropriate as long as the prohibition of that is the opinion of the majority of scholars, so it is better that we maintain that. But when the truth is clarified, we must say: What is the evidence? And why do we prevent Allah's servants from something that Allah did not prevent them from?
So if someone says: If a nail breaks and causes him harm, is it like hair if it causes him harm?
The answer: Yes, he may cut it, but he cuts only the broken part that causes him harm, without any excess.
What remains for us is the expiation. We mentioned that if he shaves his entire head, or what results in removing the harm and eliminating the harm, he pays an expiation with what Allah mentioned in the Qur'an and the Sunnah clarified. And as for less than that, there is no expiation in it, because it is a permissible act and it does not change the head in a distinct way. And above this reasoning, it is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he applied cupping while in ihram, and cupping requires shaving the hair in the area of the cup, and it is not reported that he paid an expiation.
And as for the one among the scholars who said that if he cuts three hairs he pays an expiation, and for less than that, for each hair he feeds a poor person, this is a statement with no evidence.
And know that responding to an act by doing a prohibited act or leaving a commanded act without a legal proof is forbidden for you, because you are trying to take from the respected wealth of people what is the value of this expiation or kaffarah. And the original ruling regarding wealth is prohibition and sanctity. So how do we obligate this servant to take out so much and so much from his wealth without evidence?
And what Allah obligated regarding wealth is known, either zakah or expiations. Allah (Mighty and Majestic) clarified them, and what Allah was silent about is forgiveness.
But all this we say from the theoretical side. As for the educational side, we see that people should remain with what is issued as a ruling among them until they respect these feelings. Yes.
The questioner : Shaykh, may Allah bless you, we mentioned that what is removed to eliminate the harm, he pays an expiation. If he shaves what is removed to eliminate the harm, but he shaves a small amount?
The Shaykh : No difference, no difference. Even if he trims it, it is forbidden for him.
The questioner : Even a small amount?
The Shaykh : Even a small amount.
The questioner : What is the criterion for the prescribed caution that allows it to be said that it is caution?
The Shaykh : It is what one fears that people will be lax in, as 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was cautious in preventing a man from returning to his wife if he divorced her three times, lest people fall into the triple divorce which is forbidden.
The questioner : I mean, Shaykh, I mean, every disagreement that occurs with the majority, even though the apparent statement of the majority is apparent and weak, and does not rely on evidence, neither authentic nor explicit?
The Shaykh : But, but as long as people are following it, and we are not saying that this opinion is forbidden, so as long as they are following it and it involves respecting the sacred things and rites, let them remain as they were. But when we want to clarify the issue and explain it, we must know the ruling in a detailed manner. For this reason, if someone says: What is the evidence for the obligation of blood (sacrifice) for one who leaves an obligatory act?
A person cannot bring a clear evidence except with a report from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), a report that is not complete... also, or an analogy to the act of shaving the head.
But we see that such matters, as long as people are proceeding in them with respect for these rites and ceremonies, and we do not see that this is forbidden—meaning obliging the thing upon them is not forbidden—it is only from the aspect of striving for uprightness and deterring from laxity, and this has a basis.
The questioner : Your Eminence, is there not also in this another aspect of placing a burden and obligation on the obligated ones?
The Shaykh : This, this does not involve placing a burden, because a person can look at each specific case and remove the hardship from what has fallen upon him.
But does he owe an expiation?
The answer: There is a detail in this. If he shaves the entire head and what is removed to eliminate the harm, he owes an expiation. If it is a small amount, he owes no expiation. It is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he applied cupping while in ihram, and cupping requires shaving the area where it is applied, and it is not reported that he (peace and blessings be upon him) paid an expiation.
And as for when the shaving includes the entire head, or most of the head, or what is removed to eliminate the harm, then he pays an expiation.
And regarding the expiation, Allah the Exalted said about it:
a ransom of fasting [three days] or charity or sacrifice
ففدية من صيام أو صدقة أو نسكAnd does the rest of the hair, other than the head, fall under this ruling?
There is scholarly disagreement on this. Some say: It does not fall under it, because it is not for us to prohibit except what Allah and His Messenger prohibited, which is
And never is your Lord forgetful -
ما كان ربك نسيًّاAnd based on this, if a person trims his mustache while in ihram—according to this opinion—he owes nothing, no sin and no expiation, because the original ruling is permissibility, and this was only mentioned regarding the head.
And analogical reasoning is not valid here. The reason analogical reasoning is not valid is that the hair of the head is connected to the rites of pilgrimage, unlike the rest of the hair. So one is prohibited from shaving the hair of the head because the person will be commanded, when he finishes his rites, to shave it or shorten it.
As for the rest of the hair, it has no connection to that.
And from a further and more appropriate category regarding the ruling are the nails. Is it forbidden to cut the nails in ihram or not?
Some scholars said that it is forbidden, and this is the well-known view among the jurists. And some scholars said: It is not forbidden.
And it is not valid to include it with the head, because no rite is connected to it, and it is not called hair, so it is not included with it.
And those who said it is included made the operative cause indulgence, and they said: He indulges by shaving the mustache, trimming the nails, shaving the pubic hair, plucking the armpit hair, and the like. So the common operative cause is indulgence.
But this can be opposed, and it can be said: Who said the operative cause is indulgence? This is an operative cause that is not valid in application or reversal. For this reason, if a person wanted to indulge while in ihram with food, vehicles, camping, and bedding, and bathe in the morning and evening, would he be prevented from that? He is not prevented, even though it is indulgence of the greatest indulgence. So seeking an operative cause that is not mentioned in the Qur'an or the Sunnah and which we see is refuted is not a jurisprudential method.
But in any case, caution is appropriate as long as the prohibition of that
Whoever takes hair from the entire body, and takes the nail
أي من أخذ الشعر من جميع البدن ، وأخذ الظفرSo if someone says: If a nail breaks and causes him harm, is it like hair if it causes him harm?
The answer: Yes, he may cut it, but he cuts only the broken part that causes him harm, without any excess.
What remains for us is the expiation. We mentioned that if he shaves his entire head, or what results in removing the harm and eliminating the harm, he pays an expiation with what Allah mentioned in the Qur'an and the Sunnah clarified. And as for less than that, there is no expiation in it, because it is a permissible act and it does not change the head in a distinct way. And above this reasoning, it is established from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he applied cupping while in ihram, and cupping requires shaving the hair in the area of the cup, and it is not reported that he paid an expiation.
And as for the one among the scholars who said that if he cuts three hairs he pays an expiation, and for less than that, for each hair he feeds a poor person, this is a statement with no evidence.
And know that responding to an act by doing a prohibited act or leaving a commanded act without a legal proof is forbidden for you, because you are trying to take from the respected wealth of people what is the value of this expiation or kaffarah. And the original ruling regarding wealth is prohibition and sanctity. So how do we obligate this servant to take out so much and so much from his wealth without evidence?
And what Allah obligated regarding wealth is known, either zakah or expiations. Allah (Mighty and Majestic) clarified them, and what Allah was silent about is forgiveness.
But all this we say from the theoretical side. As for the educational side, we see that people should remain with what is issued as a ruling among them until they respect these feelings. Yes.
The questioner : Shaykh, may Allah bless you, we mentioned that what is removed to eliminate the harm, he pays an expiation. If he shaves what is removed to eliminate the harm, but he shaves a small amount?
The Shaykh : No difference, no difference. Even if he trims it, it is forbidden for him.
The questioner : Even a small amount?
The Shaykh : Even a small amount.
The questioner : What is the criterion for the prescribed caution that allows it to be said that it is caution?
The Shaykh : It is what one fears that people will be lax in, as 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was cautious in preventing a man from returning to his wife if he divorced her three times, lest people fall into the triple divorce which is forbidden.
The questioner : I mean, Shaykh, I mean, every disagreement that occurs with the majority, even though the apparent statement of the majority is apparent and weak, and does not rely on evidence, neither authentic nor explicit?
The Shaykh : But, but as long as people are following it, and we are not saying that this opinion is forbidden, so as long as they are following it and it involves respecting the sacred things and rites, let them remain as they were. But when we want to clarify the issue and explain it, we must know the ruling in a detailed manner. For this reason, if someone says: What is the evidence for the obligation of blood (sacrifice) for one who leaves an obligatory act?
A person cannot bring a clear evidence except with a report from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), a report that is not complete... also, or an analogy to the act of shaving the head.
But we see that such matters, as long as people are proceeding in them with respect for these rites and ceremonies, and we do not see that this is forbidden—meaning obliging the thing upon them is not forbidden—it is only from the aspect of striving for uprightness and deterring from laxity, and this has a basis.
The questioner : Your Eminence, is there not also in this another aspect of placing a burden and obligation on the obligated ones?
The Shaykh : This, this does not involve placing a burden, because a person can look at each specific case and remove the hardship from what has fallen upon him.