Chapter on the Prohibitions of Ihram: They are nine, shaving the hair and clipping the nails

The Shaykh : The prohibitions of ihram, like the structure of sujud al-sahw (the prostration for forgetfulness), so know what I intended by my saying "like the structure of sujud al-sahw"?

The questioner : That sujud al-sahw is after the prayer... and its actions.

The Shaykh : No, no.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : No.

The questioner : The addition is an addition of cause.

The Shaykh : Correct, the addition is an addition of cause, adding the thing to its cause. Sujud al-sahw means the prostration that occurs...

The questioner : by its cause.

The Shaykh : The prohibitions of ihram, the prohibitions are due to ihram, and the prohibited is the forbidden. Allah the Exalted said: , meaning forbidden. So regarding the prohibitions of ihram, the author says they are nine, he said: "They are nine". At that point, a questioner asks: What is the evidence that they are nine? The answer is tracking and induction. If someone says: "Your counting of them and restricting them to nine is a religious innovation (bid'ah). Did the Messenger of Allah say the prohibitions of ihram are nine?" What do we say? We say this is a means to make knowledge accessible to the community and to gather its scattered parts, for it is easier. For this reason, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sometimes said: No. The Messenger sometimes gathers and restricts. Here we say gathering and restricting them is a means to what? To make knowledge accessible to minds. They are nine. The first is shaving the hair. The author did not say "removing the hair," although that is broader, following the wording of the Qur'an, which is His saying: . Here we must understand that if we want to write something, preserving the wording of the Qur'an and the Sunnah is preferable because it is evidence and ruling, evidence and ruling. So the writer, the author, should preserve what? The wording of the Book and the Sunnah. Okay, shaving the hair. But here the author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "Shaving the hair". The evidence is His saying: . There is no doubt that the evidence is more specific than the meaning. What is prohibited in the evidence? Shaving the head. What is the ruling for which the evidence is cited? Shaving the hair in general, including the pubic hair, the mustache, the leg hair, and the like. We have mentioned that it is not valid to use the more specific as evidence for the more general. But they say: "We analogize shaving the rest of the hair to the hair of the head." So if we cite the verse as evidence, it is evidence for shaving the hair of the head by wording, and for the rest of the hair by analogy. Then the man with the flag, the man with the green flag, came and said: "Analogy is not valid in the Shari'ah. Who is he?"

The questioner : Ibn Hazm.

The Shaykh : Ibn Hazm and the Zahiriyyah said: "We do not accept your analogy. Allah, Mighty and Majestic, says:

And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things

ونزلنا عليك الكتاب تبياناً لكل شيء

[An-Nahl 16:89]

and He did not forbid us except shaving the hair of the head. So why do we restrict the servants of Allah and say 'do not shave any hair'?" Okay, a man's mustache grew and when he eats, the hair mixes with the food, and when he drinks, likewise. What does he do? If we say it is forbidden to take the mustache hair, he says he takes it and pays expiation because it harmed him, or he takes it and does not pay expiation, based on a rule we will mention, if Allah wills. In any case, the evidence is more specific than the meaning, and it is not appropriate to use the more specific as evidence for the more general. But if we say that what is outside the evidence is analogized to what is established by the evidence, we need another thing: the equality of the original and the branch in the operative cause ('illah). What is the operative cause by which we can attach the hair of the rest of the body to the hair of the head? They said the operative cause is luxury (taraffuh), because shaving the hair of the head results in cleanliness, as evidenced by the fact that whenever the head becomes dirtier, the lice in it increase, along with the smell and the harm. So is the operative cause luxury? Is this accepted? We look: Is the person in ihram forbidden from luxury?

The questioner : No.

The Shaykh : How quickly you say "No," or otherwise "Yes, you have it!!" Is the person in ihram forbidden from luxury?
The attendees: ...

The Shaykh : No, actually no, he is not forbidden from luxury in eating; he may eat from the good things as much as he wants. He is not forbidden from luxury in clothing; he may wear from the clothes that are permissible in ihram as much as he wants. He is not forbidden from luxury in removing dirt; he may take a bath and remove dirt. So who says that the operative cause in shaving the head is luxury so that we can analogize to it? Nothing. But the apparent operative cause is that if the person in ihram shaves his head, he drops a prescribed ritual. What is it? Shaving or shortening the hair at the end of 'Umrah and at the stoning of the Jamarat al-Aqabah. If he shaves his head during ihram and arrives in Makkah within hours in our current time, what does he do? Where is ? So the operative cause is that in shaving the head, a ritual of the rites of worship is dropped, which is shaving or shortening the hair. And this reasoning is undoubtedly, upon reflection, closer than the reasoning that it is for the sake of luxury. Okay, according to this opinion, only shaving the head is forbidden, while the rest of the hair is not forbidden. They also said: Is the original ruling regarding what a person takes from his hair permissibility or prohibition?

The questioner : Al-Hill.

The Shaykh : Permissibility. So we do not prevent a person from taking something from his hair except with evidence. But theoretical research has one state, and practical application has another. If a person avoids taking from his hair, from his mustache, from his armpit, from his pubic hair, yes, as a precaution, what is the result? It is good. But to oblige him and make him sinful if he takes it without the presence of evidence lifting the permissibility, this is questionable. And I mentioned now four hairs: the mustache, the beard, the armpit, and the pubic hair. What is the mistake?
The audience: The beard.

The Shaykh : This slipped from my tongue unintentionally, because the beard is not taken, neither in ihram nor outside of ihram. Okay, shaving the head. The second is clipping the nails, meaning?

The questioner : Cutting.

The Shaykh : Meaning cutting them or clipping them with a nail file. In the beginning, they used to clip the nails, taking them with a nail file. Do you know a nail file? A small knife, they cut the nail with it like this, as one clips a pen. Do you know a pen? It is clipped now, not because it is iron, but the lead pencil is clipped. They say clipping the nails is also forbidden. From where? From the hand or the foot or both? From both. What is the evidence?
The audience: Analogy.

The Shaykh : No evidence except by analogy.