Is taking from the beard after the fistful an order for obligation?

The student : Regarding the beard, you stated that you permitted taking after the fistful because a group of the Companions did so. Then I heard, is the order for obligation?!

The Shaykh : There is no doubt, let us now engage in a dialogue in the best manner. If we do not say it is obligatory, what do we say?! Bring it up so we can see. I do not want to lecture now; I want to discuss with complete frankness. Bring it up so we can see?
The student : We say, our Shaykh, that it is permissible, because the order was reported from the Companions, so we do not obligate everyone with obligation.

The Shaykh : We say it is permissible?!
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Meaning, the permissibility of taking, and the permissibility of letting it grow long? Is that the meaning of your words, yes?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : And are they equal?
The student : No, they are not equal.

The Shaykh : Here I have a principle that I hope you will grasp, and understand, and if you understand it, digest it, and if you digest it, act upon it. I did not invent this principle; rather, I understood it from the two foundations: the principles of jurisprudence and the principles of hadith. So I have a phrase that is like a cliché. Do you know what a cliché is?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : Meaning, a seal that does not change or alter. Every general text, and it is known from the science of principles that a general text includes many parts, and therefore they say: act upon the general text unless it is specified. And I think this is understood by you. For example, He, the Exalted, said: This is a general text that includes every carrion, but this general text was specified, where he, peace and blessings be upon him, said: That general Qur'anic text, when the specific hadith text entered it, became a meaning of the verse different from what comes to mind. It is forbidden to you carrion except... so there is specification, except the carrion of fish and locusts, and so on. "So I say: every general text, some of whose parts the practice of the Salaf did not follow, it is not permissible to act upon it." Is this clear up to here? Good. Whoever does not pay attention to this principle, and as I told you: I did not invent it, but it is taken from the principles of jurisprudence and the principles of hadith, one of two things must befall him: either he is an innovator in his reality, or he is one who approves of the innovators in their reality. One of the two must befall him, and necessarily. Why?