Madina Archives

Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board

beard or no beard?
hayaa
02/26/01 at 18:30:50
[slm] I would like to know from both points of view about the beard (mandatory vs. optional). This topic has come up with some of my friends and I would like to know what everyone else thinks. I know that majority of the scholars say it's sunnah but I heard that the 4 imams came to mutual consensus saying it is fard. I don't mean to start a debate here.  I just want to hear both sides.

Re: beard or no beard?
bhaloo
02/26/01 at 18:41:40
slm we had this discussion before, in pretty lengthy detail.  maybe someone knows the links to that discussion?  Kashif had some good information as well.

Re: beard or no beard?
UmmZaid
02/27/01 at 00:50:20
Salaam 'Alaikum LOL I made it fardh on my husband... lol.  I think brothers look soooo sooooo much better with the beard, I don't know why.  Just like how some people say that you really see the light of Islam in a muhajaba's face, I feel the same way about the brothers I see with beards or trad'l clothing.   My husband stalled on growing his beard for a while, for the same reasons that some women stall on wearing hijab.  I would leave books and articles about the beard laying around the house.  ;)  Then, when I found out that the baby was going to be a boy, I would say things like, "don't let your little baby see you with a naked face."  LOL  About a week before the baby was born, he was finally able to take the step to make the commitment to grow the beard and *NOT* shave it off!  :)

Re: beard or no beard?
princess
02/27/01 at 14:26:59
as'salaamualikum :) how funny..i was just discussing this with my brother last night ;) and we both agreed it was sun'nah :) however, since u've said u've read it to be far'd, can u post that? cuz if it's far'd and not sun'nah..i'd like to know :) ma'salaam ;-D

Re: beard or no beard?
bhaloo
02/27/01 at 14:32:02
slm Dr. Siddiqi, ISNA's president, said it was Sunnah Mukhada (strongly emphasised sunnah) and I had the opinons of a few other contemporary scholars that said the same thing.  However, there were some articles (specifically one that Kashif had) that suggested it was fard.

Re: beard or no beard?
jehad
02/27/01 at 15:35:38
Asalm walakum,, I am confused on this issue as well, some people say “it is farrad and all four school say it is farrad”, others say “it is not farrad and all four schools say it is not”... me personally, I know the dallel that both groups use, but I don’t know which one is right. There are many hadith talking about beards. These are used by the people who say it is farrad. I cant be bothered to list them. The people who say it is not farrad state the fact that every one, Muslim and non-Muslim at that time and place kept beard, they state that the same wording that is used on the hadith talking about beard is used in other hadith talking about things that are not farrad, such as marriage and dying white hairs with Hannah. There are clearly differences of opinions here, so lets just leave it, me personal I don’t shave, cause a beard is clearly better than a non-beard, whether it is farrad or not, but on the other hand I cant grow a proper beard, I’m a chink, I only get a few hairs here and there. I think people are making a big fuss out of nothing, there are so many issues where there is “NO”  differences of opinion, but people say there are. We should be arguing about them. Riba is always harram, in Muslim land and kaffar land, in  dar al harb and the khilafah, when we need it and when we don’t. Ruling by Allah’s laws is farrad, so to remove the KAFFAR who rule our lands is farrad, and there is NO legitimate differences of opinions about that, no matter what the government scholars and their fans say. People are busy slandering each other and not talking about the strength of the dallel some one gives, but the length of his beard and whether he wares packy cloths or not. Often when I discuss a issue with some one, and give them dalel that is so clear, they cant defend there argument any longer, what they say to me is “you don’t even have a beard”. Even though I am a chink and cant grow one. I think people say this on purpose to try and change the subject, cause I think the Riba lovers, kufr government  defenders and government scholar apologists know that Riba is harram, kufr rule and talking part in kufr law making(this includes voting) is harram and working for the physical removal of kufr governments is farrad so they have to change the subject. Cause after they have changed the subject, I have to explain to those people that chinks cant grow beards, at lest not as nice as packy’s can. And to make matters worse they often  accuse me of lying about being a chink cause I don’t look chinky, and they accuse me of being Bosnian or Turkish etc. Muslims should trust their brothers more and their governments less. Instead of asking their brothers for there dallel for not having a beard or not wearing packy cloths, they should ask the government for the dalel for not ruling by Islam.

Re: beard or no beard?
Arsalan
02/27/01 at 17:13:28
[slm] Is growing the beard fard, wajib, sunnah mu'akkidah, a highly recommended sunnah, or just a sunnah?? Is smoking pot one of the kabaa'ir, haraam or makrooh?? Who cares guys!!!  I don't understand why everything has to be classified into a category for us!  Afterall, the Sahaabah never used such terms as fard, wajib, sunnah mu'akkidah, etc. If we truly love the Prophet (pbuh) and the Sahaabah, we will do what he tells us to do, without asking him "excuse me, are you just advising us to do this, recommending it to us, or is it an order?"  Kinda sounds like the jews asking the details about the cow, doesn't it?!? There are countless ahadith (authentic, mind you) that order the Muslims to "let the beard grow and trim the moustache."  Some go on to mention reasons for it, others don't.  Some reasons that are mentioned are to be different from the non-Muslims and to obey the natural instincts (fitrah).   It is not befitting for a Believer (you and me) that when an order comes from Allah and His Messenger (pbuh) that s/he has any opinion otherwise. (Paraphrase of a Qur'anic ayah). Wassalamu alaikum. P.S. The only people to whom the above does not apply are those that are harrassed/jailed for keeping a beard (like the people in Egypt).  It makes sense if they question about the exact ruling of the beard, because keeping it means a big trouble for them.  But for us who live in the "land of the free" ... I don't think there's a need to raise such questions.

Re: beard or no beard?
Kashif
02/27/01 at 17:59:54
From "[color=blue]The Islamic Ruling on the Beard[/color]" by Sh. Ali al-Halabi, translated by Idris Palmer. Shaving the beard prohibited in the Qur'an "Allah cursed him and he(shaitaan) said, "I will take an appointed portion of your slaves; verily i will mislead them, surely i will arouse in them false desires; and certainly i will order them to slit the ears of cattle, and indeed I WILL ORDER THEM TO CHANGE THE NATURE CREATED BY ALLAH..." [4:118-9] Shaikh at-Thanawi states in his book entitled Bayan al-Qur'an: "Shaving the beard falls within this statement." [i.e. altering Allah's creation] Imam Waliullah al-Dahlawi says "and shortening it (i.e. the beard) is the sunnah of the Magians, and this includes altering Allah's creation." Shaving the beard prohibited in the ahadith From Ibn Umar, the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam said: "Be different from the mushrikeen, trim your moustache and grow your beards." [Bukhari & muslim] From Aisha, he sallallahu alaihi wa sallam said: "Ten things are from the fitrah: shortening the moustache and growing the beard...." [Muslim] Shaving the beard is a violation of the order of the Prophet From the Prophet we have many statements such as "grow the beard", "let your beards grow", which are all distinct orders. And an order according to the principles of fiqh means a 'religious obligation' unless there is a connective evidence to show that he was unclear in his words. [See Irshaad al-Fusool p. 101-105 & Madhkura usool al-Fiqh by Shinqiti p.191-2] Shaving the beard is a resemblance of women Indeed it is well known that whenever a man shaves his beard, which Allah has distinguished him with from a woman, he significantly resembles them. And whenever a man resembles a woman he is cursed as was mentioned on the tongue of the Messenger of Allah [Bukhari] Sh. Abu Hamid al-Ghazali said ".. and this (i.e. the beard) is the distinguishing characteristic between men and women." [Ihyaa uloom ad-Deen] The sahabah In al-Isaabah, it is said that Abu Bakr had a dense beard and that Uthman had a large and great beard. From ash-Sha'bi who said "I saw Ali and he had a broad beard which reached the width of his shoulders." From the mathaahib Ibn Abideen who was among the elite of the hanafis: "It is forbidden for a man to cut (i.e. shave) his beard." Rudd al-Muhtar Vol. 2 pg. 418 Ibn Abdul-Barr (Maliki) said in at-Tamhid "(Allah) has prohibited the shaving of the beard. And no one practises it except the effeminate among the men." Sh. Ahmad b. Qasim Al-`Abadi from the elite of the shafi'is: "Indeed al-Imam Ash-Shafi'i ha stated in the text of al-Umm concerning the prohibition of shaving the beard..." [Adilah tahrim halaq al-lihyah] Ash-Sharafani from the elite of the hanbalis said "The prohibition of  shaving the beard is an established practise in our madh-hab." [Ghada al-Albab] Other scholars Ibn Hazm: "They (i.e. the scholars are in agreement that shaving the beard is a distortion of one's features and is not permissible." [Maratib al-Ijma'ah p.157] Ibn Taymiyyah "It is forbidden to shave the beard." [Al-Ikhtiyarat al-Alimiyah p. 6] PS do a search on www.islam-qa.com regarding the beard

Re: beard or no beard?
Mona
02/27/01 at 22:03:09
[slm] [quote]Is growing the beard fard, wajib, sunnah mu'akkidah, a highly recommended sunnah, or just a sunnah?? ... Who cares guys!!!  I don't understand why everything has to be classified into a category for us!  Afterall, the Sahaabah never used such terms as fard, wajib, sunnah mu'akkidah, etc. [/quote] With all due respect bro Arsalan, I think it is incumbant on all muslims to at least be aware of basic fiqh issues that form the foundation for Islamic Law (Sharia). I am not here to discuss the beard issue specifically simply because of my ignorance in this regard, as in most others. Over the past two weeks, we at the UofT MSA have been having halaqaas with br. Yahya Ibrahim.  I am sure they've had duroos with him previously, but this is a first for me.  And you know what, he went over very basic stuff (according to him) and I re-discoverd my deep ignorance on even these! He started with the basics of Islamic Law and methodically illustrated how actions/matters are distinguished as: 1. Wajib (Compulsory) 2. Haram (Prohibited) 3. Mustahab (Desired) 4. Makrook (Hated) 5. Mubah (Permitted) We also learned about how Imam Abu-Hanifa (radiya Allahu 3nhu) distinguishes between [u]Wajib[/u] and [u]Fard[/u] and has 2 subcategories for Makrooh ( a. makrooh tanzeeh, b. makrooh tahreem ), thus ending up with 7 classes overall. We were given how these definitions were arrived at from primary and secondary sources  or 'adellah'; Quran & Hadith; Ijmaa3; Qiyas. I don't claim that I have absorbed or even understood everything that was discussed, but it was certainly an eye opening experience that I will insha'Allah delve more into in the future, just for my self-education.   [quote] If we truly love the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him ) and the Sahaabah, we will do what he tells us to do, without asking him "excuse me, are you just advising us to do this, recommending it to us, or is it an order?"  Kinda sounds like the jews asking the details about the cow, doesn't it. [/quote] I see your point, and agreed some people indeed go to great lengths to split hair. But again, I would like to stress that the average Muslim, if that even, has no exposure to very basic stuff in islamic law, that have been resolved, agreed upon and not even contentious.   I hope I haven't offended as this was certainly not the intention. Wassalam

Re: beard or no beard?
assing
02/28/01 at 09:36:51
As salaamu alaykum, Alhamdulillah, what the brother posted is sufficient proof to establish that letting the beard grow is an obligation on men. However, there are some who claim it is just a "sunnah" and not "wajib" {as the sister mentioned when she first began this tread}. The reason why some of them claim this is based on some of the hadeeth that says to be differed from the mushrikeen and ahl'il kitab, such as the one " "Be different from the mushrikeen, trim your moustache and grow your beards." [Bukhari & muslim], hence they claim this is not wajib because the messenger (saw) commanded us to be different from the jews and the christians by praying with our shoes on and dye our beards...... etc. and every muslim knows none of these is wajib, thus the same thing with the beard, i.e. it is sunnah and not wajib.     However, this argument is faulty and weak {like clock speakers as one rapper said}. First of all when the rasulallah (saw) mentioned being different from the kuffar, this is one of the hikmah behind the command and not the sole reason, just like the hadeeth "When any one of you eats, let him eat with his right hand, and when he drinks, let him drink with his right hand, because the Shaytaan eats with his left hand and drinks with his left hand.” (Reported by Muslim), could one come now and say eating with the right hand is just a "sunnah"? No because there are no hadeeth to indicate that the messenger (saw) ever eat with right hand, as a matter of fact he {saw} made dua upon a man who refused to eat with right hand, indicating that it is obligation, as the hadeeth states "the Prophet  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Eat with your right hand.” He said, “I cannot.” He said, “May you never be able to!” Nothing was stopping him but his stubborn arrogance, and he never raised his right hand to his mouth after that. (Reported by Muslim, 3776). According to a report narrated by al-Daarimi, “his right hand never reached his mouth”. This man suffered paralysis because of the du’aa’ of the Prophet  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).   Thus, in the same manner eventhough the messenger (saw) said to pray in your shoes and so forth, there are hadeeth to show that he (saw) prayed without shoes, hence this command will descend from a position of wajib to that of "sunnah" of mustahab {as the fiqh principle states}. As opposed to the beard, for there are no hadeeth, saheeh or even weak, to indicate that the messenger (saw) or the sahabahs used to shave, thus the command to leave the beard remains an obligation on men since there are no hadeeth to indicate he (saw) did otherwise.
NS

Re: beard or no beard?
humble_muslim
02/28/01 at 13:38:00
AA What is the daleel either for or against being allowed to partially TRIM the beard ?

Re: beard or no beard?
chachi
02/28/01 at 17:55:52
salaam    what is the verdict of the people of sunna as regards 'nahj al balagha' because i've read in that book imam ali said don't keep a beard in muslim minority countries (where muslims do not have authority)

Re: beard or no beard?
Kashif
02/28/01 at 18:03:08
assalaamu alaikum I think i've come across that saying a long time ago. But in which context was it said? Would it apply to us who live in the land of the kuffaar where generally we have no problem in keeping a beard? Perhaps it was said in the context of a person who is sent to spy on the enemy? Allahu a'lam. Kashif Wa Salaam

Re: beard or no beard?
chachi
02/28/01 at 19:32:13
i think he also said so you do not look like the old men of the yahood

Re: beard or no beard?
assing
03/01/01 at 09:44:33
"What is the daleel either for or against being allowed to partially TRIM the beard ?" The only one i know in our present time who proported that not only it is recommended but is  wajib, for a man to cut from his beard what exceeds a fist-full in lenght, is Shaikh Naasir Deen Al Albani {may Allah have mercy on him}. And this was due to his deep understanding of hadeeth and fiqh. He said that one should understand the hadeeth "let your beards grow" 'indal itlaq', i.e. just like that based on its apperant meaning, letting the beard grow as you may see those guys do in the Guiness world book of records or like those monks, rabbis, etc. For if you look at the hadeeth narrated by ibn Umar that the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam said: "Be different from the mushrikeen, trim your moustache and grow your beards." [Bukhari & muslim], and in sahih Muslim Abu Hurayrah narrated the hadeeth "leave the beards", but yet still, it has been confirmed that these two same sahabahs who narrated these ahadeeth used to cut what exceeds a fist length when they made their hajj as stated in Al Bukhari þ þÇÈä ÚãÑ þ þÚä ÇáäÈí þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÞÇá þ þÎÇáÝæÇ ÇáãÔÑßíä æÝÑæÇ ÇááÍì æÃÍÝæÇ ÇáÔæÇÑÈ æßÇä þ þÇÈä ÚãÑ þ þÅÐÇ ÍÌ Ãæ ÇÚÊãÑ ÞÈÖ Úáì áÍíÊå ÝãÇ ÝÖá ÃÎÐå þ , hence you see right after mentioning the hadeeth "Be different from the mushrikeen, trim your moustache and grow your beards", then he (Bukhari) puts "and ibn Umar when he made hajj or umrah he used to hold his beard and he remove what exceeds {his fist-full}" and Abu Hurayrah used to the same and he narrated hadeeth about letting the grow. Thus, Al Albani said these hadeeth are "aam" general, and the action of the sahabahs give explaination to them, hence one should not understand the hadeeth as is but by the action of the sahabahs.      He further went on to say this is just like the hadeeth where the messenger {saw} said "wheneveryou hear the muidhin {call the adhan} he should say as he say" {Al Bukhari}, however, there are ahadeeth further clarifies this general statement which states  that whenever the  muidhin says: "Íí Úáì ÇáÕáÇÉ" þáÇ Íæá æáÇ ÞæÉ ÅáÇ ÈÇááå "  -  we say Thus, Al Albani said we should understand the hadeeth in this manner.    As for 'nahj al balagha' hear is what the scholars have to say about this book: Shaykh Al Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said, "...and most of the sermons which the author of the book Nahjatul Baalighah quotes in it are lies upon Alee(r)...", and, "But as for the author of Nahjatul Baalighah and his like, they take many sayings of people, and make them into the sayings of Alee(r)." [Minhaaj as-Sunnah] About Al-Murtadhee, Abu Taalib Alee Ibn Husayn Ibn Moosaa Al Muwsawee, then Adh-Dhahabee said about him, "He is the compiler of the book Nahjatul Baalighah, whose statements are attributed to Imaam Alee(r), there being no chain of narrators for them, some of them are in fact, Baatil(Falsehood/Wrong), and in some there is some truth, but it also contains fabrications..." And he said, "In his writings, the Companions of Allaah's Messenger(Sallallaahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) are abused. We seek refuge in Allaah from knowledge that brings no benefit" [From Siyaar A'laamun Nubalaa]
NS

Re: beard or no beard?
Tarar
03/01/01 at 23:37:56
[slm] Beard According to Quran and Sunnah Hadith - Bukhari 7:781, Narrated Ibn 'Umar RA Allah's Apostle  said, "Cut the moustaches short and leave the beard (as it is)." Hadith - Muslim, Narrated AbuHurayrah Ra The Messenger of Allah  said: Trim closely the moustache, and grow beard, and thus act against the fire-worshippers. Hadith - Bukhari 9:651, Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri The Prophet SAW said, "There will emerge from the East some people who will recite the Qur'an but it will not exceed their throats and who will go out of (renounce) the religion (Islam) as an arrow passes through the game, and they will never come back to it unless the arrow, comes back to the middle of the bow (by itself) (i.e., impossible)." The people asked, "What will their signs be?" He said, "Their sign will be the habit of shaving (of their beards)." (Fateh Al-Bari, Page 322, Vol. 17th) Hadith - Muwatta 51.7 Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam that Ata ibn Yasar told him that the Messenger of Allah  was in the mosque when a man came in with dishevelled hair and beard. The Messenger of Allah  motioned with his hand that he should be sent out to groom his hair and beard. The man did so and then returned. The Messenger of Allah said, "Isn't this better than that one of you should come with his head dishevelled, as if he were a shaytan?" Action Items Trim the moustache Male muslims must not trim the beard, i.e. leave all facial hair to grow as Allah swt has designed it. Believe that not shaving is what is best for the Muslim.  Medical reports reveal that the beard protects the tonsils from sunstroke. Shaving of the beard also harms the skin. If you've been shaving your face all these years, STOP NOW.  Brother, receive your blessing and wear the sign of the believers. Remember... Allah, subhana watala, sees everything we do! [wlm] Tarar

Re: beard or no beard?
proudtobemuslim
03/05/01 at 11:11:13
Assalam-u-Alaikum, I'd like to know the sunnah way of trimming the MOUSTACHE.  Is it enough that the moustache does not flow over one's lips or should it be completely trimmed (so that it may even LOOK like it was shaved). Jazzakum ullahu Khairan Wassalam-u-Alaikum Uzer

Re: beard or no beard?
BrKhalid
03/16/01 at 20:44:47
Asalaamu Alaikum ;-) Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal: The Prophet (peace be upon him), said, "The inhabitants of Paradise will enter Paradise hairless, beardless with their eyes anointed with collyrium, aged thirty or thirty-three years." [Tirmidhi]

Re: beard or no beard?
Arsalan
03/17/01 at 11:55:19
[slm] Br Khalid, is this an authentic hadith? Can anyone who have access to the collection of Shaikh Albani's Saheehs check it?

Re: beard or no beard?
BrKhalid
03/17/01 at 14:02:37
Asalaamu Alaikum ;-) I first came across this idea of the inhabitants of Paradise being beardless in a hadith quoted by Imam Ghazali in his book The Remembrance of Death & The Afterlife. The wording there is as below: [color=Blue]And he said (may God bless him and grant him peace), “The people of Heaven are hairless, beardless, white, compact in limbs, use kohl, and are thirty-three years of age, with the form of Adam. Their height is sixty cubits and their breadth seven”[/color] I was flicking through Tirmidhi on my Alim software CD and came across the hadith which I posted. Unlike some other hadiths in Tirmidhi, there wasn’t any qualification in respect of it. As to whether it is authentic or not, I honestly don’t know. But the reason why I posted it, was that it kind of made sense in relation to the fact that men are not allowed to wear gold and silk in this world but these items will be permissible in the Hereafter. Let us know bro if you can find anything more on its authenticity Wasalaam ;-)

Re: beard or no beard?
Anonymous
03/18/01 at 18:18:57
I don't know anything about this hadith, but it reminds me of this bayaan I heard once.  In regards to the whole beardless thing, I heard that the jannati men will be beardless because one of the reasons for growing the beard (in this world) is for overcoming your nafs (desire) so like the jannati men won't have beards anymore, cuz there's no more need to overcome ur nafs.  All your desires will be met unlike in this world. Allahu A3lam

Why why why?!
AbuKhaled
03/27/01 at 14:57:56
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem. Assalam alaikum wa rahmatullah. <Who cares guys!!! I don't understand why everything has to be classified into a category for us!> What say you akhi Arsalan to a wo/man who refuses a portion of benefit prior to acquiring understanding? I would be hesitant to dismiss such a significant area of Islam by saying “Who cares…!!!”. For what you are addressing is the edifice of fiqh, namely, usul al-fiqh. This is where you will find your answer to that which you don’t understand. In the introduction to the ‘Ilm of Usul al-Fiqh,. Why this science is necessary, what it’s purpose is, and what is yielded by it’s study. However, to answer you briefly, about why such categories are necessary: In order that we can worship Allah ta’ala with awareness, and not ignorance, to the degree required of us in every particular act we undertake. If we take a command of the Messenger of Allah [saw] and act upon it – even in the presence of ikhlas -  to a degree beyond, or less than, that which is was intended it to be taken, then we have not followed the Messenger of Allah [saw] , and indeed Allah (awj) in the manner intended by them, to be followed. Wallahu a’lam. The niyyah that the Sahabah (raa) followed the ‘amr [command] of Rasul’Allah [saw] was based on their complete understanding of every factor necessary to know what level of imperative a command that is in the Qur’an or ahadith, is meant to be taken. So if we too wish to follow *as they did*, this Deen in the most excellent manner, then we need to know if the matter is wajib, haram, sunnah, etc. For if we, for example, treat siwak before salat as if it is fard, then we have disregarded the degree which the Messenger of Allah [saw] ordered this action. Conversely, if we treat it as if it is merely mubah, then we have likewise not followed the Sunnah in the manner meant by our Beloved Nabi [saw]. I intend to elaborate on this point as we proceed, insha’Allah. <Afterall, the Sahaabah never used such terms as fard, wajib, sunnah mu'akkidah, etc.> No doubt. Nor did they (raa) study tajweed, arabic, books of tawheed/aqeedah. They did not classify ahadith into sahih, da’eef, mawquf, etc. They did not use the Bible as a proof against itself. Etc. Your point being? :) Their (raa) non-use of these terms does not mean they are not required, nor that they can be dismissed, or should not be utilised. They did not use them because they did not need to. We do. Making an analogy with them falls short when we are not as they were. It is through comprehension of such issues that we hope one day to become like them in their total manifestation of what it means to follow Al-Islam in the footsteps of our Beloved Prophet [saw]. Definitely, as the late Professor Ahmad Hasan noted in his book The Early Development of Islamic Jurisprudence: “During the time of the Prophet [saw], there was no such science as that of jurisprudence. The Prophet [saw] did not categorise the injunctions into wajib (imperative), mandub (recommended), haram (forbidden), makruh (disapproved) and mubah (indifferent) as propounded in the later legal theory. This classification of acts is the work of the jurists themselves who studied different passages of the Qur’an, various traditions of the Prophet [saw], the practice of the Companions [raa] and the early Muslims. According to the jurists, this was not the case with the Companions [raa] in the Prophet’s [saw] lifetime. The only ‘ideal’ for them was the conduct of the Prophet [saw]. They learnt ablutions, saying prayers, performing Hajj etc. by observing the Prophet’s [saw] normative actions under his instructions. But they did not reflect what parts of these actions constituted arkan (essentials) and what constituted adab (adjuncts).” [page 12] Yet, were we to base our whole opinion on this question on that piece of quoted information alone in some misconception that *we are surely following in their footsteps by also not adopting such legal classifications*, we would ironically be furthest from that which we were striving to be closest to (!), for we would neglect a very significant reality. One can better appreciate why things came about as they are today, if we place ourselves in that very time, and then in the time that followed that time. If you were one of the Sahaba (ra), then clearly you had the presence of the Prophet [saw] there, so any issues were understood by his [saw] words/actions/consent there and then. At that time, the existence of a relevant phenomenon which is central to your contention, was yet to be. A reality which only arose *after* his [saw] time. Namely, that of differences in understanding. For example, in the early years of revelation, if you heard something from him [saw], then you’d act on it. And even if later – during the perioid of wahy [revelation] you heard something different, you’d act on that. But what about *after* him [saw]? The Sahaba (ra) would relate what *they* knew from him [saw], and sometimes they’d differ, because one would relate one thing, and another would relate another. Ahmad Hasan cites an example: “Ibn ‘Abbas [ra] reports, on the authority of Usamah ibn Zayd [ra] fro the Prophet [saw], that there is no riba except on loan. But ‘Ubadah ibn al-Samit, Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan and Abu Hurayrah [raa] reported the famous tradition of riba in six commodities in a hand-to-hand transaction.” [page 17] *Many many* such instances abound. The manner in which such differences were reconciled is *one* reason why you have the ahkam khamsah. There are other reasons which led to differences of opinion, which you may learn from the book I have quoted from, or elsewhere. To cite them all would take too long, so I hope this single example suffices you. So we appreciate that after the time of wahy, the Sahaba (raa), and the successive generations (raa) had to deal with the corpus juri of whatever was considered a legal evidence for an action. This was unlike the period of wahy, when such considerations never arose, for the one who could resolve them [saw] was there, and the wahy was ongoing. But after him [saw] they had to try and deal with all of it, and obviously, since juristic methods differed (as with the Sahaba (raa)), and some had access to what others didn’t (e.g. due to the dispersal of the Sahaba (raa)), depths of perception differed, etc., then naturally differences arose. Professor Hasan points out that, “The process of development of these categories from the early schools to al-Shafi’I [ra] and from him onward is not very much clear from the available early literature. It is, however, clear that these categories began to take their formal shape from asl-Shafi’i [ra] and resulted in five fixed values (al-ahkam al-khamsah) after him with the passage of time.” [p39] Let us now look at what could occur if we *didn’t* know about these different legal classifications of actions. Take the example of wudu. Now, as you know, wudu as a ritual act has a number of constituent actions that are undertaken for the act as a whole to be considered performed. Now, as you also know, some of these actions are essential (i.e. fard) and some are superogatory (i.e. mandoub). Now, say you didn’t know which was which. Imagine you were one day in a rush to catch the jumu’ah salat, and needed to make wudu quickly. If you didn’t know which elements of wudu were mandoub, you would do the complete wudu in a rushed manner, and wallahu a’lam if in such a rush it would be done properly. How many of us have been in such a situation, where our anxiety to catch salat in jamaah makes us hurry our wudu, and we *presume* our wudu is valid, even though we made it carelessly. How much better if we knew which were the obligatory aspects of the wudu, so in our rush we could calmly dispense with doing the mandoub aspects, and focus only on the fard aspects, so we wouldn’t have to rush to do the *complete wudu* in a haphazard manner and risk an invalid wudu. No doubt you see the point. I could just as easily have made salat itself the example, where the time is short and yet one hasn’t prayed. How many of us don’t know the fard aspects of the salat, and thus try to squeeze it all in (i.e. the mandoub too) in a mumbled rush, in order for our salat to be completed in the time left. Yet if we knew that, for example, it is mandoub to recite another surah (or a minimum number of ayaat) after Al-Fatiha, then we could - for the sake of making the salat in the time left – leave out this extra surah or additional ayaat. Rather than try to fit everything in and run the risk of invalidating our salat by not concentrating properly, or maintaining composure, khushu, etc., we can reduce the salat to the essential parts, so it is not rushed, and still valid. More seriously than this though, is what such type of ignorance (i.e. of the one who rushes wudu/salat in this manner) in order to catch the time, manifests. That it relegates these immense acts of ibadaat to outwards actions alone. Your rush to try and *squeeze* all the parts in, means the inward state you’re supposed to be in at the times of such acts of worship, is forsaken for the sake of fitting it all in. Surely by knowing that which is obligatory from that which isn’t, would allow you to take more time and compose yourself and the inner state necessary to accompany such acts, accordingly, thereby minimising the likelihood of ruining your ibadaat by hurrying it. Surely it is obvious how you can more carefully recite Al-Fatiha if you know you don’t invalidate your salat by not reciting a surah, or some ayaat, after it, than if you are unaware of this and thus rush your Fatiha in order to also fit in a following surah (or some ayaat). (Of course I am here talking about exceptional situations that arise in life now and again, due to extenuating circumstances. Normally we would take the adequate measures to ensure we had plenty of time to fulfil our ritualistic acts of ibadaat) Alhamdulillah for the knowledge we possess, by the Favour of Allah (swt) upon us. <If we truly love the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him ) and the Sahaabah, we will do what he tells us to do, without asking him "excuse me, are you just advising us to do this, recommending it to us, or is it an order?"> There is a vast difference - and crucial to note – between *questioning the order of Rasul’Allah (saw)*, ma’adallah, and trying to understand it as he (saw) meant it. Taking every order as the same will cause one to not be following the Qur’an and Sunnah as they were intended to be followed. If we just accepted the order as it seems ostensibly, then it follows that there would be no distinction between obligatory fard and mandoub, yes? Because both appear in the ‘amr [command] form in the text. In fact, sometimes, so does even the mubah [permissible]. One example to illustrate, insha’Allah: The ayat in Surat al-Ma’idah, which orders one to after the Pilgrimage (5:2.67), hunt: “O ye who believe! Profane not Allah's monuments nor the Sacred Month nor the offerings nor the garlands, nor those repairing to the Sacred House, seeking the grace and pleasure of their Lord. But when ye have left the sacred territory, then go hunting (if ye will).” [Pickthall] This is a command. So why then did no scholar, ever, consider it to be fard or even mandoub? Because of the nature of the ‘amr [command] form that the ayat signifies. You are most likely wondering: why when the Prophet [saw] has given an imperative, is that insufficient for us to just comply? Well, let me tie the answer to that question, with my response to something Brother assing wrote: <However, there are some who claim it is just a "sunnah" and not "wajib" {as the sister mentioned when she first began this tread}. The reason why some of them claim this is based on some of the hadeeth that says to be differed from the mushrikeen and ahl'il kitab, such as the one "> In fact, if this is a reason for why some fuqaha considered it mandoub (and at least one even apparently said mubah, wallahu a’lam), then it is (i) not the only reason, and (ii) not the strongest of the reasons. The central factor in this is the issue of how the ‘amr form was understood, according to the various usuliyyun. And in fact, understanding this, will help us to appreciate so many of the fiqh differences, so instead of trying to choke a single opinion upon the entire Ummah, the profundity of the plurality we have settled upon over centuries, might be marveled at. It is about time many of us realised that with the four madhahib, we have reached the lowest common denominator in terms of usuli variations. It cannot be further distilled into a single madhab, wallahu a’lam. I’m going to be referring to an article which examined the issue, entitled “The Impact of 'Amr in Understanding the Text”, so unless otherwise indicated, any page numbers will be taken from this source. Briefly then: First of all, sometimes the imperative IS sufficient. But sometimes it is not. As the Qur'an was revealed in arabic, deriving rules requires knowledge of arabic. Yet the mere understanding of arabic is not enough. "This is because the issue at hand is the extraction of rules from a specific (i.e. legal) text. The arabic language is just one prerequisite in understanding the legal text. Additional requirements exist such as the factors determining the obligation and prohibition, differentiating between the general and particular text or restricted and unrestricted text." [p76]. One of these factors is the issue of the ‘amr [command]. "Some have considered the usage of ‘amr in legal texts as an indicator for performing a fard. Hence some jurists consider growing the beard as a fard because of the apparent usage of ‘amr form in those hadith. Others do not consider the mere usage of ‘amr as an indicator for fard. Rather the inclusion of other indicators" (qara'in) "is required to categorise an act as fard. Understanding the ‘amr and issues surrounding it is an important topic as a prerequisite to understand the factors applied to deriving the Hukm Shari'i. Comprehending the amr debate amongst jusrists requires a basic understanding of the following: 1) Tenses used in the arabic language, specifically in the ‘amr form. 2) Methods by which commands are addressed in the Qur'an and Sunnah. 3) Meanings and the usage of the ‘amr form. 4) Evidences used by those claiming that ‘amr form is obligatory. (Evidences used by those claiming it is not obligatory, but rather neutral and requires ancillary evidences to render the command as recommended or obligatory.)" [p76-77] "…it's debated whether the ‘amr form automatically implies an obligation or not. Some have said that the ‘amr form implies fard unless proven otherwise. Others have said that the ‘amr form does not necessarily imply an obligation, but rather just a request to perform the action and additional factors shift the command to an obligation or recommendation." [p80] Two examples of the usage of ‘amr now follow. Hopefully this will show you how an imperative (i.e: ‘amr) does not always mean fard/haram. -'Establish the prayer' [al-Baqarah, 2:110] = OBLIGATION -the Prophet (saw) [reportedly] saying to Ibn Abbas to eat from his side of the plate = MANDOUB '...and eat and drink' [al-Baqarah, 2:187] = MUBAH NB: THE IMPERATIVE IS IN THE TEXT IN EACH CASE (e.g: 'establish' & 'eat' & 'drink') YET THE HUKM DERIVED IS DIFFERENT. “Since the ‘amr form can be used in a variety of different ways...we cannot consider a text in the ‘amr form as automatically fard. It is the context and/or other daleel which makes the amr form an obligation...If we consider a command in the ‘amr form a fard, then by default the order 'Marry women of your choice two, or three, or four' [an-Nisa, 4:3] would be obligatory" [p82]. There are many other examples. The article goes on to outline the argument and evidences of the proponents of saying that an imperative equals a fard. It refutes this understanding and says: "The arabs have used the ‘amr form to imply a request. Those who claim otherwise should provide a text from the arabic language in which the ‘amr form - independent of any other daleel - leads to an obligation....The legal definition for fard is a decisive command...the mandoub and mubah are just requests. These concepts are legal Islamic concepts derived from evidences. The arabic language allows the ‘amr to imply a request only... In conclusion, the ‘amr tense is a request in its neutral capacity. Other evidences must be existent to consider the command as a fard. Other factors could be the context, extra words, occasion of the revelation, reward/punishment, frequent repetition of the order, etc. It is the role of the mujtahid to thoroughly investigate the text and to derive the rule from it. It is not sufficient to have a cursory reading of the Qur'an and Sunnah and attempt to derive rules from these sources. Deriving rules needs more than just browsing the text..." [p86-87] It is important to note that the preceding few paragraphs following my sentence in capitals, are subject to ikhtilaf [difference of opinion]. One who is qualified may differ, and indeed this was a matter of iktilaf amongst the usuliyyun historically. Let us also quote from another source; Professor Ahmad Hasan’s wonderful The Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. This is from the chapter 'The Obligatory': "..it should be noted that the imperative mood does not always indicate wujub (obligatoriness). It conveys many senses according to the context." [p44] This next quote is from the chapter of 'The Recommended'. Similar sections exist in all it's chapters on the other levels of command (i.e. haram, makruh, mubah): "When the imperative expression is used absolutely without any qualification (mutlaq), it indicates obligation (wujub). But if it is qualified by a word which clearly indicates recommendation, or there is some presumptive evidence indicating the recommendatory nature of the injunction, it signifies that the act is mandub. The presumptive evidence (qarinah) determines the meaning of the imperative expression but it does not indicate by itself whether an injunction is obligatory or recommended." [p80-81] Now, despite the fact that we live in times where the Ummah is polarised, you will find *no* disagreement amongst any of the Ulema – wallahu a’lam - about the validity of using the ahkam khamsah, since they all utilise them, and their usage is accepted without contention. Why is there a need for usul al-fiqh? “Since the existence of Fiqh there must have existed its principles and doctrines. ..Fiqh was compiled and developed into a science before the development of Usul al-Fiqh, but it coexisted with Fiqh all along. The jurists employed some principles and methods in the process of deriving the rules of law from the Qur’an and the Sunnah. In fact, these principles and methods were known to them...although they did not consciously articulate them as a definite methodology.” [p15] “Usul al-Fiqh was in existence since the very inception of Fiqh; rather it preceded it, for it consisted of the principles of deriving the rules of law and served as a criteria for judging variant opinions. But the need for its compilation was not felt in the early phase of Islam.” [p16] “With the territorial expansion...and with the material developments, a large number of fresh problems emerged during the third generation. This gave rise to frequent exercise of ijtihad... At this stage the jurists felt the need for devising a set of some criteria to remove disagreements on the disputed points. They were based on the Arabic grammar, syntax, theology, the textual material of legal relevance in the authoritative sources, and acquaintance with the methods employed by the Companions. The sum total of these principles constitutes the science of Usul al-Fiqh." [p17] This is one reason why no one who lacks knowledge should EVER quote ayaat/ahadith as evidence of fard/haram, when someone asks a question of fiqh, unless they *know* on the precedent of authority that the ‘amr form in that ayat/hadith signifies what is known as talab (ghayr) jazim [a decisive request (not) to do], which is how the Ulema recognise if the ‘amr is of the level of fard/haram, or that which lies inbetween. For doing so in the absence of authority, means you have presumed to take the evidence cited by yourself on its ostensible import, and in isolation, and taken yourself as a reference point before Allah ta’ala, on behalf of His (awj) Deen. Is that a responsibility any of us wish to shoulder? Not me. So, bi’ithnillah ta’ala, I hope this small endeavour has helped clarify why these concepts exist, and more, are necessary. Should you have any further questions, or if anything remains unclear, please let me know. Any of the likely mistakes were mine alone. Only that which was of the Truth was by the Favour of Allah (awj). Rabbi zidnee ‘ilmee. Astaghfirullah, Abu Khaled

Re: beard or no beard?
Arsalan
03/27/01 at 15:05:32
Oh man!  That WHOLE thing in reply to my message? I'm gonna have to read this thing now ... After class insha Allah ... Jazaak Allaahu Khairan Abu Khaled.  I'm sure, whatever it is, it's good :) Wassalaamu alaikum.

Re: beard or no beard?
proudtobemuslim
03/28/01 at 04:37:27
Assalam-u-Alaikum, Jazzak-Allahu Khair brother, I really needed that and now I have a question. [quote] This is one reason why no one who lacks knowledge should EVER quote ayaat/ahadith as evidence of fard/haram, when someone asks a question of fiqh, unless they *know*  on the precedent of authority that the ‘amr form in that ayat/hadith signifies what is known as talab (ghayr) jazim [a decisive request (not) to do], which is how the Ulema  recognise if the ‘amr is of the level of fard/haram, or that which lies inbetween. [/quote] Insha-Allah I intend to keep that in mind.  So I'd like to know what should I do when someone approaches me with a question such is keeping the beard wajib? Do we have to break statues?  Is music haram... or even is Salah mandatory? I know for a fact that the answer to the last question is a definite YES and then I could quote Ayaat of the Quraan and say that the Prophet (SAW) said that the difference between a Muslim and Mushrik is Salah, etc. but I would not have the authority to say such as I never myself went out and did all that which the great Scholars (may Allah (AWJ) have mercy on them) did.   And then what should I do with regards to the other questions?  Would saying Sheikh so-and-so said this.. be eneough? Jazzak Allahu Khair brother, May Allah (AWJ) reqrd you with the best. Ameen. Wassalam-u-Alaikum, Uzer

Re: beard or no beard?
humble_muslim
03/28/01 at 06:09:14
AA Uzer, The way I handle these fiqh questions is as follows.  Firstly, I make it clear to the questionnaire that I am NOT a fuquha.  Secondly, if I know the answer, AND I know the daleel, AND I know that there is consensus amongst the Ulema about the question, I answer it.  Otherwise, I try my best to answer it but with a disclaimer (e.g "according to most ulema...", "the correct opinion APPEARS to be ...").   However, if it is not a fiqh issue, then I will try to answer the question to the best of my ability according to my limited knowledge.
NS

Re: beard or no beard?
Arsalan
03/28/01 at 12:25:21
[slm] Jazak Allahu Khairan Akhi Abu Khaled for writing that post.  I need to buy more books that talk about Usul al-Fiqh and read them, as my knowledge about this great 'ilm is almost nonexistant!  You have answered many questions that were lingering in my mind for quite some time now, and I am indebted to you for it. Perhaps I should have been more careful in the comment which I made earlier.  I can now see why it is important to classify things - everything - among the ahkaam khamsah, including the issue of beard.  I can also see why it would be important for any layman to inquire about its hukm from a person of knowledge.  However, I would just like to advise my brothers (and sisters) to be careful when carrying out such inquiries.  Often times, we tend to inquire about matters in order to hunt for a lenient hukm, so that we can find ourselves an excuse to perform (or not to perform) an act which is at least disliked (or at least recommended).  The inquiry should always be made with the sincere intention of acquiring the knowledge to be able to live our lives more closely to that of the Prophet (pbuh) and the Sahaabah, and nothing but that.  And once we are convinced, because of the evidence that has been presented to us by a reliable source, about the hukm of a matter, then we should feel no hesitation in acting upon that matter according to its hukm.  For if our original intention was to do as the Prophet of Allah (pbuh) had intended for us to do, then what is the purpose of this hesitation in our action? [i]... Wa qaaloo sami3naa wa aTa3naa, ghufraanka rabbanaa wa ilaykal maSeer.[/i] ... And they (the believers) say "We hear, and we obey, we seek Thy Forgiveness our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys." (al-Baqarah 2:285) Wallahu a'lam.  I ask Allah to forgive me if my earlier comments were offensive to His Deen.  Wa laa 7awla wa laa quwwata illaa billah.  Wa innahu huwal 3aleemul 7akeem. Wassalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah.
NS
Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author. The rest © Jannah.Org