the ruling of the beard according to hanafi fiqh

Definition of five-o'clock shadow

1. : the beginning of a beard that shows up late in the afternoon on the face of a man who has not shaved since morning

(for those people who may have missed the idiom)

 

didn't get what you hinted at? what has beard length to do with prayer times?

 

if you have noticed, all the citations you've posted (assuming they are accurate) are proofs for fist-length. i wonder how people ignore the obvious and try to insist that it is proof for five o'clock shadow.

 

The discussion amongst jurists of Hanafi school in regards to issue of “FISTFUL (beard)” Some latter scholars have called fistful to be necessary. Shaykh Abdul Haq Muhadith Dhelvi was the first one to call fistful as necessary (wajib), however this is the personal
opinion of this researching scholar, however all our other jurists have written that fistful is “masnoon (sunnah)” and that which scholar Ibn Hammam has written: And to reduce (i.e. major part of beard) just like some westerners and heterosexuals do is not allowed (mubah) according to anyone [Allama Kamal ud din Ibn Hammam, in Fath ul Qadeer (2/270)]

Some scholars say that in this statement Imam Ibn Hammam has called fistful as necessary (wajib), however, this is not correct. First of all this statement is not in regards to fistful but is rather in regards to “major or prevalent part of the beard” and this is separate from issue of fistful. Secondly, this is correct as none has called this Mubah (allowed) but at the same time no one has called cutting the beard less than
fistful as haram or prohibitively disliked either until or unless the Wujoob (necessity) of fistful is established. Thirdly, Imam Ibn Hammam has said on same page that the Sunnah in regards to beard is Fistful and this is a categorical proof on the point that fistful is “sunnah not wajib”
The scholar Ibn Hammam writes: The Sunnah in beard is fistful. [ibid] This is why it is necessary to interpret the second saying of Imam Ibn Hammam, so that his two statements do not become contradictory. This interpretation is that: Permissibility is in the category of being recommended, “hence none has called this Mubah” this means “that none has called this as praiseworthy” which means that none has called it praiseworthy to cut the beard less than fistful because the recommended way is that beard should be kept fistful, rather it is a Sunnah to keep such a long beard that it covers the upper part of chest as it has come in hadiths that the beard if Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon him) used to cover his chest, and this saying of some scholars is not correct that long beard establishes less intellect. This statement could only be said by that person who has not tasted the sweetness of Prophetic love. This way the scholar Ayni, Ibn Hammam and scholar Ibn Nakheem who have extracted from Nihayah that it is necessary to cut the beard after fistful is also not correct, except if this interpretation is made to prove the meaning of necessity (wajib) just like the scholar Alauddin Haskafi has given this interpretation. [Allama Muhammad bin Ali bin Muhammad Haskafi, in Dur ul Mukhtar ala Hamish Rad ul Mukhtar (2/155), Published
by Matba Uthmaniyyah, Istanbul, Turkey]
Similarly, Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdoodi is incorrect to write “In my opinion, somebody’s beard being small or big has no real effect if the emotions of sacrificing your lives and giving total obedience is scarce, then be sure that length of beard will have no benefit to you. [Syed Abul Ala Mawdoodi in Rasail o Masail (1/153), Published by Islamic Publishers, Lahore, Pakistan]
It states in Qur’an al Majeed: So whoever does an atom's weight of good will see (reward) of it, And whoever does an atom's weight of evil will see (punishment) of it. [Surah al-Zalzalah: 7-8]
This is why anyone who in love of the Prophet (Peace and blessings be upon him) keeps a long beard in order to follow the Sunnah will get reward for it, however if he followed his Nafs and did some sins due to satan overpowering him then he shall be liable for their punishment. Syed Mawdoodi’s this statement is in direct opposition of Qur’an. Some scholars have derived proof from this statement of Dur-e-Mukhtar in regards to necessity of keeping fistful (beard):

And this is why the author of al-Bazaziyyah said: It is forbidden for man to cut his beard, the reasoning for this is that men resemble one another. [Allama Alauddin Muhammad bin Ali bin Muhammad al-Haskafi, In Dur ul Mukhtar ala Hamish Radul Mukhtar (5/359), Published by Matba Uthmaniyyah, Istanbul, Turkey] When cutting the beard is forbidden then fistful becomes necessary, but this deduction
is not correct because there is no mention of fistful in this statement nor is it forbidden to cut the beard in totality. The scholar Ibn Bazzaz Kardari has mentioned this statement in context of women imitating men and similarly men imitating women.
[Allama Muhammad Shahab ud din Ibn Bazzaz Kardari, in Fatawa Bazaziyah ala Hamishil Hindiyyah (6/379), Published by Bolaaq, Egypt]
And women shall be imitated by cutting the beard when whole of the beard is cut, and to cut the beard completely is Haram even according to us whereas it is necessary to keep beard in totality.


see the attachment for discussion.

 

I think this issue of beard is similar to the issue of Photos and Video Recording. Some follow Alahazrat like Mufti Akhtar Raza Khan and some do not like Mufti Ilyas Qadri. So there is difference of opinion on this issue.

Sidi Faqir has mentioned Arab Hanafi Scholars who wrote on trimming or shortening the beard. You can check the thread here http://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/the-length-of-the-beard.5397/

I don't see the reason why we need to put Hazrat Gulam Rasool on the spotlight.


The hadiths and sayings regarding trimming the beard:
Imam Abu Hanifa narrates with his chain, that once Abu Qahafa came in the presence
of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in a state that the hair of his beard
were scattered, the narrator says: The Prophet said: I Wish you reduce (these hair) and
pointed towards the ends of his beard. [Imam Abu Hanifa, Nauman bin Thabit in
Musnad Imam al-Adham, Page # 359, Published Muhammad Sa’eed and sons, Karachi]
This hadith is also narrated by Imam Abu Yusuf [Imam Abu Yusuf Yaqoob bin Ibrahim,
Kitaab ul Athaar, Page # 234, Published by Maktaba al Asriyyah, Sangla Hill]

And Imam Abu Yusuf narrates:
Ibrahim Nakha’i said: There is no harm in reducing the beard for a man, provided there
is no resemblance with the polytheists [Imam Abu Yusuf Yaqoob bin Ibrahim, Kitaab ul
Athaar, Page # 235, Published by Maktaba al Asriyyah, Sangla Hill]

Imam Abu Yusuf narrates:
Nafi said that Respected Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) used to reduce some
of his beard. [Imam Abu Yusuf Yaqoob bin Ibrahim, Kitaab ul Athaar, Page # 234]
There is no restriction of holding (beard) in fist and according to jurists of Hanafi
school the Mutlaq is not attributed to Muqayyid

Nafi said that the respected Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) used to heat the
iron and put mark on his body and also used to get blown over due to poison and
also reduce some of the beard. [Imam Abu Yusuf Yaqub bin Ibrahim, Kitaab ul Athaar,
Page # 435]


The opinion of Hanafi jurists in regards to the length of beard:
The scholar Badr ud din Ayni al-Hanafi writes:
The scholar al-Kaki said: In our view the length of beard is equivalent to one fistful, and
to cut the beard in excess to that is “wajib (necessary)” Abu Musa Ishaq has narrated in
his al-Jami’ that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to reduce his
beard by cutting it from its length, Imam at-Tirmidhi has also narrated that the
Prophet (Peace and Blessings be upon him) used to cut his beard from the length and
width.
I, (Badr ud din Ayni) say that this hadith is not a proof that Prophet used to cut his
beard after fistful, however yes there are 2 Athaar (sayings) narrated in this regard.
Imam Abu Dawood and Nasai’i have narrated that the respected Ibn Umar (may Allah
be pleased with him) used to cut his beard after fistful. Imam al-Bukhari has also
narrated this in “Ta’leeq” form and Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah has narrated that
respected Abu Hurraira (may Allah be pleased with him) used to cut his beard after
fistful, however these Athaar (sayings of Sahaba) are opposing the hadith (saying of
Prophet) which says: Trim your moustaches and let the beard grow (Sahih Bukhari,
Sahih Muslim) so this answer is possible that meaning of increasing the beard is that
whole beard should not be cut like the Majus (star worshippers) used to do. The proof
for this is that Imam al-Muslim has narrated from respected Abu Hurraira (may Allah
be pleased with him): Trim your moustaches, lengthen your beards and do opposite to
the Majus (end of hadith) because Majus used to shave off their beards and leave the
moustaches without cutting them at all.
It is in Muheet that there is difference of opinion in regards to lengthening the beard,
some scholars said: Leave the beard till the beard becomes big and thick whereas to
reduce it by cutting it is Sunnah i.e. the beard which is more than fistful only that
should be cut. [Allama Badr ud din Abu Muhammad Mehmood bin Ahmed Ayni, in
Binayah (1/1344-1345), Published by Manshi Noh Lakshore, Lachknow India]
So the scholar ‘Ayni writes:
If asked what is the meaning of ﻰﺤﻠﻟااﻮﻔﻋا because as you know ءﺎﻔﻋا refers to Katheer
(abundant/many), hence if beard is left as it is then it will get extremely long from
length and width and the people would make fun of it. The answer to this is:
Lengthening the beard is forbidden and to cut it is “necessary (wajib)” whereas the
early scholars have differed on its limit. They said: When the beard increases more than
fistful in length and scatters in width then it is “qabih (bad)”


The respected Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates: He saw that one man
had left his beard (as it is), he pulled his beard and said: Bring scissors to me, then a
man said what is below his hand should be cut. Then (Umar) said: Go and make your
hair in order or make them irregular, does anyone from you leave himself like this as if
he is a beast amongst beasts?
Respected Abu Hurraira (may Allah be pleased with him) used to cut his beard after
grasp of hand. Respected Ibn Umar has also narrated exactly like this and some
scholars have said: Cut your beard from length and width but do not cut it too much,
they have not put any limit for this, however according to me the meaning of
this is that till the time the beard does not exceed the (prevalent)
culture and habit of people then it should not be cut.
Ata’ said: When the beard becomes long and big then there is no harm in cutting it
slightly from length and width, the proof for this comes from Imam at-Tirmidhi’s
narration that Prophet (Peace and Blessings be upon him) used to cut his beard from
length and width. [Allama Badr ud din Abu Muhammad Mehmood bin Ahmed Ayni, in
Umdat ul Qari (22/46-47), Published by Idaratul Taba’tul al-Muniriyyah, Egypt]
The scholar al-Zubaydi al-Hanafi writes:
This hadith (let your beards grow) has been taken as proof by majority, they said it is
superior to leave the beards as they are and they should not be cut at all. Imam ashShafi’I
and his companions have this saying too. Qadhi Iyaadh al Maliki has said: To cut or removebeard is “disliked”


The scholar al-Qurtubi said in his Mufham: To cut the beard, to pluck it, and to cut most
of it is not allowed. Qadhi Iyaadh has said: To cut the beard from length is
“recommended” and to make it so long till the point where fun is made of it, is
“disliked” similarly to cut it (excessively) is also “disliked” The early scholars have
differed whether there is any limit for cutting the beard or not? Some scholars said:
There is no limit prescribed for it, however it should not be made so long that it reaches
a point where fun is made of, so some of it should be cut.
Imam al-Malik has called “excessive length” of beard as “disliked” whereas some have
put the limit of fistful for it and said: If the beard exceeds fistful then it should be cut,
whereas others said: It is “disliked” to cut it except during Hajj or Umra. [Allama Sayyid
Muhammad Murtaza al-Zubaydi Hussaini al-Hanafi, in Itihaaf as Sa’adat al Mutaqeen
(2/419), Published by Matba Maymana, Egypt]
There is clear proof in this statement that according to majority of scholars it is
superior to lengthen the beard, which tells us that to reduce the beard by cutting it is
against superiority but not forbidden (Haram)

Mullah Ali Qari al-Hanafi writes:
It is in Nihayah Sharh al Hidayah:
In our viewpoint the length of beard is only fistful and it is necessary to cut the beard
after fistful. The Prophet (Peace and Blessings be upon him) used to cut his beard from
length and width. This hadith is narrated by Abu Isa (Tirmidhi) in his Jami’ and the
glory of man lies in his beard to be lesser. Mullah Ali Qari said: Whether the author of
Nihayah calling it “necessary to cut the beard” comes in category of being “rightful” or
it comes in category of being “prescribed Sunnah (Sunnat al Mu’akidah)” because to
call the cutting of beard after fistful as “necessary in totality” is not correct. [Mullah Ali
bin Sultan Muhammad al-Qari al-Hanafi, in Mirqaat (8/298), Published by Maktaba al
Imdadiyyah, Multan, Pakistan]

The scholar Ibn Hammam writes:
It is in Nihayah that to cut the beard after fistful is necessary (wajib). Imam Abu Isa
Tirmidhi has narrated in his Jami’ that the Prophet (Peace and Blessings be upon him)
used to cut his beard from length and width. If this criticism is made that it is in Sahih
Bukhari and Sahih Muslim from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that the
Prophet (Peace be upon him) said: Trim your moustaches and lengthen your beards, so
cutting the beard is against the order of lengthening it, the answer to this will be: The
narrator of this hadith is respected Ibn Umar whereas he used to himself cut the beard
after fistful, this hadith is narrated by Imam Muhammad in his Kitaab ul Athaar, Imam
Abu Dawood, Imam an Nasai have also narrated it in their Sunnan, whereas Imam alBukhari has mentioned it in the “ta’leeq” form.


Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah has narrated that respected Abu Hurraira (may Allah be pleased
with him) used to cut off his beard which exceeded the length of being fistful. Here the
practice of narrator is contrary to his own narration. Hence this is not to be attributed
to Naskh (which can be abrogated) as it is in our principle ﻰﺤﻠﻟااﻮﻔﻋا و on which this shall
be attributed. Instead of cutting the beard completely or to cut the majority of beard, it
should be left (as it is) just like it is the way of foreigner Majus who cut their beards
(completely) and this is also seen amongst Hindus and Farangis (European personnel)
and now even ordinary Muslims have adopted this way, they cut off their beards and
some go completely against the saying of Prophet by keeping long moustaches while
cutting off the beards ( انوﻌﺟار ﮫﯾﻟا ﺎﻧاو , ﺎﻧ ), hence this way these narrations can have
correspondence (meaning: To cut the beard slightly would not be against ﻰﺤﻠﻟااﻮﻔﻋا و
because it does not mean to increase your beard comprehensively, rather to keep a full
beard or to keep most part of the beard, this is understood from the hadith of Sahih
Muslim in which Abu Hurraira narrates that the Prophet said: Trim your moustaches
and lengthen your beards, do opposite to the Mujoos (this sentence is in the reasoning
of Illat) and to reduce more (meaning major part of the beard) just like some
westerners and heterosexuals (Hijra) do, hence nobody has called this Mubah
(merely permissible). [Allama Kamal ud din Ibn Hammam, in Fath ul Qadeer (2/270),
Published by Nooriyah Ridhwiyyah, Sukkar, Pakistan]

The scholar Ibn Nakheem has also summarized this statement and said: That which is
written in Nihayah that it is necessary to cut the beard after fistful, this means that if
someone leaves the beard (i.e. does not cut at all) then he will be sinful. [Allama Zayn
ud din Ibn Makheem al-Hanafi, in his Bahr al Rai (2/270), Published by Maktaba
Ilmiyyah, Egypt]

 

objection#4: there are a few ways in which something can be proven as wajib and the beard is not proven as wajib by any of them.

answer#4: yes, there are several ways. one of those being a command by the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam to do something and there is nothing to indicate against its wujub. there are numerous hadith wherein the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam commanded the people to grow their beards. this is known to even those who do not accept the wujub of the beard.

another way of proving the wujub of something is if the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam continually did a thing and he never left this action. for He sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam would surely have left it at least once to show it is not necessary as He sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam did for itikaf.

allama ibn humam mentions this in fath al-qadir 1/243:

'a proof of something being wajib is if the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam did not even abandon this action even once.'
​

and elsewhere, he mentions it again in bab al-itikaf, 2/394.

'and this continuity in doing an action without ever leaving it, combined with the fact he never refuted those companions who did not do such a thing, is a proof of it being sunnah; or else it is a proof of wujub'​

allama babarti/babirti mentions it in inayah sharh al-hidayah, 1/kitab al-taharah, sunan al wudu.

'and continuity with occasionally leaving it out is a proof of it being sunnah and without ever leaving it out is a proof of wujub.'
​

allama shalbi his hashiya of tabyiyn al-haqayiq 1/4



allama shaami in radd al-muhtar 2/49



so now we understand that for something to be established as wajib, the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam must:

1) do this action continuously
2) never once leave it
3) reprimanding those who do not do it

now unless mufti sahib qibla has a narration in which the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam stopped growing it (to less than a fistful) OR that the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam once trimmed his beard to less than a fistul OR that the companions used to trim their beards then the wujub has been established.

mawlana saeedi sahib entirely dismisses the notion that it could be wajib and rather, he choses to interpret many hanafi texts to suit his understanding.

mawlana saeedi sahib, despite his many scholarly works, was a human being. he wasnt a prophet or a messenger. he can be mistaken in his opinion (as he was). he has been accepted as commentator on the quran and a sharih of the sahihayn. he hasnt been accepted as a faqih nor does he have any renowned book of fatawa. now if someone is insistent on believing he was masoom or thinking that he was some sort of mujtahid mutlaq then rather then forcing mawlana saeedis opinion on the dozen ibarāt, they should just make tawil of his statements and interpret his statement 'beard is not wajib' to mean 'the fistful beard is not wajib itiqadi' and his statement 'beard is sunnah' to mean 'beard is sunnah as it is the way of the prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam'

 

objection#3: the scholars have mentioned that a fistful is sunnah and therefore, it cannot be wajib.

answer#3: as i have briefly mentioned before, the fuqaha were using the word masnoon to implicity (and explicity in some cases) reply to the argument of some ulema who waid - 'iýfā literally means to leave and to allow so we must let the beards grow as much as they can without touching them'

so masnoon was used to describe the fiyl of the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam in reply to those who considered it impermissible to trim the beard AT ALL. anyone who knows arabic and looks over these ibarāt, keeping in mind the ikhtilaf i mentioned, will instantly realise that using the word/phrase [قدر الوجوب] would be, best case scenario, rather weird and in the worst case scenario it would be stupid.

this is because both camps of ulema agreed that at least a fistful was wajib. let me demonstrate in English both possible cases.

scenario number 1
Scholar1: iýfā means 'leave it alone and allow it to grow' therefore we must not trim our beards. the necessary length pertaining to the beard is however much it grows.
Scholar2: but the wajib length of a beard is a fistful.

scenario number 2
Scholar1: iýfā means 'leave it alone and allow it to grow' therefore we must not trim our beards. the necessary length pertaining to the beard is however much it grows.
Scholar2: but the sunnah length of a beard is a fistful.
Scholar1: good point.

so, anyone can see that using the word wajib length would not actually make sense in light of the entire discussion and background of the argument.

now, this is a logical reply. as for those who say that: the fistful cannot possibly be wajib as there is 'tasreeh' that fistful is masnoon and so it is 'nass' that fistful is sunna and not wajib.

well clearly, once again the ibarat of imam shurunbulali dismisses this false notion because he has used the word masnoon to describe the beard and he has also explicity started it is impermissible to trim to less than a fistful.

now, will we also object against imam shurunbulali and exclaim that something cannot possibly be wajib and sunnah at the same time? the tatbiq between the usage of masnoon and 'لم يبحه احد' is as i mentioned above. masnoon is being used in the meaning of fiyl of the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam which does not negate something being wajib. otherwise, it was also a sunnah (in the linguistic sense) of rasoolAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam to pray salah, to fast, to perform hajj etc. does this in anyway negate the obligation of these actions?

so this seeming contradiction which mawlana saeedi sahib saw was just his opinion. we know that he wrote a tafsir and shuruh on the sahihayn but he was not some expert faqih per se. Allah forgive him his errors.

note: don't mind me saying he wasn't an expert faqih because the truth is, he wasn't. plus, he used the same wording with regards to shaykh abdul haqq dihlawi and i am sure he didnt intend disrespect. neither do i.

 

Further references to show the wujoob of the beard



al-Muhaddith Shaykh ’Abd al-Haqq Dihlawi (d.1052 AH) in his sharh, Ashi’at al-Lam’at: اعفاء اللحية یعنی دوسریچیز ڈاڑھی بڑھانا ہے۔ مشہور یہ ہے کہ ایک مشت ہو۔ اس سے کم نہ ہونی چاہیے، پھر ایکمشت سے بڑھانا بھی جائز ہے۔بشرطیکہ حدِ اعتدال سے لمبی نہ ہو۔ اور اگر ایک مشت سےلمبی ہو جائے تو پھر بعض کے نزدیک کم کرنامکروہ ہے۔ امام حسن بصری اور قتادہ کا یہی مذہب ہے۔ اور بعض کے نزدیک ایک مشت سے زیادہکا کاٹ دینا مستحسن ہے۔امام شافعی اور امام ابن سیرین رحمہما اللہ تعالی کا یہی مذہب ہے۔ ڈاڑھیمونڈانا حرام اور فرنگیوں، ہندووٴں اور قلندروں کا طریقہ ہے اور ایک مشت رکھناواجب و ضروری ہے اور یہ جو ایک مشت ڈاڑھی کے لیے سنّت کا لفظ مشہور ہے تو اسسنّت سے دین کا طریقہ مراد ہے، یعنی ایک مشت ڈاڑھی رکھنا دینِ اسلام کا بتایا ہوا طریقہ ہے۔ یا اس بنا پر اسے سنّت کہا گیا ہے کہ ایکمشت ڈاڑھی رکھنا سنّت سے ثابت ہے جیسے نمازِ عید کو سنّت کہا گیا ہے۔

 

This is the quote for reference:

ولا يفعل لتطويل اللحية إذا كانت بقدر المسنون وهو القبضة كما في البرهان والقبضة بضم القاف قال في النهاية وما وراء ذلك يجب قطعه هكذا عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه كان يأخذ من اللحية من طولها وعرضها وأما الأخذ من اللحية ، وهي دون القبضة كما يفعله بعض المغاربة ومخنثة الرجال فلم يبحه أحد وأخذ كلها فعل مجوس الأعاجم واليهود والهنود وبعض أجناس الإفرنج كما في الفتح

 

objection#2: allama ibn humam didnt say a fistful is wajib.

answer#2: allama ibn humam wrote that:

[و أما الأخذ منها و هي دون ذلك...فلم يبحه احد]​

'as for cutting it when it is less than this...then no one has permitted it.'​

now, many people who support the stance of trimming the beard try to cast aspersions on what is meant by the pronoun [ذلك]. is it referring to:
i) the fistful beard
ii) the majority/entirety of the beard?

now, if we were to take the latter meaning then the text would not make much sense. the translation would be thus:

'as for trimming it when it less than the majority of it...then no one has permitted this.'​

this is similar to mawlana ghulam rasool saeedi sahibs translation in his sharh of sahih muslim.



the translation of the ibarat seems sketchy to say the least. mawlana sahib seems to have conjured the word [mazid] from thin air and he has also failed to accurately translate the phrase [دون ذلك]. this is with all respect to mawlana sahib, like he himself said regarding shaykh abdul haqq - we are all human and we can all make mistakes. it is apparent that mawlana sahib must have erred in his understanding of the ibarah.

if we were to take the former meaning of fistful then the translation would be:

'as for trimming it and it is less than a fistful...then no one has permitted this.'

'اور داڑھی سے (بال) اخذ کرنا اور وہ ایک مشت سے کم ہو۔۔۔تو کسی نے بھی اس کو جائز نہیں قرار دیا'​

when this meaning is taken, the Urdu translation and the English translation both make much more sense.

even when looking at it from a logical point of view, the wording [دون ذلك] or 'less than this' clearly indicates that 'this' is referring to a specific length rather than unspecific length. the wording 'less than most of it' does not make much sense, neither in arabic nor in English. whereas 'less than a fistful' does.

shaykh abdul haqq dihlawi correctly understood that [ذلك] was referring to a fistful; but many people now dismiss shaykh abdul haqq dihlawi as 'just a hadith scholar who wasn't a faqih'. of course, just because shaykh abdul haqqs main field of expertise was hadith does not in anyway mean that he was not well versed in fiqh. I, for one, would rather follow shaykh abdul haqqs understanding over mawlana saeedi sahibs but that is my own prerogative.

for arguments sake, let us accept that shaykh abdul haqq dihlawi was not a faqih and he misunderstood the ibarah. so will we also say the great imam shurunbulali (author of the nur al-iydah, maraqih al-falah and other hanafi texts) was also not a faqih? was he too just known for his knowledge of hadith? everyone knows that imam shurunbulali was a great faqih and some have even said he was from the ashab takhrij. will people still prefer mawlana saeedi sahibs understanding to that of imam shurunbulali's? this is what imam shurunbulali has to say on the matter.

as for trimming the beard and it is less than a fistful...then no one has permitted it...just as it is written in fath al-qadir.
​

so there we have it, imam shurunbulali interpreting what allama ibn al-humam and allama ibn nujaym both meant in their respective books. that trimming from the qudba has not been permitted by anyone.

but the mufti sahib i was conversing with seems obsessed with this idea of "following any position as long as anyone has said it" however i would like to inform him that imam shurunbulali was much more afqah than saeedi sahib. if shaykh abdul haqq's interpretation can be so easily dismissed in favour of mawlana saeedis then so can mawlana saeedis opinion be dismissed in favour of imam shurunbulalis

unless of course you believe mawlana saeedi sahib to be a mujtahid fil maddhab. then be all means, go ahead. follow saeedi sahib but you should know that we have 1400 years of scholarship, why does everyone HAVE to accept saeedi sahibs position as a valid one? if you wish to do so, then by all means, go for it but you have no right to force everyone to accept mawlana saeedis opinion as a valid one.

 

mufti sahib has informed me yesterday that he is very very busy and his time is very valuable so i will go ahead and attempt to reply to potential objections; mufti sahib qibla can reply whenever he is free.

objection#1: shaykh abdul haqq dihlawi was the first one to say a fistful beard is wajib and to trim it to less than a fistful is impermissible. and this was just his personal opinion.

answer#1: well, shaykh abdul haqq merely reiterated in his own words what allama ibn al-humam, imam shurunbulali, allama ibn nujaym, allama haskafi, allama shaami, imam tahtawi and others had written in their respective books: to trim the beard to less than a fistful is impermissible and no one has permitted this.

the only difference being that shaykh abdul haqq said "to let it grow until it is a fistful is wajib" and other fuqaha used the wording "to shorten it to less than a fistful is impermissible." I'm sure anyone with an iota of common sense will be able to see that there is no contradiction between the two. the wording is different but the meaning is exactly the same.

if zayd says that 'it is haram to drink alcohol' and bakr says 'it is fard to abstain from alcohol' then who in their right minds would say that zayd and bakr have differing views? only an obstinate person indeed.

even beginner students of fiqh know that makruh tahrimi and wajib are opposite to one another. to leave a wajib action is makruh tahrimi. since no scholar has permitted trimming the beard to less than a fistful then this, by default, means that it is wajib to keep a fistul beard and to trim it to less than that is makruh tahrimi.

but allama ibn humam in the 9th century, wrote regarding the impermissibility of trimming the beard around 100 years before shaykh abdul haqq was born. and it is clear to everyone the lofty position of allama ibn humam amongst the hanafi jurists.

 

ala Hazrat in malfoozat 1/81



Question - is it a major or minor sin to shave or trim the beard?
Answer - to trim or shave it once is a minor sin and doing it habitually, it becomes a major sin due to which he will become an open sinner [fasiq mulin]; to pray salah behind him will be prohibitively disliked [makruh tahrimi]. it will be a sin to pray behind such a person and necessary to repeat such a salah if one does. if not repeated then the person will be sinful.

 

What of an individual who has a weak (baby beard), and wishes to strengthen it, would it be wrong to use the opinion of the other other schools as a rukhsa as to achieve the beard of the hanafi school, specifically in the case that the bottom hair beneath the chin doesn't grow and the side grow more , giving an odd appearance?

 

after i mentioned that to trim less than a fistful was impermissible according to the hanafi scholars, mufti sahib then posed the question whether it was permissible to follow another madhhab.

a friend of mufti sahib told me mufti sahib believes it to be permissible to take from/follow other madhhahib (i dont know if he says the permissibility is unrestricted or conditional). i implore mufti sahib to clarify his stance on here and explain the issue a little more for students like myself.

moreover, hazrat has made his annoyance clear when people quote ala hazrat as a daleel for keeping a fistful beard

yet presenting an extract of shaykh abu zohra (in which the shaykh just gives his own opinion without quoting ANY book of fiqh) or sharing a photo of imam zahid al kawthari is totally sufficient. double standards? it seems like mufti sahib is suffering from the inferiority complex.

fyi when people quote ala hazrat then they do so (correctly) assuming that ala Hazrat had strong dalayil for his stance similar to how you yourself believe that a photo of imam zahid al kawthari is proof that it is permissible to trim ones beard. some people chose to follow ala Hazrat and his works whilst others chose to follow photos of imam zahid al kawthari. naseeb ki baat hain mufti sahib.

 

(added value)
Thank you, for Abu Hanifah: who relates from Haitham who relates from the companion Ibn Umar that he (Ibn Umar) used to hold his beard in his hand and cut off which was longer.

Imam Muhammad says that this is what then followed and this was the decision of Imam Abu Hanifah

 

proof #7

ashiat al-lamaat of shaykh abdul haqq dihlawi (will post scan from actual book soon)



To shave the beard is forbidden and the way of the westeners, the hindus and monkey-dancers. It is wajib to leave the beard grow until a fistful. Those scholars who have stated that to keep the beard one fist is sunnah then this is not because they didn't consider it wajib but rather "sunnah" in this context means the Islamic way, or because the necessity of keeping a a fistful beard been is proven from the sunnah (i.e. hadith) just as the Eid prayers have been called sunnah, despite the fact that they are wajib.

 

proof #6

hashiya ala maraqi al-falah of imam tahtawi p.681



note : trimming the beard to less than a fistful is the way of some of the maghariba and the hermaphrodites, no one has permitted this. as for shaving it all then this is the way of the jews of india and the fire-worshipping persians.

 

proof #4&5

al-durr al-mukhtar of allama haskafi and radd al-muhtar of allama shami 3/398

 

proof #3

al-bahr al-rayiq of allama ibn nujaym 2/490



note : anyone who has read regarding this topic, rather than chosen to blindly follow mawlana ghulam rasool saeedi, will be able to ascertain that the word 'masnoon' is being used to clarify the issue of 'how long should we let the beard grow: a fistful or as much it grows?'

in reply to this discussion, allama ibn nujaym is stating that the sunnah length is a fistful and therefore there is no reason to let it grow more than a fistful.

masnoon here (and in other hanafi texts when discussing the beard) is not being used in the parlance of the fuqaha but rather it is being used in its literal meaning i.e. the length of which the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam used to keep i.e. the way it should be in Islam.

the text preceding it [و لا يفعل لتطويل اللحية] also supports this viewpoint. in summary, the author is warding off people from growing it so long that it looks dishevelled and unkempt. He is saying that the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam was to keep it a fistful so there is no reason to let it grow any longer than that. those scholars who thought iýfā meant to let it grow unrestrictedly are wrong because the masnoon length was a fistful.

allama shaami mentions this ikhtilaf in his hashiya minhat al-khaliq on bahr al-rayiq 3/19,20




its worth mentioning that allama shami mentions ikhtilaf of scholars regarding iýfā being a fistful or longer but doesn't mention the viewpoint regarding iýfā being a stubble or just some visible hair on chin (as pir saqib believes iýfā to be). probably because no such view/stance existed at that point.

 

proof #2 for the necessity of keeping a fistful beard

fath al-qadir of allama ibn al-humam 2/352



note : allama ibn humam writes that iýfā means to let the beard grow as opposed to shaving it [يأخذ كلها] or trimming most of it [يأخذ غالبها]; the wording [غالبها] is clearly referring to those who trim the majority of their beards and cut most of it such as how pir saqib shami and others like him do.