Beard length is not wajib in Hanafi madhab?

W

Watermelon

sunniport user
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...000992557139&source=46&__user=100004555596212

Atabek Shukrov facebook post:-

Ahadeeth of the Beard;
- The first Hadeeth that Brothers use to prove that Beard is Wajib is this one.
- Hadeeth is narrated by Ibn Umar in Saheeh Bukhar (5554/5893).
- The Brothers translate the Hadeeth as;
- Shorten your moustaches and Lengthen your beards.

- But the correct translation of Hadeeth is;
Do ''inhaak'' to your moustaches.
and do ''i'faa'' to your beards.

- The literal meaning of ''inhaak''; to make some thing tiered.
- Scholars said the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم here meant exaggerating in removal of the moustaches.
- So the literal meaning is ingored here.

- The literal meaning of ''i'faa''; to make some thing to increase in quantity (not in length) [Munthiri, Abu Ubaid and other sources].
- The word of ''i'faa'' is from ''afa'' as Asqallani, Suyutu and many others said. It mentioned in Quran; 7;94
- Then We exchanged in place of the bad [condition], good, until they increased [and prospered] and said, "Our fathers [also] were touched with hardship and ease." So We seized them suddenly while they did not perceive.

- Ibn Daqeeq Eid said; I don't know any one who said that a man should treat his beard to increase its quantity as some of the people do. May be the meaning [of lengthening] is taken from the other part of hadeeth where it says ''shorten your moustache''.

- It looks like there use to be ignorant scholars even in the time of Ibn Daqeeq. But I would say that scholars at least understood the literal meaning of the Hadeeth. And not as our scholars who don't understand the meaning of ''i'faa''...
- Even Bukhari translated the meaning of ''i'faa'' as increasing in quantity and gave an example saying;
باب إعفاء اللحى عفوا كثروا وكثرت أموالهم
means ; Chapter of i'faa of the beard. Afaw- they increased and their wealth increased.
- So it is 100% increasing in quantity not the length.
- So the length can be understood from this hadeeth only metaphorically.
- Ibn Taimiah and some of his followers said that there is no metaphor in the language of Quran and Sunnah. (obiously it is wrong, but I mentioned this to say to salafi brothers that they cannot use this hadeeth. But I will narrate the hadeeth that they can use, and will explain that also).

- Any way that is with regards to the meaning of the Hadeeth.
- People use this Hadeeth and some other hadeeths to say that long beard is Wajib (I am going to talk about all of them one by one inshaallah)

- I say; this cannot be a proof for Wajib because of the following reasons;

1. The hadeeth is not ordering to lengthen but advising by the following reason;
- The same hadeeth its mentioning to remove the moustache completely. And no one said that removing the moustaches completely is wajib.
- The latest Hanafis didn't even say that removing is sunnah but only shortening.
- Keep in your mind that Imam Tahawi Narrated removing it completely from earliest Hanafis.
- But with regards to Salafis, Hanbalis and Shafiis they also didn't say that removing is wajib and nor sunnah.
- But Imam Malik conseder removing the Moustache completely as muthla, so it is Haram for them.

- Add to this, that Malik narrated by authentic chain that Umar use to have a long moustache, and he use to twist it if he would be angry.
- For you to be able to twist your moustache you should have at least two finger full long...
- Any way the same hadeeth which is mentioning about lengthening the beard mentioning about removing the moustache. And by Ijma' removing is not wajib, so that's how lengthening is not wajib also.


2. The real meaning of hadeeth which is increasing its quantity is ignored by every one because of the other narration of the same hadeeth where it uses several other words and only one of them literally can be close to the meaning of lengthening.
- And the meaning of the lengthening is taken because of the reason of hadeeth.
- And the reason is the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم saw two ambassadors of Iranian king who had a shaven beard.
- So then Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said this hadeeth and said; do opposite to them...
Obviously it gives us several points;
- Hukm of having beard is on the same level as opposing the zaraostrians. Inshaallah you will see that in all of the madhahib including the Hanafi and Salafi, opposing them is not wajib. (but they say that it is wajib and imitating them haram. But inshaallah you will see that they don't follow it)
- If you want to do different to a man with a shaven beard you don't have to have a long one. Just by having any sized beard you will be opposing him. But having a long one will be the exact opposite to some one who shaves some of the skin of his face also. But if you want to oppose the one who shaves than you don't shave...

3. The Hukm that is attached to the reason will go when reason goes. Now Zaraostrians don't have this habit. So the hukm of having beard will go also.

4. In some of the narrations of the same Hadeeth there is an extra (I will mention that narration also inshaallah) says; change the colour of your white hairs and beards and don't imitate the Ahl Kitab.
- And as we all know no one said that if you have a white beard and hairs you have to change it.
- But some said its mustahabb (not even Sunnah Mu'akkadah) to change it by Hinna or some thing else.
- So the same hadeeth is ordering for the three things and people here say; one is wajib one is haram and one could be sunnah.
- It is not in any language!!!
-Non science!!!

- But we Hanafis (the real ones) say all of them three are advice of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and not an Order.
- I say; what is the perfect understanding!!!
- Hanafis (the real ones) zindabad!!!


5. The best people to translate hadeeth are Sahaba and Tabein as we all claim (but most of us don't believe).
What was the understanding of sahaba kiram about this hadeeth?:
- Umar use to keep a long moustache.
- Ibn Umar use to shorten any thing above the fist
- Abu Huraira use to shorten any thing above the fist
- Hasan Basri use to shorten without any fist business
- ibn Sireen use to shorten without any fist business
- Ata bin Abu Rabah (one of the Main teachers of Abu Hanifa) said; not a problem in cutting the sides of the beard.
- And if you look for it you will find some more of salaf doing it.

- And all of them are opposing what you guys are pushing forward.
- That is because you are saying that Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is ordering.
- And the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم never mentioned the fist.
- Means all of them salaf are opposing.
- But opposing whom?
- I say not opposing the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, but opposing your understanding!!!
Especially Umar!!

- Keep in your mind that Ibn Umar is one of the narrators of the hadeeth of beard.
- And him opposing the (most common understood) meaning of the Hadeeth proves that this meaning is not valid (as it is in Hanafi Mustalah Hadeeth)!!!

- So if I have two options;
one is, following all of them Salaf, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafii understanding of Sunnah,
and the second is, following the understanding of others (that says Fard)...
Wajib accordingly to every one else beside Hanafis means Fard as praying five times a day.

6. Some may say that Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is using the form of order here!?
- I say; the rest of the Hadeeth is also using the same form of a verb and no one is saying that the rest of the issues is wajib.
- But even Malik is saying that one of the three things that Prophet ordered in here is Haram because that is Muthla...
- Also I say in Arabic they use the same form of a verb for;
Advice, Request, challenge and some other...
Look at this Ayah;
And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." 18; 29

- So it is again form of Order used here, so do you say disbelieving in God is wajib?

- And I can give a big list of Hadeeths where Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is using the same form of a verb, but ijma' says that it is mustahabb or even mubaah...

- In the subject called Usool Fiqh they explain all of the conditions of this form of a verb.

- But if you will use non-Usooliy way of understanding, then you will damage many parts of quran and hadeeth.

7. Add to all of above mentioned that some of the scholars mentioned that the meaning of the hadeeth here is; i'faa means cutting the sides of the beard.
- Even if this understanding is weak but it is there.


Any way just to summarise what I said;
- Not each single Amr in Hadeeth is for Wajib.
- Lengthening the beard was advice to oppose the Mushriks, and that reason doesn't exists no more.
- Opposing the Mushriks is not wajib (I will prove it when I will talk about the another narration of the hadeeth)
- Sahaba and Tabein (that I quoted) opposed the metaphoric meaning of this hadeeth, which proves that even the metaphoric (that brothers are promoting) meaning is not meant.
- No any one accepted this hadeeth as it is. So the ones who say it is wajib to grow a beard don't say that it is wajib to remove the moustache, but they say it is sunnah to shorten and not to remove. (removal is by plugging it out or by shaving).
- Imam Malik said that it is muthla to shave the moustache. (and shaving it is one of two things which Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ordered in the above mentioned Hadeeth).
- Changing the colour of your white beard and hair is not wajib (and it is one of three that Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ordered, as I am going to mention inshaallah). But on top of that some scholars said that changing the colour is Mubah!!!

- So, This Hadeeth doesn't say Wajib to do these two things.
- The people who are saying is wajib, they cannot use this Hadeeth.

- On advanced I want to thank the brothers for their academic-non emotional comments.
- inshaallah after completing our discussion about this hadeeth we will go to the next one!
 
His student:

"Regarding this issue, it's not the most important issue of this time but has to dealt with because people make it into a big issue. Now dealt with from the context of fiqh it has been proven it's not Wajib as many have claimed, similarly through the Hadithy perspective it's been proven that it's not fard and Wajib as many claimed.
The point about many scholars stating it, this demonstrates people are not understanding the many other posts which gave textual evidence from scholars of the past, proving its sunnah.
In terms of the work shaykh Atabek does through Avicenna Academy and other institutes, should demonstrate that we are not stuck on the issue of the beard but rather teaching advanced studies, reviving hanafi Mustalah which is a dead science amongst the many issues affecting out time.
Shyakh wanted to tackle the issue most people are only concerned about in our time. Many learned people are not being allowed to lead jamaat as they were being called a fasiq, these post should put to bed those issues for anyone who wants to follow the truth with honesty."
 
poor atabek. if he had the good fortune of reading alahazrat's books, he would not make such a fool of himself. perhaps someone in his crew can read out lam'at al-DuHaa of alahazrat to him. as a bonus, atabek may learn a few things about uSul of Hadith.

it is amusing to note that the idiot zindiq that alahazrat refuted in the risalah (more than a hundred years ago, in 1315) makes similar arguments and comments as atabek.
 
abu Hasan said:
poor atabek. if he had the good fortune of reading alahazrat's books, he would not make such a fool of himself. perhaps someone in his crew can read out lam'at al-DuHaa of alahazrat to him. as a bonus, atabek may learn a few things about uSul of Hadith.
Click to expand...

If you have a look at the comments you'll see he appears to be growing bolder by the minute - all the while his fawning lackeys are showering him with praise which seems to contribute to and reinforce his haughtiness.
 
Another of his sycophants weighs in without the least hint of irony:

"Leave this issue to the people with correct understanding of the Arabic language of the Prophet (SAW), hanafi mustalah-ul-hadith, usul-ul-Fiqh etc.*The point that shaykh has been making is not a new one as there cant be anything in regards to the beard issue that previous generations were ignorant about. However the Shaykh will always tell you the STRONGEST and most CORRECT opinion in the madhab with reference to its earliest sources. It is what he does and what he stands for. Hafidh Allahu lana."
 
looks like anyone who touches keller gets afflicted with at least two diseases: one of arrogance and deeming themselves superior to scholars in the subcontinent; and second, arguing in fallacies and generous use of kettle logic.

atabek needs to read the commentary of bukhari by the non-real Hanafi, imam maHmud al-ayni named umdat al-qari because, imam ayni thinks it actually means:
...that which is forbidden is trimming [qaSS] it like the non-arabs [or persians/magians, a'aajim].
​
---
Lengthening the beard was advice to oppose the Mushriks, and that reason doesn't exists no more.
Click to expand...
yes, atabek knows better than everybody else; and according to atabek, all the mushriks in makkah [abu jahl, abu lahab etc.] shaved their beards or if they had beards they were not mushriks.

if not, then why did RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam not order people to shave their beards to oppose the meccan mushriks?

the meccan mushriks were present before islam and they had beards - if the hukm was ONLY to oppose mushriks in their looks, why didn't he order them to shave beards before visiting mushriks [the magian persians] came to madinah? obviously, atabek did not read that growing a beard is from fitrah, and that it is the sunnah of Prophets; opposing mushrikin was the SECOND illah. oh, i forget that there is something known as 'usul al-fiqh'.
[read lam'atu'd DuHa for the classy refutation of such idiotic objections]
-----
- Ibn Daqeeq Eid said; I don't know any one who said that a man should treat his beard to increase its quantity as some of the people do. May be the meaning [of lengthening] is taken from the other part of hadeeth where it says ''shorten your moustache''.

- It looks like there use to be ignorant scholars even in the time of Ibn Daqeeq. But I would say that scholars at least understood the literal meaning of the Hadeeth. And not as our scholars who don't understand the meaning of ''i'faa''...
Click to expand...
'ignorant scholars' in ibn daqiq's time? all ibn daqiq said was sparing [i`yfaa] it is equivalent to 'increasing' it and unlike the arrogant-know-it-all sufis of our time, ibn daqiq did not call them 'ignorant'.

ibn daqiq said that:
i do not know anyone who understood from the saying "spare the beards" to mean that [one should] treat it to increase it, as some people do. [fat'H al-bari]
​
ibn daqiq is quoted a few lines above:
...because the reality of sparing [i`yfaa] is to leave it [tark] and to leave the beard without interfering with it, will necessitate increasing it.
​
====
shafiyi scholars may have other qualified opinions on shortening the beard, but i don't know of anybody who says it in such an arrogant fashion - nor making fun of those who deem it wajib.

- Opposing the Mushriks is not wajib
Click to expand...
oh, yes indeed. perhaps, the common word will now become even more encompassing to include the mushriks and atheists; but is it farD to oppose sunni-hanafis of the subcontinent?

---
i don't access facebook, and if we assume the cut-and-paste below is atabek's own comments, i am amazed at the ignorance of these comments. atabek should read one of the many commentaries of manar or for the current level demonstrated, even usul shashi will be a solid improvement. as for 'teaching bukhari,' i think shaykh atabek needs to read a book called fat'H al-bari.

- Not each single Amr in Hadeeth is for Wajib.
Click to expand...
these people will cause a major depletion of the ozone layer with the number of strawmen they burn...
 
- So if I have two options;
one is, following all of them Salaf, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafii understanding of Sunnah, and the second is, following the understanding of others (that says Fard)...Wajib accordingly to every one else beside Hanafis means Fard as praying five times a day.
Click to expand...
for someone who is a zealous proponent of 'Hanafi mustalah' dragging this discrepancy of wajib/fard difference among hanafis and others is indeed ironic.

but let atabek tell me one thing:

is witr wajib or not? is it wajib for shafiyis (as in farD) then or sunnah?
and does atabek recommend that Hanafis either pray or omit the witr?

what is the ruling according to atabek about a Hanafi who habitually omits the witr prayer?

i won't be surprised if atabek will brush away all the hanafi imams as ignorant, all those who said that "anyone who omits the witr as a habit is a fasiq".
 
Is atabek known for hanging out with deos? If not why is it that a ton of popular 'scholars' are going wayward this decade...
 
Verdict on beard by hanafi scholars

As-salamu 'alaykum

al-Imam Kamal al-Din Muhammad bin ’Abdal-Rahman ibn al-Humam al-Hanafi (d. 861 AH) in Fath al-Qadirsharh al-Hidayah:

( قَوْلُهُ: وَهُوَ ) أَيْ الْقَدْرُ الْمَسْنُونُ فِي اللِّحْيَةِ( الْقُبْضَةُ ) بِضَمِّ الْقَافِ ، قَالَ فِي النِّهَايَةِ : وَمَا وَرَاءَذَلِكَ يَجِبُ قَطْعُهُ هَكَذَا عَنْ { رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَأَنَّهُ كَانَ يَأْخُذُ مِنْ اللِّحْيَةِ مِنْ طُولِهَا وَعَرْضِهَا } أَوْرَدَهُ أَبُوعِيسَى يَعْنِي التِّرْمِذِيَّ فِي جَامِعِهِ ، رَوَاهُ مِنْ حَدِيثِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِبْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ . فَإِنْ قُلْتَ : يُعَارِضُهُمَا فِي الصَّحِيحَيْنِ عَنْ ابْنِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا عَنْهُ عَلَيْهِالصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ { أَحْفُوا الشَّوَارِبَ وَأَعْفُوا اللِّحْيَةَ } فَالْجَوَابُ: أَنَّهُ قَدْ صَحَّ عَنْ ابْنِ عُمَرَ رَاوِي هَذَا الْحَدِيثِ أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَأْخُذُالْفَاضِلَ عَنْ الْقُبْضَةِ ، قَالَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ فِي كِتَابِ الْآثَارِ: أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ عَنْ أَبِي الْهَيْثَمَ عَنْ ابْنِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُعَنْهُمَا { أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَقْبِضُ عَلَى لِحْيَتِهِ ثُمَّ يَقُصُّ مَا تَحْتَ الْقُبْضَةِ} وَرَوَاهُ أَبُو دَاوُد وَالنَّسَائِيُّ فِي كِتَابِ الصَّوْمِ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِالْحَسَنِ بْنِ شَقِيقٍ عَنْ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ وَاقِدٍ عَنْ مَرْوَانَ بْنِ سَالِمٍ الْمُقَنَّعِقَالَ : رَأَيْت ابْنَ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ يَقْبِضُ عَلَى لِحْيَتِهِ فَيَقْطَعُمَا زَادَ عَلَى الْكَفِّ وَقَالَ : { كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَإذَا أَفْطَرَ قَالَ : ذَهَبَ الظَّمَأُ وَابْتَلَّتْ الْعُرُوقُ وَثَبَتَ الْأَجْرُإنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى } وَذَكَرَهُ الْبُخَارِيُّ تَعْلِيقًا فَقَالَ :" وَكَانَ ابْنُ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ إذَا حَجَّ أَوْ اعْتَمَرَ قَبَضَعَلَى لِحْيَتِهِ فَمَا فَضَلَ أَخَذَهُ " وَقَدْ رُوِيَ عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَرَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ أَيْضًا أَسْنَدَهُ ابْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ عَنْهُ : حَدَّثَنَاأَبُو أُسَامَةَ عَنْ شُعْبَةَ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ أَيُّوبَ مِنْ وَلَدِ جَرِيرٍ عَنْأَبِي زُرْعَةَ قَالَ " كَانَ أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ يَقْبِضُعَلَى لِحْيَتِهِ فَيَأْخُذُ مَا فَضَلَ عَنْ الْقُبْضَةِ " فَأَقَلُّ مَا فِيالْبَابِ إنْ لَمْ يُحْمَلْ عَلَى النَّسْخِ كَمَا هُوَ[FONT="Arial","sans-serif"] [/FONT]أَصْلُنَافِي عَمَلِ الرَّاوِي عَلَى خِلَافِ مَرْوِيِّهِ مَعَ أَنَّهُ رُوِيَ عَنْ غَيْرِ الرَّاوِي. وَعَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُعَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يُحْمَلُ الْإِعْفَاءُ عَلَى إعْفَائِهَا مِنْ أَنْ يَأْخُذَ غَالِبَهَاأَوْ كُلَّهَا ، كَمَا هُوَ فِعْلُ مَجُوسِ الْأَعَاجِمِ مِنْ حَلْقِ لِحَاهُمْ كَمَايُشَاهَدُ فِي الْهُنُودِ وَبَعْضِ أَجْنَاسِ الْفِرِنْجِ ، فَيَقَعُ بِذَلِكَ الْجَمْعُبَيْنَ الرِّوَايَاتِ ، وَيُؤَيِّدُ إرَادَةَ هَذَا مَا فِي مُسْلِمٍ عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَرَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ : { جُزُّواالشَّوَارِبَ وَأَعْفُوا اللِّحَى خَالِفُوا الْمَجُوسَ } فَهَذِهِ الْجُمْلَةُ وَاقِعَةٌمَوْقِعَ التَّعْلِيلِ .وَأَمَّا الْأَخْذُ مِنْهَا وَهِيَ دُونَ ذَلِكَكَمَا يَفْعَلُهُ بَعْضُ الْمَغَارِبَةِ وَمُخَنَّثَةُ الرِّجَالِ فَلَمْ يُبِحْهُأَحَدٌ .


al-’Allamah Muhammad bin Faramuz known asMullah Khusru (d. 885 AH) in Durar al-Hukkam:


وَلَا يُفْعَلُ لِتَطْوِيلِ اللِّحْيَةِ إذَاكَانَتْ بِقَدْرِ الْمَسْنُونِ وَهُوَ الْقُبْضَةُ كَمَا فِي الْبُرْهَانِ وَالْقُبْضَةُبِضَمِّ الْقَافِ قَالَ فِي النِّهَايَةِ وَمَا وَرَاءَ ذَلِكَ يَجِبُ قَطْعُهُ هَكَذَاعَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَأْخُذُ مِنْاللِّحْيَةِ مِنْ طُولِهَا وَعَرْضِهَا وَأَمَّا الْأَخْذُ مِنْ اللِّحْيَةِ ، وَهِيَدُونَ الْقُبْضَةِ كَمَا يَفْعَلُهُ بَعْضُ الْمَغَارِبَةِ وَمُخَنَّثَةُ الرِّجَالِفَلَمْ يُبِحْهُ أَحَدٌ وَأَخْذُ كُلِّهَا فِعْلُ مَجُوسِ الْأَعَاجِمِ وَالْيَهُودِوَالْهُنُودِ وَبَعْضِ أَجْنَاسِ الْإِفْرِنْجِ كَمَا فِي الْفَتْحِ


al-Imam Zayn al-Din bin Ibrahim binMuhammad ibn Nujaym al-Hanafi (d. 970 AH) in al-Bahr al-Raiq sharh Kanzal-Daqaiq:



وَلَا يُفْعَلُ لِتَطْوِيلِ اللِّحْيَةِ إذَاكَانَتْ بِقَدْرِ الْمَسْنُونِ ، وَهُوَ الْقُبْضَةُ كَذَا فِي الْهِدَايَةِ وَكَانَابْنُ عُمَرَ يَقْبِضُ عَلَى لِحْيَتِهِ فَيَقْطَعُ مَا زَادَ عَلَى الْكَفِّ رَوَاهُأَبُو دَاوُد فِي سُنَنِهِ وَمَا فِي الصَّحِيحَيْنِ عَنْ ابْنِ عُمَرَ عَنْهُ عَلَيْهِالصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ { أَحْفُوا الشَّوَارِبَ وَاعْفُوَا اللِّحَى } فَمَحْمُولٌعَلَى إعْفَائِهَا مِنْ أَنْ يَأْخُذَ غَالِبَهَا أَوْ كُلَّهَا كَمَا هُوَ فِعْلُمَجُوسِ الْأَعَاجِمِ مِنْ حَلْقِ لِحَاهُمْ فَيَقَعُ بِذَلِكَ الْجَمْعُ بَيْنَ الرِّوَايَاتِ، وَأَمَّا الْأَخْذُ مِنْهَا ، وَهِيَ دُونَ ذَلِكَ كَمَا يَفْعَلُ بَعْضُ الْمَغَارِبَةِوَالْمُخَنَّثَةِ مِنْ الرِّجَالِ فَلَمْ يُبِحْهُ أَحَدٌ كَذَا فِي فَتْحِ الْقَدِيرِ

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۔




al-Imam Muhammad ’Ala al-Din bin ’Ali al-Haskafi(d. 1088 AH) in al-Durr al-Mukhtar sharh Tanwir al-Absar:



( لَا ) يُكْرَهُ ( دَهْنُ شَارِبٍوَ ) لَا ( كُحْلِ ) إذَا لَمْ يَقْصِدْ الزِّينَةَ أَوْ تَطْوِيلَ اللِّحْيَةِإذَا كَانَتْ بِقَدْرِ الْمَسْنُونِ وَهُوَ الْقَبْضَةُ وَصَرَّحَ فِي النِّهَايَةِبِوُجُوبِ قَطْعِ مَا زَادَ عَلَى الْقَبْضَةِ بِالضَّمِّ ، وَمُقْتَضَاهُ الْإِثْمُبِتَرْكِهِ لَا أَنْ يُحْمَلَ الْوُجُوبُ عَلَى الثُّبُوتِ ، وَأَمَّا الْأَخْذُمِنْهَا وَهِيَ دُونَ ذَلِكَ كَمَا يَفْعَلُهُ بَعْضُ الْمَغَارِبَةِ ، وَمُخَنَّثَةُالرِّجَالِ فَلَمْ يُبِحْهُ أَحَدٌ ، وَأَخْذُ كُلِّهَا فِعْلُ يَهُودِ الْهِنْدِوَمَجُوسِ الْأَعَاجِمِ فَتْحٌ[FONT="Times New Roman","serif"]۔

[/FONT]al-’Allamah Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Isma’ilal-Tahtawi (d. 1231 AH) in his hashiyah to Maraqi al-Falah:





قوله ( وبضمها على إقامة اسم العين مقامالمصدر ) لا وجه يظهر لهذه الإقامة وإنما يكون الكلام حينئذ على حذف المضاف أياستعمال مثلا إنما يباح إذا لم يقصد به الزينة أو تطويل اللحية إذا كانت بقدر المسنونوهو القبضة والأخذ من اللحية وهو دون ذلك كما يفعله بعض المغاربة ومخنثة الرجاللم يبحه أحد وأخذ كلها فعل يهود الهند ومجوس الإعاجم فتح








Khatimat al-Muhaqqiqin Muhammad Amin ibn’Abidin al-Hanafi (d. 1252 AH) in Radd al-Muhtar:


مَطْلَبٌ فِي الْأَخْذِ مِنْ اللِّحْيَةِ

( قَوْلُهُ : وَأَمَّا الْأَخْذُ مِنْهَاإلَخْ ) بِهَذَا وَفَّقَ فِي الْفَتْحِ بَيْنَ مَا مَرَّ وَبَيْنَ مَا فِي الصَّحِيحَيْنِعَنْ ابْنِ عُمَرَ عَنْهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ { أَحْفُوا الشَّوَارِبَوَاعْفُوا اللِّحْيَةَ } قَالَ : لِأَنَّهُ صَحَّ عَنْ ابْنِ عُمَرَ رَاوِي هَذَا الْحَدِيثِأَنَّهُ كَانَ يَأْخُذُ الْفَاضِلَ عَنْ الْقَبْضَةِ ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يُحْمَلْ عَلَىالنَّسْخِ كَمَا هُوَ أَصْلُنَا فِي عَمَلِ الرَّاوِي عَلَى خِلَافِ مَرْوِيِّهِ مَعَأَنَّهُ رُوِيَ عَنْ غَيْرِ الرَّاوِي وَعَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَيُحْمَلُ الْإِعْفَاءُ عَلَى إعْفَائِهَا عَنْ أَنْ يَأْخُذَ غَالِبَهَا أَوْ كُلَّهَاكَمَا هُوَ فِعْلُ مَجُوسِ الْأَعَاجِمِ مِنْ حَلْقِ لِحَاهُمْ ، وَيُؤَيِّدُهُ مَافِي مُسْلِمٍ عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ عَنْهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ { جُزُّواالشَّوَارِبَ وَاعْفُوا اللِّحَى خَالِفُوا الْمَجُوسَ } فَهَذِهِ الْجُمْلَةُ وَاقِعَةٌمَوْقِعَ التَّعْلِيلِ ، وَأَمَّا الْأَخْذُ مِنْهَا وَهِيَ دُونَ ذَلِكَ كَمَايَفْعَلُهُ بَعْضُ الْمَغَارِبَةِ ، وَمُخَنَّثَةُ الرِّجَالِ فَلَمْ يُبِحْهُ أَحَدٌا هـ مُلَخَّصًا .
Qadi Thana’ullah Panipati (d. 1225 AH) inMa la budda minhu:




مسئلہ تراشیدنِ رِیش بیش از قُبضہ حرام است وچیدن مو[FONT="Times New Roman","serif"]ۓ سفید از ریش ومانند آں مکروہ است۔ مسئلہگذاشتن ریش وتراشیدن سبلت وناخن ومو‎[FONT="Times New Roman","serif"]ۓ بغل ومو[FONT="Times New Roman","serif"]ۓ نہانی سنت است۔



[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

 
the irony lies in this comment posted by his full of adab follower:

In terms of you appointing someone to discuss, your not on the level of shaykh Atabek, as has been demonstrated by your post, and private messages, further to this , in order to debate/discuss a person requires some key ingredients:

1- Good Knowledge
2- Good Adab
3- Good understanding

Sadly, you lack all 3. But if you wish to appoint someone to discuss with some students then that would be fine.
Similar to how a normal person of the street would not be able to box with Mike Tyson until he go to a certain level.
Click to expand...

followers of this jahil atabek who makes arrogant tongue in cheek comments towards luminary scholars of the past, expect him to be treated with "adab"

it seems these people's radars catches lack of adab only when it directly hurts the egos of their cult-masters. all the lack of adab goes undetected on their radar when their cult masters make arrogant and tongue in cheek comments at scholars of the past or in the case of people like mark hanson and jifry, play with deen and make a joke of it.

oh, and notwithstanding the fact that the poor atabek also opposes his beloved deoband's official position.

the only reason facebook clowns fall for trashcans like this is because they haven't had religious tarbiyyah at home. mommy and daddy were too busy with other pursuits to raise muslim children. one fine day these poor kids wake up and realise that they're supposed to be muslims. so they go ahead and pick up Islam as a hobby (or as an elective at uni, taught by orientalist westerners) and venture out to see how they fare.

keller, faraz rabbani, gibril haddad, atabek, ali jifry, mark hanson, o-mar bin hafeez et al, all their appeal is only to these hobbyist muslims, a good number of them present on the internet.

real Muslims in the real world can see all these people exactly as naked as they are, and wallah, there are still many real Muslims who know their deen, still present.

Similar to how a normal person of the street would not be able to box with Mike Tyson until he go to a certain level.
Click to expand...

the correct analogy here is that a 'normal' person walking down the street would not be able to engage with a gaanja-addicted junkie living in a cardboard box next to a rotting dump of garbage. the most he may be able to do is just throw some spare change at him, only to avoid being bothered by the junkie!
 
Ditta's retort to this thread

The breathless response of an Atabek factotum:

"In response to that post linked here by Abdul Mustafa:All I can say is next time I want to prove a point about any topic I will say please read the Quran, Sahih Sitta and all the Usuli and Fiqhi books. There you are there's my evidence. Lol. What can anyone answer to that? I will definitely win the argument. Each time an evidence is bought with a specific reference I will just say "you haven't read this and that book" no specific reference. Why the readers probably have all read them just as much as I have (all I need to do is google some names of texts)Wait there's more I wont post where the original argument is made. I will paraphrase or extract a few points in a different place. That way the reader will be amazed at how I could make anything Fard and anything Haram!*All the scholars of the past who ever made detailed arguments making and refuting points wasted their time. "Just look in Quran and Ahadith the evidence is there" case closed."
 
More from Atabek on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/atabek.shukurov/posts/623974807645599

(My underlining)

Here is another Hadeeth that scholars use in the issue of a beard;
Aisha RA said;
Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said;
''Ten things are from the Fitra; Cutting the mustache, doing ''i'faa'' to the beard, brushing the teath, taking in the water through the nose, cutting the nails, washing the joints of the fingers, plugging out the hairs under the arm, shaving the privet place, using the water in the toilet''
Zakaria said; Mus'ab (both are narrators from the chain) said; I forgot the tenth one, but it could be washing the mouth...
Narrated by Muslim 261.

Before any thing else we say that; This Hadeeth is one of several other weak Hadeeths of Saheeh Muslim. The reason been is; This Mus'ab who forgot the tenth one, is weak.

Any way, this hadeeth on top of been weak cant take the beard issue to the level of Wajib!
The reason been is;
1. If the issue of beard wajib because of it been Fitra then what about the rest of the issues?: Brushing the teeth, washing the joints of the fingers etc...
2. Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم clearly stated that the reason of the beard is opposing the Zaraostirans .
3. The weakness of the Hadeeth doesnt support the case of Wajib.

I uploaded another photo to show what are the joints of the fingers...

The same Hadeeth was narrated by Bukhari from Abu Huraira; 2209;
Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said; Five things are from Fitra; Circumcision, shaving the privet place, cutting the mustaches, cutting the nails, and plugging out the hair under the arms.

This is authentic Hadeeth, But again it cant prove Wujoob because;
1. Plugging the hair; do we have any one saying wajib? I dont think that most of the people do it (they may shave instead).
2. Cutting the mustaches; Did Umar RA knew it? If yes, then why he didnt apply it? If no then is it possible that Senior Sahaba will not know wajib issues?
3. Also, every thing we said about the previous Hadeeths applicable on this one also.
4. The level of Fitra accordingly to Fuqaha is the lowest level of what we have here. The reason been is some of the issues can be higher than the rest because of some separate evidence. But all of these issues will come together in the minimum level and that is Fitra...
5. Keep in your mind, that Fitra of aqeedah (in Ash'ari and Salafi) is different to Fitra of Fiqh. As for us Maturidis the aqeedah one is not valid. (Please watch our video about the Fitra in Aqeedah).
6. Some may bring the Ayah of Fitra... So that Fitra that God is speaking about is non-changeable. But these ones are changeable. So its totally two different Fitras...

Finally I say, So far we didnt see any thing that can prove the beard been wajib...
Click to expand...
 
A brother:

I personally don't understand why the followers of Mr Shukorov almost make it "Fard" that he needs to be titled more, especially when Mr. Shukorov himself just mentioned Sheikh Abdulhaq R.A. many times without titles etc (see the discussion). I don't know Mr. Shukorov nor follow him, nor his ideas, nor accept him as an authority above a known Muhaddith and Faqeeh as Abdul Haqq Muhaddith Dehlwi R.A. Nevertheless it doesn't mean that I don't respect a person as they are, although it bothers me:

So correct me, if Muhaddis Abdulhab Dehlwi a renowed mujaddid and unanimously accepted muhaddis and faqeeh explains the other classical texts as being wajib proven from sunnah, or in the meaning of wajib, how can Sheikh Abdulhaq Dehlwi oppose them?? He unified those texts meaning there is no contradiction between the scholars.

But if we had to follow the view of Mr. Shukoruv it cleary cuts this unification and puts a cliff between the previous scholars. I don't see how one can follow the understanding of Mr. Shukorov while the explanation and authority of Sheikh Abdul Haq R.A. exceed him in a manner we can't even comprehend. I hope you all don't feel offended but it is worldly know fact regarding the ilm and authority of Abdulhaq.

Please don't feel offended. Wassalaam
Click to expand...

Answer by Atabek:

Ok here is an answer to you question!
I say to you here are people from india but not that one becouse he is from Delhi and the one behind him so he is from Mumbai.
How do you feel?

Now, sunna which means the way of the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم icludes wajib sunna mubah and non mubah also.

So text says, sunna size of beard is a fist. Any thing longer than that is wajib to be removed. But cuting less than that is non-mubah.

Now lets apply understanding of dihlawi.
When it said sunna that include wajib and non mubah also.
So its wrong interpretation.
Becose opppsit of the sunna that dihlawi is claiming bida or kufr and not wajib and non mubah. And this sunna is kalamiy sunnah.

But the sunna which is different to the wajib and non mubah that is fiqiy sunnah. And that what all of the texts are talking about.

Since i started this issue mainly i was having a people with emotional attachments to a personalities or ideas.
By this mentality you cant progress.
Any way my posts will be beneficial for the open minded people.
Click to expand...
 
http://spa.qibla.com/issue_view.asp?HD=12&ID=9753&CATE=87

another interesting verdict by a student of NK and as far as titles go, this one is an 'upright, godfearing mufti-level Shafi`i faqih.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top