Status Of The Beard

Is it Unlawful (haram) to Pluck out Grey/White hairs?

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

Classical scholars and jurists (fuqaha) generally agree that it is disliked (makruh) to pluck out grey or white hair from one's head, beard or moustache for the purpose of beautification and appearing young.

This is due to the following hadiths:

1) Amr ibn Shu'ayb relates from his father, from his grandfather, that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said, "Do not pluck out grey/white hair. A believer's hair does not turn grey in Islam, except that it will be a light (nur) for him on the Day of Judgment" and "for each grey hair, Allah will write one good deed (hasana) for him and pardon one wrong of his." (Sunan Abi Dawud, no: 4199)

2) Amr ibn Shu'ayb relates from his father, from his grandfather, that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) prohibited the plucking of grey hair, and said, "It is the light of a Muslim." (Sunan Tirmidhi no: 2821)

3) Fudala ibn Ubayd (Allah be pleased with him) relates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said, "Grey hair is a light on the face of a Muslim; so whoever wishes, let him pluck out his light." (Bayhaqi, Shu'ab al-Iman, with a sound chain)

4) Sayyiduna Anas ibn Malik (Allah be pleased with him) says, "We used to dislike [during the time of the Prophet, Allah bless him & give him peace] that a man plucks out white hair from his head and beard..." (Sahih Muslim, no: 2341)

The meaning of the above and other similar narrations is that having grey/white hair is beneficial both in this world and the next life. In terms of this world, it is a sign of maturity and a means of respect and dignity. It prevents one from being deceived by this temporary life and reminds one of death and the next life (akhira). As a result, one is encouraged to avoid sins and carry out righteous acts - which are full of light. As for the next life, grey hair will be a means of light (nur) on the Day of Judgment for a believer, and a means of being rewarded and relieved from the punishment of Hellfire. (See: al-Mubarakfuri, Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi 8/113; Ibn Allan, Dalil al-Falihin 4/458; and AzimAbadi, Awn al-Ma'bud 4202)

There is much encouragement in the above hadiths to avoid removing or plucking out white/grey hair that may appear in one's head or beard, and as such scholars generally consider doing so to be Makruh.

Imam Nawawi (Allah have mercy on him), the great Hadith scholar and jurist of the Shafi'i School, states in his commentary of Sahih Muslim, "This ruling [i.e. plucking out grey hair being Makruh] is agreed-upon. Our [Shafi'i] jurists and the jurists of the Maliki School hold that it is disliked (makruh), but not unlawful (haram)." (Al-Minhaj sharh Sahih Muslim, hadith no: 2341)

He also states in his masterpiece Fiqh work titled Al-Majmu, "It is disliked (makruh) to pluck out grey hairs, due to the hadith... Our [Shafi'i] jurists hold that it is Makruh, as stated clearly by Al-Ghazali, Al-Baghawi and others. If it were said that it is unlawful (haram) because of the clear prohibition [in the hadith], it would not be far-fetched, and there is no difference between plucking hairs from the beard or the head." (Al-Majmu' sharh al-Muhaddhab 1/292; also see: al-Bhuti, Kasshaf al-Qina' 1/71 for the Hanbali School)

In the Hanafi School, Imam Ala' al-Din Abidin - the 19th Century Damascene jurist and son of Ibn Abidin - says in his Al-Hadiyya al-Ala'iyya, "There is nothing wrong (la ba's) with plucking out grey hair if it is not done for beautification purposes." (Al-Hadiyya al-Ala'iyya p: 291; also see: Radd al-Muhtar ala 'l-Durr al-Mukhtar 6/407)

This means that if one plucks out grey hair for medical and other similar reasons of need, it would be permitted. However, it is disliked (makruh) to do so for beautification and adornment purposes.

In summary, classical jurists generally agree that it is disliked (makruh) to pluck out grey or white hair, but not unlawful (haram). As for what type of dislike (karaha) it entails - mild (tanzih) or prohibitive (tahrim) - according to the Shafi'i, Maliki and Hanbali Schools of Sunni Islamic law, this would be mildly disliked (makruh tanzih), since there is no sub-division of Makruh according to them, and all Makruh acts are considered mildly disliked. According to the Hanafi School, too, it seems that it is mildly disliked; because of the phrase used by Imam al-Haskafi in his Al-Durr al-Mukhtar and others "la ba's", meaning it is not haram or makruh tahrim to pluck out grey hair, and hence not sinful, but better to avoid.

Having said that, one should not take the matter very lightly! This is due to the fact that some scholars do consider it to be unlawful (haram), and due to what Imam Nawawi states in the quote above that considering it to be haram would not be far-fetched.

(Please note that the above is solely concerning plucking out grey/white hair. As for dyeing it to a colour which is other than black, it is generally permitted and even recommended to some extent. For more details regarding dyeing, please read the answer titled 'Using Hair Dye' already posted on the website).

And Allah knows best

[Mufti] Muhammad ibn Adam
Darul Iftaa
Leicester , UK

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?105407-A-Case-for-the-Obligation-of-the-Beard-in-the-Shafi-i-Madhhab%E2%80%8F&p=911369#post911369

A Case for the Obligation of the Beard in the Shafi'i Madhhab‏

Following the Strongest Opinion

While there is little doubt that the famous opinion of the Shafi'i madhhab is that shaving and trimming the beard whatsoever is makruh tanzihi, I believe a strong case can be made that the stronger and preferred (rajih) opinion is that it is haram. This is what I hope to show in the following.

Ibn al-Salah said:

ليس للمنتسب إلى مذهب الشافعي في مسألة ذات القولين أو الوجهين أن يتخير فيعمل أو يفتي بأيهما شاء...عليه البحث عن الأرجح الأصح منهما

"The one who is affiliated to the madhhab of al-Shafi'i may not in one issue that has two qawls [of al-Shafi'i] or two wajhs [from the Ashab] choose and practise or issue fatwa on whichever of them he pleases...He must investigate the stronger and most authentic from them" (Ibn al-Salah, Adab al-Mufti wa l-Mustafti, 1:60)

How? Ibn al-Salah goes on to mention that for scholars capable of tarjih (ahl al-tarjih), they must exercise their ijtihad and find the strongest opinion of the madhhab, and those who are not capable, should follow the rajih opinion when determined by the ahl al-tarjih.

Makruh

Assuming the opinion that it is makruh (tanzihi) is adopted, one should note the following about the meaning of makruh in the Shafi'i madhhab:

Imam al-Nawawi says in al-Majmu' Sharh al-Muhadhdhab (5:112):

"We have mentioned in what has preceded that it is recommended for a sick person to be patient. Our companions have said that it is makruh to complain a lot. If a doctor, relative or friend inquired about his health and he informed him of the severity of what he is experiencing - not in the form of impatience - there is no harm. Al-Mutawalli said: It is makruh for him to moan and groan. This was said by Qadi Abu al-Tayyib and the author of al-Shamil and others from our companions that it is makruh for him to moan because Tawus (Allah have mercy on him) hated it.

"This - what they said of it being makruh - is weak or rejected because makruh is that in which a purposeful prohibition is established (فإن المكروه هو الذي ثبت فيه نهي مقضود), and prohibition has not been established regarding this. Instead, it is found in Sahih al-Bukhari from al-Qasim, he said: 'A'ishah said: 'O my head!' And the Prophet (Allah less him and grant him peace) said: 'Rather, O my head!' Thus, the truth is that it is not makruh. However, engaging in saying subhan Allah etc. is better (awla), so probably they meant this (i.e. khilaf al-awla) by 'makruh.'"

Al-Nawawi clearly says the basic definition of makruh is that in which an explicit intended prohibition is established in the Shari'ah. This could apply to both haram or makruh tanzihi; but cannot apply to something that is khilaf al-awla (against what is better). However, some of the later Shafi'is used it in the meaning of khilaf al-awla, which is not the proper usage of the word makruh. This shows makruh is always worse than khilaf al-awla. In khilaf al-awla, it is better to avoid it but one is not punished or sinful for doing it. The essential difference between khilaf al-awla and makruh tanzihi, therefore, is that the first is not deemed prohibited (manhi 'anhu), whereas makruh is prohibited.

Al-Ghazali says in his work on Shafi'i Usul, al-Mustasfa (1:215-6)

وأما المكروه فهو لفظ مشترك في عرف الفقهاء بين معان أحدها المحظور فكثيرا ما يقول الشافعي رحمه الله وأكره هذا وهو يريد التحريم

"As for makruh, it is a word that is shared in the usage of the fuqaha between several meanings:

"One of them is what is prohibited. Thus, frequently al-Shafi'i would say: 'I deem this makruh.' And he intends prohibition (tahrim)...."

Here، al-Ghazali highlights that sometimes "makruh" was used in the meaning of "haram."

When makruh is used without qualification by the early scholars, it could mean both haram and makruh tanzihi. When used by the later scholars, it normally meant makruh tanzihi.

The "obvious" or "apparent" meaning of "makruh" according to al-Nawawi is makruh tanzihi, although it sometimes meant haram:

وأرادوا به كراهة تنزيه كما هو المشهور فى استعمال الفقهاء

"By it [i.e. "makruh"], they intend makruh tanzihi, as is famous in the usage of the jurists." (Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, 5:287)

In other words, although rarely it is used to mean "haram," its common usage in the terminology of the fuqaha is for makruh tanzihi. In the same passage he says, "la yajuz" (impermissible) is most commonly used for haram, although rarely for makruh tanzihi.

An example of where "makruh" is used for both "makruh tanzihi" and "haram" in the same passage is in Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, 5:266, where Nawawi says building over graves is "makruh" and then says it is "haram" if in a public graveyard and "makruh tanzihi" if in a private one. And in some places, al-Nawawi actually makes a distinction between the makruh being tanzihi or tahrimi. For example: "However leaving it [i.e. saying bismillah when slaughtering] deliberately is makruh in the correct madhhab, with a tanzih karahah not tahrim..." (Sharh al-Muhadhdhab 3:384)

In sum, when "makruh" is used without qualification it usually means "makruh tanzihi" but on the rare occasion can mean "haram"; and when "la yajuz" is used it usually means "haram" but on the rare occasion can mean "makruh tanzihi." This is clear from al-Nawawi's explanations throughout Sharh al-Muhadhdhab.

Now, if trimming/shaving the beard is "makruh tanzihi" in the Shafi'i madhhab and not "haram," what is the effective difference?

Generally, in the Usul books, they don't seem to make a clear differentiation between "makruh tanzihi" and "khilaf al-awla." After all, for both of them it is better not to do them, and one is not sinful for doing them. So what is the real difference between them? One probable way it can be differentiated is to say that this is the general outcome of both. But with persistence, the outcomes of makruh tanzihi and khilaf al-awla differ. In the latter case, one is not sinful or accountable at all. In the former, however, one will be accruing minor sins. This was mentioned explicitly by the famous Usuli scholar, al-Shatibi:

إن الإثم فى المحرمة هو الظاهر؛ وأما المكروهة فلا إثم فيها فى الجملة ما لم يقترن بها ما يوجبها كالإصرار عليها إذ الإصرار على الصغيرة يصيرها كبيرة فكذلك الإصرار على المكروه فقد يصيره صغيرة؛ ولا فرق بين الصغيرة والكبيرة في مطلق التأثيم

"Indeed sin in a haram act is manifest. As for a makruh (tanzihi) act, in general there is no sin in it, so long as that which necessitates it [i.e. sin] is not associated with it; like persistence on it. For, persistence on a minor sin converts it to a major sin, and likewise, persistence on a makruh act converts it into a minor sin. And there is no difference between a minor and major sin in the basic acquisition of sin." (al-I'tisam, Mashhur ibn Hasan Al Salman ed. 1:290)

Hence, there is a strong argument to be made that even if for argument's sake it is accepted that the correct ruling in the Shafi'i madhhab is it is "only" makruh tanzihi to shave/trim, even then, those who do so on a continuous basis are not necessarily safe from sin.

Imam al-Nawawi says a makruh (tanzihi) act should be condemned in just the same way a haram act is condemned:

In Sharh Sahih Muslim (4:209), he said:

اتَّفَقَ الْعُلَمَاءُ عَلَى النَّهْيِ عَنِ الصَّلَاةِ ، وَثَوْبُهُ مُشَمَّرٌ أَوْ كُمُّهُ أَوْ نَحْوُهُ ، أَوْ رَأْسُهُ مَعْقُوصٌ أَوْ مَرْدُودٌ شَعْرُهُ تَحْتَ عِمَامَتِهِ أَوْ نَحْوُ ذَلِكَ فَكُلُّ هَذَا مَنْهِيٌّ عَنْهُ بِاتِّفَاقِ الْعُلَمَاءِ ، وَهُوَ كَرَاهَةُ تَنْزِيهٍ فَلَوْ صَلَّى كَذَلِكَ فَقَدْ أَسَاءَ وَصَحَّتْ صَلَاتُهُ

"The 'ulama agreed on the prohibition (nahy) of Salah while...one's hair is tied...as all this is prohibited by agreement of the 'ulama, and it is makruh tanzihi, so if he prays in this way, he has done wrong, but his Salah is valid."

Then he said:

قَوْلُهُ : ( عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ أَنَّهُ رَأَى ابْنَ الْحَارِثِ يُصَلِّي وَرَأْسُهُ مَعْقُوصٌ فَقَامَ فَجَعَلَ يَحِلُّهُ ) فِيهِ الْأَمْرُ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَالنَّهْيُ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ ، وَأَنَّ ذَلِكَ لَا يُؤَخَّرُ ، لَمْ يُؤَخِّرْهُ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ - رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا - حَتَّى يَفْرُغَ مِنَ الصَّلَاةِ ، وَأَنَّ الْمَكْرُوهَ يُنْكَرُ كَمَا يُنْكَرُ الْمُحَرَّمُ ، وَأَنَّ مَنْ رَأَى مُنْكَرًا وَأَمْكَنَهُ تَغْيِيرُهُ بِيَدِهِ غَيَّرَهُ بِهَا لِحَدِيثِ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ ، وَأَنَّ خَبَرَ الْوَاحِدِ مَقْبُولٌ . وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ

"[Imam Muslim's] statement: 'Narrated from Ibn 'Abbas that he saw Ibn al-Harith praying while his hair was tied, so he stood and began to untie it.' In this is [proof of] commanding the good and forbidding the evil, and that this should not be delayed...and that makruh is to be condemned just as a haram is condemned; and that whoever sees an evil and it is possible for him to change it with his hand, he should change it with it, because of the hadith of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri..."

Note, al-Nawawi says that the one who did a makruh tanzihi act, he has "done wrong" (asa'a) or "committed evil," which one would not say for something that is merely khilaf al-awla. He also clearly says it needs to be condemned and corrected. In this passage he also makes it clear that something that is clearly "prohibited" may be makruh tanzihi and not haram.

All of this adds to the understanding that makruh tanzihi is far more severe than some people try to make out. It also supports al-Shatibi's explanation that persistence on it leads to minor sin.

For those Shafi'is who adhere to the view that it is makruh tanzihi to trim/shave the beard, should keep the above in mind, which is summarised below:

1. A makruh tanzihi act needs to be condemned and corrected (Nawawi)
2. It is based on an explicit and direct prohibition from the sources of the Shari'ah (Nawawi)
3. The one who does it has committed evil (isa'ah) (Nawawi)
4. Persistence on it leads to minor sin (Shatibi)

The Disagreements on the Beard

Regarding the ruling of growing the beard and its length, there are two places of disagreement for the Shafi'is:

1. Is it haram or makruh tanzihi to trim/shave? Here there are two views: that it is haram and that it is makruh tanzihi

2. To what point is it haram/makruh to trim? Here again there are two views: that it is haram/makruh to trim less than a fist length; and the second view that it is haram/makruh to trim anything at all.

The following discussion will focus primarily on the first disagreement, and will touch on the second issue only in passing.

Is Trimming/Shaving the Beard only Makruh Tanzihi or is it Haram in the Shafi'i Madhhab?

The main source for declaring it makruh tanzihan as opposed to haram is Imam al-Nawawi. He wrote in Sharh al-Muhadhdhab:

سبق في الحديث أن إعفاء اللحية من الفطرة فالإعفاء بالمد ، قال الخطابي وغيره : هو توفيرها وتركها بلا قص ، كره لنا قصها كفعل الأعاجم ، قال : وكان من زي كسرى قص اللحى وتوفير الشوارب ، قال الغزالي في الإحياء : اختلف السلف فيما طال من اللحية فقيل : لا بأس أن يقبض عليها ويقص ما تحت القبضة ، فعله ابن عمر ثم جماعة من التابعين ، واستحسنه الشعبي وابن سيرين ، وكرهه الحسن وقتادة ، وقالوا : يتركها عافية لقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم :

واعفوا اللحى

" .

قال الغزالي : والأمر في هذا قريب إذا لم ينته إلى تقصيصها ; لأن الطول المفرط قد يشوه الخلقة . هذا كلام الغزالي والصحيح كراهة الأخذ منها مطلقا ، بل يتركها على حالها كيف كانت للحديث الصحيح "

واعفوا اللحى

" ، وأما حديث عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده

أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : كان يأخذ من لحيته من عرضها وطولها

" فرواه الترمذي بإسناد ضعيف لا يحتج به

"It has preceded in the hadith that leaving/making plentiful (i'fa') the beard is from the fitrah. Thereafter, i'faa' is with a stretch [i.e. in vocalisation]. Al-Khattabi and others said: 'It is to make it plentiful and leave it without trimming. It is hated (kuriha) for us to trim it, like the practice of the non-Arabs.' He said: 'It was from the fashion of Kisra to trim the beard and make the mustaches long.' Al-Ghazali said in al-Ihya': 'The Salaf differed over what is lengthy from the beard, so it was said: There is no harm if he holds it in a fist and trims what is below the fist. Ibn 'Umar and a group of the Tabi'in did this, and al-Sha'bi and Ibn Sirin deemed it good. However, al-Hasan and Qatadah hated it*, and they said: He should leave it as it is due to his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) saying: Leave the beards.'

"Al-Ghazali said: 'And the matter in this is light/flexible when it does not end up to trimming it [less than a fist length] because excessive length often disfigures the form.' This is the statement of al-Ghazali, and the correct opinion is the karahah of taking from it unconditionally. Rather, one leaves it in its original state however it is, due to the authentic hadith: 'Leave the beards.' As for the hadith of 'Amr ibn Shu'ayb from his father from his grandfather that the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would take from his beard, from its breadth and its length, it was narrated by al-Tirmidhi with a weak chain that is not admissible as proof." (Sharh al-Muhadhdhab, 1:342-3)

* "Hated it" (karihahu): as explained below, this could mean makruh tanzihan and could also mean haram (in the usage of the early scholars)

The first thing to note about this passage is al-Nawawi uses the word "makruh" only in passing, and does not try to substantiate this ruling from the evidence or the imams of the madhhab (al-Shafi'i and the Ashab al-Wujuh). But when it comes to the issue of the length, he emphatically states that the truth, and the correct opinion, is that it is left in its natural state and is not to be cut at all, not even to a fist length as al-Ghazali argued. Hence, when it comes to the issue of the length, al-Nawawi is doing tarjih and tashih (giving preference to a stronger opinion over a weaker one), but in stating the ruling of makruh (which apparently means makruh tanzihi), he is not doing tarjih.

The important thing to note about the ruling of makruh in this passage is that Imam al-Nawawi initially transmits the position of karahah, and is not voicing his own opinion. He is quoting Imam al-Khattabi (d. 388) from his Ma'alim al-Sunan.

Under the hadith "ten things are from the fitrah...," al-Khattabi says:

وأما إعفاء اللحية فهو إرسالها وتوفيرها. كره لنا أن نقصها كفعل بعض الأعاجم وكان من زي آل كسرى قص اللحى وتوفير الشوارب، فندب - صلى الله عليه وسلم- أمته إلى مخالفتهم في الزي والهيئة

"As for i'fa al-lihyah, it is to release it and make it plentiful. It has been made detestable for us (kuriha lana) that we cut it like the practice of some of the non-Arabs. And it was from the dress of the family of Caesar to cut the beards and make the moustaches long, so he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) encouraged (nadaba) his ummah to oppose them in dress and form."

The first thing to note about this is that this passage is from a hadith-commentary. Al-Khattabi is not writing a book on fiqh. In fiqh terminology, certainly "makruh" usually means "makruh tanzihi" (as Nawawi explicitly said, quoted above). But this is not necessarily the case for other disciplines like hadith commentary. In fact "kariha," "yukrah" is used frequently in hadiths and chapter-headings of hadiths for things that are categorically and clearly haram. Many examples can be found in the chapter-headings of al-Bukhari, Tirmidhi and other imams of hadith. For example, al-Bukhari says "كراهية التعري فى الصلاة" - the reprehensibility of being naked in Salah, which obviously means the hurmah, and does not mean makruh tanzihi.

Thus, al-Khattabi's usage of the word "makruh" is at best ambiguous - it could mean makruh tanzihi or haram; and there is no preference of either of them.

It should also be noted that Imam al-Khattabi was from the early scholars, at a time when the phrase "kuriha lana" and "makruh" were not always used in its technical sense. It was often used in its linguistic meaning of being hated, not in the technical meaning of "disliked but not sinful."

Therefore "makruh" could mean both haram and makruh tanzihi. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah has a useful discussion on this as follows:

Ibn Wahb said: I heard Malik say: "It was not from the condition of the people, nor those who came before from our predecessors, and I have not found anyone I follow say about something: 'This is halal,' and 'this is haram.' They would not be reckless in this. They would only say: 'We detest [nakrah] such-and-such,' and 'we deem this good' and 'we avoid this' and 'we do not believe in this.'" 'Atiq ibn Ya'qub narrated it from him and he added: "And they would not say: 'halal,' nor 'haram.' Have you not heard the statement of Allah (Exalted is He): ' Say, "Have you ever considered, whatever provision Allah has sent down for your benefit, you have made up unlawful and lawful from it?"' (10:59) Halal is what Allah and His Messener made halal and haram is what Allah and His Messenger made haram."

I say: Many of the later scholars from the followers of the Imams imputed error on their imams due to this reason, whereby the Imams were careful in using the word "haram" and they used the word "karahah" so the latecomers negated prohibition from that in which the Imams used "karahah" and then the word karahah became insignificant and its burden became light on them, so some of them held it according to light (tanzih) [karahah], and others went even further therein to the karahah of tark al-awla (leaving what is better), and this is very common in their usage; so because of this great error occurred against the Shari 'ah and against the imams. Imam Ahmad said about combining between two sisters in right-hand ownership (i.e. slavery): 'I dislike it and I do not say it is haram' while his madhhab is it is haram, and he was only being careful in using the word haram due to the opinion of 'Uthman.

Abu al-Qasim 'Umar ibn al-Husayn al-Khiraqi said in what he transmitted from Abu 'Abd Allah [Ahmad ibn Hanbal]: "And it is disliked to do wudu in utensils of gold and silver." And his madhhab is that it is not permissible. He said in the narration of Abu Dawud: "It is desirable [yustahabbu] to not enter the public bath but with an undergarment." And this desirability is obligation. He said in the narration of Ishaq ibn Mansur: "When most of the wealth of a man is haram, it does not please me that his wealth is consumed" and this is in the meaning of prohibition.

...

This occurred on innumerable occasions in his responses, and likewise from other imams. Indeed, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan [al-Shaybani] stated explicitly that every makruh is haram, but when he did not find a categorical text, he would not use the term haram without qualification. Muhammad also narrated from Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf that it is closer to haram, and he said in al-Jami' al-Kabir: "It is detested to drink in utensils of gold and silver for men and women," and its intent is prohibition, and likewise Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said: "It is detested to sleep on mattresses of silk and to rest on its pillows," and their intent is prohibition, and Abu Hanifah and his two companions said: "It is detested for male children to wear gold and silk," and the companions stated explicitly that it is haram...And this is very common in their speech.

As for the companions of Malik..

Likewise, al-Shafi'i said about playing chess: 'it is akin to futile entertainment, I detest it, and its prohibition is not clear to me,' so he stated its detestability, and he was unsure of its tahrim; hence, it is not permissible to attribute to him and to his madhhab that playing it is permissible and that it is mubah, because he did not say this nor what indicates to this...

From this also is that he stated the detestability of a man marrying his daughter that was created from the fluid of illicit intercourse, and he did not say at all that it is allowed or permissible. That which is fitting for his eminence, imamate, status, which Allah bestowed on him from religion, is that this detestablility is in the meaning of prohibition, and he used the term karahah [literally] because haram is what Allah and His Messenger hated. Indeed He (Almighty) said after mentioning what He prohibited of the prohibited things from his saying: "Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him" to His saying "do not say to them: uff", to His saying: "Do not kill your children for fear of poverty" to His saying "Do not even go close to fornication" to His saying "Do not kill any person the life of whom is sanctified by Allah, except for a just reason" to the end of the verses, and then He said: "That which is evil, of all these, is detestable (makruh) in the sight of your Lord." (17:23-38) and in the Sahih: "Verily Allah detests (kariha) for you gossip and asking much and wasting wealth."

The Salaf would use karahah in its meaning in which it was used in the speech of Allah and His Messenger. However, the later scholars devised a specific technical definition for karahah which is other than haram, the omission of which is superior to its performance, and then those of them who understood the speech of the imams according to the new technical definition understood it as such, and erred therein. And an uglier error than this is the one who held the word karahah or the word la yanbaghi in the speech of Allah and His Messenger according to the later technical meaning...(I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in, 2:75-82)

Imam al-Shatibi (d. 790) said something similar:

وأما كلام العلماء فإنهم - وإن أطلقوا الكراهية فى الأمور المنهي عنها - لا يعنون بها كراهية التنزيه فقط، وإنما هذا اصطلاح للمتأخرين حين أرادوا أن يفرقوا بين القبيلين، فيطلقون لفظ الكراهية على كراهية التنزيه فقط، ويخصون كراهية التحريم بلفظ التحريم أو المنع وأشباه ذلك

وأما المتقدمون من السلف فإنه لم يكن من شأنهم فيما لا نص فيه صريحا أن يقولوا: هذا حلال، وهذا حرام، ويتحامون هذه العبارة، خوفا مما فى الآية من قوله

وَلاَ تَقُولُوا لِمَا تَصِفُ أَلْسِنَتُكُمُ الْكَذِبَ هٰذَا حَلٰلٌ وَهٰذَا حَرَامٌ لِّتَفْتَرُوا عَلَى اللهِ الْكَذِب

وحكى مالك عمن تقدمه هذا المعنى، فإذا وجدت في كلامهم فى البدعة وغيرها: أكره هذا، ولا أحب هذا، وهذا مكروه، وما أشبه ذلك، فلا تقتطعن على أنهم يريدون التنزيه فقط

'As for the speech of 'ulama' - even if they use "karahiyyah" in matters that are prohibited - they do not mean thereby "karahiyyat al-tanzih" only. Rather, this is a convention of the later scholars: When they wished to differentiate between the two categories [of karahat al-tanzih and karahat al-tahrim/haram], they used the word "karahiyyah" for karahiyyat al-tanzih alone, and they designated karahiyyat al-tahrim with the word "tahrim" (prohibition) or "man'" (proscription) and the equivalents of these.

As for the early scholars from the predecessors, it wasn't from their temperament to say in that which there is no clear text: "This is halal" and: "This is haram," and they avoided using such expressions, for fear of what is in the verse from His saying:

"Do not say about what your tongues describe falsely, "This is halal and this is haram" so that you invent a lie against Allah." (16:116)

Malik related this usage [i.e. of karahiyyah for haram] from those who preceded him.

Thus, when "I dislike this (akrahu hadha)," "I do not love this (la uhibbu hadha)," "This is makruh," and the likes of these are found in their speech regarding bid'ah or something else, you must not have certainty that they intend tanzih thereby [as they may mean tahrim].'

Al-I'tasam, 2:372

Imam al-Nawawi's main source for his apparent ruling of makruh tanzihi is al-Khattabi's use of the word "kuriha lana," which as explained above is an ambiguous expression for two reasons: 1) it is not a Fiqh text so does not stick to fiqh terminologies and 2) it is by an early author, at a time when makruh was used for both haram and makruh tanzihi.

In terms of evidence from the madhhab, therefore, al-Nawawi's apparent view of it being only makruh tanzihi is lacking.

What about the evidence of it being Haram? Here the evidence is much more compelling.

Firstly, we have the authentic hadiths commanding leaving the beard alone, and it is known in Usul (Shafi'i and Hanafi) that a command is for wujub (unless there are indications proving otherwise). Importantly, Imam al-Shafi'i also narrates this hadith ("Leave the beard/make it plentiful") in al-Umm (2:47)

Secondly, we have the statements of the founder of the madhhab, Imam al-Shafi'i, and a couple of the Ashab al-Wujuh.

Imam al-Shafi'i said in al-Umm, volume 7, (downloadable here: ia600402.us.archive.org/8/ite...lom/alom07.pdf )

"Shaving [someone else] is not an offence [that deserves compensation] because it is a ritual act on the head [i.e. in Hajj] and there isn't much pain involved in it, and although it (i.e. shaving) is not permitted (la yajuz) for the beard, there is neither much pain involved in it nor the [complete] removal of hair because it will [eventually] be replaced." (Kitab al-Umm, 7:203, Kitab Jirah al-'Amd, Bab Salkh al-Jild)

والحلاق ليس بجناية لأن فيه نسكا فى الرأس وليس كثير ألم وهو وإن كان فى اللحية لا يجوز فليس كثير ألم ولا ذهاب شعر لأنه يستخلف

"La yajuz" generally means haram as stated by al-Nawawi. This was mentioned above with reference to Sharh al-Muhadhdab (5:287)

In another place, al-Nawawi said:

وظاهر هذه العبارة التحريم

"The apparent [meaning] of this phrase ["not permissible"] is haram" (Sharh al-Muhadhdhab 2:126)

He does explain that it is possible to understand "la yajuz" to mean "not mubah" i.e. it could be makruh or haram, but clarifies: "If it is said this is not common in the books of the madhhab, we say: It is present in them though rarely..."

This shows "la yajuz" is most commonly used to mean haram, and this is the obvious and manifest meaning, and only rarely is it used for "makruh tanzihi."

Imam al-Shafii's apparent wording, therefore, indicates shaving the beard is haram as he used the words "la yajuz."

Therefore the outward of al-Shafi'i's statement certainly indicates it is haram to shave; and according to the correct opinion (as determined by al-Nawawi) this would extend to trimming any amount of the beard. Hence, if we take al-Shafi'i's statement on face-value, and al-Nawawi's authentication of the ruling of leaving the beard totally, it would mean: It is Haram to trim or remove anything at all from the beard in the Shafi'i madhhab.

Now, some of the views of the Ashab al-Wujuh:

The Ashab al-Wujuh were major early scholars in the Shafi'i madhhab, whose level of ijtihad meant that their opinions counted as "wujuh" in the madhhab, i.e. established opinions in the madhhab.

There are two Ashab who said shaving is "not permissible" i.e. haram according to the most obvious and manifest meaning of this expression.

1. Al-Qaffal al-Shashi (291 - 365 H)

2. His student, Abu 'Abd Allah al-Halimi (338 - 403 H)

Ibn al-Mulaqqan (d. 802) said in Al-I'lam bi Fawa'id 'Umdat al-Ahkam, (downloadable here: ia600409.us.archive.org/14/it...1/01_88051.pdf ) 1:322:

وقال الحليمي في منهاجه لا يحل لأحد أن يحلق لحيته ولا حاجبيه وإن كان له أن يحلق سباله لأن لحلقه فائدة وهي أن لا يعلق به دسم الطعام ورائحته ما يكره بخلاف حلق اللحية فإنه هجنة وشهرة وتشبه بالنساء فهو كجب الذكر

وما ذكره في حق اللحية حسن وإن كان المعروف فى المذهب الكراهة

"Al-Halimi said in his Minhaj: It is not permissible for anyone to shave his beard, nor his eyebrows, although it is allowed for him to shave his moustache because there is a benefit in shaving it which is that the oil of food and its bad smell will not cling to it, as opposed to shaving the beard since it is a fault and draws attention and is imitation of women, so it is like removing the penis."

Then Ibn al-Mulaqqan says:

"And that which he mentioned with respect to the beard is excellent, even though the famous view of the madhhab is it is makruh [tanzihi]."

Clearly, here "not permissible" means "haram," as evident from the examples used and Ibn Mulaqqan contrasting it with the position of karahah tanzihi.

Moreover the following statement of Ibn Hazm indiciates the view of it not being haram did not exist before the fourth century: He says in Maratib al-Ijma' p. 157

"And there is consensus that shaving the entire beard is mutilation and impermissible."

Hence, if al-Nawawi meant "makruh tanzihi" by the word "makruh" (which he most likely did - and this is how the later scholars understood it), he would, it appears, have had no precedent from the Imam of the madhhab or the Ashab al-Wujuh, nor any scholar before the fourth century.

Al-Haythami says:

"The two shaykhs said it is makruh tanzihi to shave the beard, and Ibn al-Rif'ah objected to it in Hashiyat al-Kafi by [saying] that al-Shafi'i, Allah be pleased with him, stated explicitly in al-Umm its prohibition. Al-Zarkashi said: And likewise al-Halimi in Shu'ab al-Iman, and his teacher al-Qaffal al-Shashi in Mahasin al-Shari'ah. And al-Adhra'i said: The truth is the prohibition of shaving it..."

قال الشيخان يكره حلق اللحية واعترضه ابن الرفعة في حاشية الكافية بأن الشافعي رضي الله تعالى عنه نص في الأم على التحريم قال الزركشي وكذا الحليمي في شعب الإيمان وأستاذه القفال الشاشي في محاسن الشريعة وقال الأذرعي الصواب تحريم حلقها جملة لغير علة بها كما يفعله القلندرية انتهى

Al-Haythami also suggests the view of hurmah is the view of the vast majority of the later Shafi'i scholars. Malibari said:

"Ta'zir is achieved by non-severe beating or punching - which is hitting with a fist - or imprisonment - even from Jumu'ah - or rebuking with speech or exile or dismissal from a majlis or the like of these, from what the punisher sees [as fit] in type and quantity. [Ta'zir is] not [achieved] by shaving the beard. Our shaykh [Ibn Hajar al-Haythami] said: And apparently shaving it is haram, and this is based on it [i.e. shaving the beard] being haram which most of the muta'akhkhirin are upon. As for it being makruh which the two shaykhs are upon, there is no reason to prohibit [ta'zir by shaving] when the Imam approves of it." (Fath al-Mu'in)

ويحصل التعزير (بضرب) غير مبرح أو صفع وهو الضرب بجمع الكف (أو حبس) حتى عن الجمعة أو توبيخ بكلام أو تغريب أو إقامة من مجلس ونحوها مما يراها المعزر جنسا وقدار لا بحلق لحية. قال شيخنا: وظاهر حرمة حلقها وهو إنما يجئ على حرمته التي عليها أكثر المتأخرين أما على كراهته التي عليها الشيخان وآخرون فلا وجه للمنع إذا رآه الامام. انتهى.

To sum up, it is highly probable that al-Nawawi mistook the karahah in al-Khattabi's speech in its technical meaning, and not in its literal meaning as found in the Qur'an and words of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam). If we make this assumption, it would then make it consistent with the clear and explicit command of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam), the apparent and obvious meaning of al-Shafi'i's statement in al-Umm; and the explicit statements of the early Ashab of the madhhab, al-Qaffal and al-Halimi; and it would also be consistent with the view of most of the later scholars of the madhhab as said by al-Malibari; and that approved by Ibn al-Mulaqqan, al-Adhra'i and Ibn al-Rif'ah.

Therefore, defending the view that in the Shafi'i madhhab, the correct view is of the hurmah of shaving the beard, is not far fetched or extreme or deceptive as some people claim; in fact, it is clearly not only defensible, but arguably much stronger in light of the evidence.

---------------------------------------------------

I hope it is clear from the above that a strong case can be made that the stronger (rajih) and correct (sahih) view in the Shafi'i madhhab is: It is haram to trim from the beard whatsoever. The first (that it is haram) is based on the hadiths, statements of al-Shafi'i, Qaffal, Halimi, and approval of the later scholars, Ibn al-Rif'ah, Ibn al-Mulaqqan and al-Adhra'i and the acceptance of the majority of the muta'akhkhirin. And the second (that this ruling applies to removal of any part of the beard) is based on al-Nawawi's tashih (determining it as correct and authentic) of this view against the other view (of up to a fist length).

Status Of The Beard

Font Size

Font Weight