Beard in the Hanafi Madhhab

[godilali]

It seems as though the following scholars all stated that the qubDah is the masnoon length without stating anything about it being waajib: al-marghinani in al-hidaayah, al-zayla`i in tabyeen al-Haqaa'iq, al-`ayni in his famous commentary, ibn al-humaam in fatH al-qadeer as stated above already, ibn nujaym in al-baHr, al-shurunbulali in his haashiyah of al-durar wa al-ghurar, `ali al-qaari' in his sharh musnad abi haneefah as shown above already, al-HaSkafi in al-durr al-mukhtar, al-TaHTawi in his haashiyah of maraaqi al-falaaH, al-zabeedi in ithaaf, and also in al-fataawaa al-hindiyyah. I may be wrong, and I'm hoping someone can confirm, but it seems as though the fatwaa of the qubDah being "waajib" came much later amongst the Hanafis.

Actually, most of the scholars you mentioned above (ibn al-Humam, ibn Nujaym, Haskafi, Tahtawi, and ibn Abidin) say its wajib.
Have a look at my posts here:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...i-madhab/page3

In addition to what I posted in that thread, the following is from durar/ghurar:
( قَوْلُهُ وَكُرِهَ الْقُبْلَةُ
إلَخْ ) كَذَا الْمُبَاشَرَةُ الْفَاحِشَةُ عَلَى هَذَا التَّفْصِيلِ فِي ظَاهِرِ الرِّوَايَةِ كَمَا فِي الْبُرْهَانِ ( قَوْلُهُ لَا دَهْنُ الشَّارِبِ ) الرِّوَايَةُ بِفَتْحِ الدَّالِ عَلَى أَنَّهُ مَصْدَرٌ ، وَيَجُوزُ الضَّمُّ وَيَكُونُ مَعْنَاهُ ، وَلَا بَأْسَ بِاسْتِعْمَالِ الدُّهْنِ ، وَكَذَا الْكُحْلُ حُكْمًا وَضَبْطًا وَيُسَنُّ دَهْنُ شَعْرِ الْوَجْهِ إذَا لَمْ يَكُنْ قَصْدُهُ الزِّينَةَ بِهِ وَرَدَتْ السُّنَّةُ ، وَلَا يُفْعَلُ لِتَطْوِيلِ اللِّحْيَةِ إذَا كَانَتْ بِقَدْرِ الْمَسْنُونِ وَهُوَ الْقُبْضَةُ كَمَا فِي الْبُرْهَانِ وَالْقُبْضَةُ بِضَمِّ الْقَافِ قَالَ فِي النِّهَايَةِ وَمَا وَرَاءَ ذَلِكَ يَجِبُ قَطْعُهُ هَكَذَا عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَأْخُذُ مِنْ اللِّحْيَةِ مِنْ طُولِهَا وَعَرْضِهَا وَأَمَّا الْأَخْذُ مِنْ اللِّحْيَةِ ، وَهِيَ دُونَ الْقُبْضَةِ كَمَا يَفْعَلُهُ بَعْضُ الْمَغَارِبَةِ وَمُخَنَّثَةُ الرِّجَالِ فَلَمْ يُبِحْهُ أَحَدٌ وَأَخْذُ كُلِّهَا فِعْلُ مَجُوسِ الْأَعَاجِمِ وَالْيَهُودِ وَالْهُنُودِ وَبَعْضِ أَجْنَاسِ الْإِفْرِنْجِ كَمَا فِي الْفَتْحِ

[abuhajira]

I am sorry, I do not have enough time these days.

for the little I can remember, The Amr is for wujoob. The amr in the nass is for Iefaa'. Hence the wujub is one keeping beard. This would mean as much as it grows.

The seperat discussion then comes is...if trimming it is contrary to this wujoob or not, and if not, then how much can be trimmed. This is perhaps the reason why the mention is not seen before ibnul humam. and perhaps there is and we just need to search a bit more. If we see from this angle.. the wujoob remains till it reaches fist length, and since we have athar of triming beyond that, the hadd for wujoob is established by those athaar.

As for Kitabul Athar, the trimming in it can easily be explained with the couple of athaar before the one quoted which mention what the madhab is. But it is equally supported by above explanation.

[ImamGhazzaali]

A brother in the UK that I was talking to about this stated that a Hanafi student of knowledge (whom he conversed with) who had researched this issue and said that he didn't find any Hanafi scholar talk about the 'fist length' beard being wajib prior to 200 years ago. It seems to be the later scholar's Ijtihaad that say it is Wajib to keep a fist length beard.

Another brother stated that when he was studying with his shuyukh he raised this question many times and the answer he got was that Imam Muhammad, Qadi Abu Yusuf, Imam Lu'lui and 5 or so text books of hanafi madhab do not have a chapter on beard.

Why is that so? Was beard not an important topic or not important enough? Surely if the fist-length was wajib there would have been chapters on the issue like we find in contemporary books. Perhaps it was the tradition back then to have a beard for men and that shaving it is unmanly?

In terms of its length there is no fiqh of beard in classical books it seems (according to him and his teacher).

He said that recently Sh. Akram Nadwi confirmed that there is no classical Hanafi view on beard except that it is wajib.

Do you know any Syrian Hanafi or perhaps a non-deobandi Hanafi Shaykh? Anyone that has contacted the Dar al-'Uloom there? If not, does Mufti Ebrahim know of any? We could ask them, insha'Allah.

[abuhajira]

Did you read my post brother? No one has to show what length is wajib, since the wujoob in the hadeeth is "lengthening". I am still confused what exactly are we searching for? The discussions is about trimming it down, not about lengthening. Lengthening is wajib. So what we would find from salaf is not whether lengthening TO 1 fist is wajib or not, rather whether trimming less than 1 fist is permissible or not. This is from basic usools of deductions.

This to me makes the text of Ibnul humam much clearer, because he is saying that he has not come across anyone in the salaf permitting trimming below on fist. To me it shows that from salaf and onward leaving/lengthening remained the norm without any differing opinion of trimmed being acceptable. And then ibnul humam penned it down that he hasnt come across anyone permitting the trimmining more than 1 fist length.

Also there are numerous things which do not have chapters. Does Bahishti Zewar have a complete chapter on beard? How about other such books? I doubt we would find any fiqhi book discussing a whole chapter on beard. What we can try and search is perhaps some risalah on beard.

But I feel well at ease at what Sh. Faraz has mentioned. He is a syrian (shaami) scholar graduate, so I rely his opinion is reflecting that of his understanding of hanafi fiqh.

[AYK1399]

Actually, most of the scholars you mentioned above (ibn al-Humam, ibn Nujaym, Haskafi, Tahtawi, and ibn Abidin) say its wajib.
Have a look at my posts here:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...i-madhab/page3

In addition to what I posted in that thread, the following is from durar/ghurar:
( قَوْلُهُ وَكُرِهَ الْقُبْلَةُ
إلَخْ ) كَذَا الْمُبَاشَرَةُ الْفَاحِشَةُ عَلَى هَذَا التَّفْصِيلِ فِي ظَاهِرِ الرِّوَايَةِ كَمَا فِي الْبُرْهَانِ ( قَوْلُهُ لَا دَهْنُ الشَّارِبِ ) الرِّوَايَةُ بِفَتْحِ الدَّالِ عَلَى أَنَّهُ مَصْدَرٌ ، وَيَجُوزُ الضَّمُّ وَيَكُونُ مَعْنَاهُ ، وَلَا بَأْسَ بِاسْتِعْمَالِ الدُّهْنِ ، وَكَذَا الْكُحْلُ حُكْمًا وَضَبْطًا وَيُسَنُّ دَهْنُ شَعْرِ الْوَجْهِ إذَا لَمْ يَكُنْ قَصْدُهُ الزِّينَةَ بِهِ وَرَدَتْ السُّنَّةُ ، وَلَا يُفْعَلُ لِتَطْوِيلِ اللِّحْيَةِ إذَا كَانَتْ بِقَدْرِ الْمَسْنُونِ وَهُوَ الْقُبْضَةُ كَمَا فِي الْبُرْهَانِ وَالْقُبْضَةُ بِضَمِّ الْقَافِ قَالَ فِي النِّهَايَةِ وَمَا وَرَاءَ ذَلِكَ يَجِبُ قَطْعُهُ هَكَذَا عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَأْخُذُ مِنْ اللِّحْيَةِ مِنْ طُولِهَا وَعَرْضِهَا وَأَمَّا الْأَخْذُ مِنْ اللِّحْيَةِ ، وَهِيَ دُونَ الْقُبْضَةِ كَمَا يَفْعَلُهُ بَعْضُ الْمَغَارِبَةِ وَمُخَنَّثَةُ الرِّجَالِ فَلَمْ يُبِحْهُ أَحَدٌ وَأَخْذُ كُلِّهَا فِعْلُ مَجُوسِ الْأَعَاجِمِ وَالْيَهُودِ وَالْهُنُودِ وَبَعْضِ أَجْنَاسِ الْإِفْرِنْجِ كَمَا فِي الْفَتْحِ

Thank you for your reply brother godilali. Correct me if I'm wrong, but those references are not explicitly saying it's waajib. Yes, they are all repeating the words of ibn al-humaam in al-fatH in that no one permitted cutting away less than a qubDah. But what I was getting at with my earlier questions was if the words, "fa-lam yubiHhu aHadun", is known in our fiqhi literature to be equivalent in saying something is waajib...especially given that a few lines earlier it's been referred to as "masnoon". Quite honestly, I don't know the answer to this and I'm hoping someone more knowledgeble can provide that. And as I also mentioned earlier, if we go back to the original quote that all of these authorities are quoting, one gets a sense that his words are not that of a wholesale/absolute prohibition but perhaps when coupled with tashbeeh ("kamaa") with the "Westerners", hermaphrodites, jews, etc. You seem to be quite sure that "fa-lam yuBihhu aHadun" is known to imply wujoob. If this is the case, then I would be very grateful if you could elaborate further insha'Allah. I apologize in advance if I'm not interpreting it the correct way.

[AYK1399]

Also...the reason why I'm also inclined to think that his comparison with jews and majus and christians, etc. etc. is pertinent here is because of the words of ibrahim al-nakha`i from kitab al-aathaar which i quoted earlier:
لا بأس أن يأخذ الرجل من لحيته ما لم يتشبه بأهل الشرك
So it seems as though al-nakha`i is also showing a comparison of when it would not be okay to cut short.

[AYK1399]

I am sorry, I do not have enough time these days.

for the little I can remember, The Amr is for wujoob. The amr in the nass is for Iefaa'. Hence the wujub is one keeping beard. This would mean as much as it grows.

The seperat discussion then comes is...if trimming it is contrary to this wujoob or not, and if not, then how much can be trimmed. This is perhaps the reason why the mention is not seen before ibnul humam. and perhaps there is and we just need to search a bit more. If we see from this angle.. the wujoob remains till it reaches fist length, and since we have athar of triming beyond that, the hadd for wujoob is established by those athaar.

As for Kitabul Athar, the trimming in it can easily be explained with the couple of athaar before the one quoted which mention what the madhab is. But it is equally supported by above explanation.

jazakAllahu khayran Mufti sahib for your quick reply. You spoke about the "hadd of wujoob" above. My line of thinking is as follows: There's the explicit hadiths of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) in commanding to lengthen the beard...and as you kindly stated above...amr is indeed for wujoob. So from this we can say that lenghening one's beard is waajib as per Hanafi usul. However, no specific miqdaar was prescribed. Secondly, from the actions of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) himself, we know that he had a beard greater than that of a qudDah. Thirdly, we have narrations wherein some of the sahabah, like ibn `umar and abu hurayrah (raDiyaAllahu `anhumaa) had cut their beards by grasping their beards and cutting away what was in excess to this. Fourthly, we know that the majority of our fuqahaa' have said that the actions of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) do not connote wujoob. So if this is the case, then am I right in concluding that the "wujoob" of a qubDah has been established by the actions, and not imperatives, of a couple of Sahabah? If this is accurate, then please explain how wujoob of something can be established by the actions of the sahabah according to Hanafi usul? If my line of reasoning above is inaccurate then please do correct me.

[ImamGhazzaali]

Sidi, Sh. Faraz has left that view of his on SP regarding the beard and he has no comment on the beard in the Hanafi madhhab as of now.

And I am wanting to know what the Syrian Hanafis and other non-Deobandi Hanafi's explain about the beard ruling and its length.

Since you are/were learning with Mufti Ebrahim did you have any non-Deobandi Hanafi contact the Dar al-'Ulum? If not, does Mufti Ebrahim have any contacts of any? If so, I would request if I can have their number.

[AYK1399]

I am sorry, I do not have enough time these days.

for the little I can remember, The Amr is for wujoob. The amr in the nass is for Iefaa'. Hence the wujub is one keeping beard. This would mean as much as it grows.

The seperat discussion then comes is...if trimming it is contrary to this wujoob or not, and if not, then how much can be trimmed. This is perhaps the reason why the mention is not seen before ibnul humam. and perhaps there is and we just need to search a bit more. If we see from this angle.. the wujoob remains till it reaches fist length, and since we have athar of triming beyond that, the hadd for wujoob is established by those athaar.

As for Kitabul Athar, the trimming in it can easily be explained with the couple of athaar before the one quoted which mention what the madhab is. But it is equally supported by above explanation.

Another question comes to mind that I’d like to kindly ask:

Mullaa Jeewan writes in his famed commentary, noor al-anwaar, the following lines:
و عندنا الوجوب حقيقة الأَمر فيحمل عليه مطلقه ما لم تقم قرينة خلافه و إِذا قامت قرينته يحمل عليه علَى حسب المقام
And a few lines later he writes again:
فينبغي أَن يكون ألَمر عند الإِطلاق لِلوجوب و إِنما يحمل علَى غيره بِالقرائِن
The narrations about the *actions* (as opposed to commanding others) of Abu Hurayrah and ibn `Umar grasping their beards and then cutting what is more than it are known as stated already. There’s also the following narration in the Musnad of Abu Haneefah which was alluded to earlier:
ما روي عن أبي قحافة رضي الله عنه أنه أتى به النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولحيته قد انتشرت فقال: "لو أخذتم" وأشار بيده إلى نواحي لحيته
There’s also the Hadeeth in al-tirmidhi (admittedly “da`eef” though) narrating that the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam) would trim his beard from its sides and length.
So the question that I wanted to ask is that on one hand we have the explicit commands by way of seeghah al-amr, as you’ve mentioned above, for lengthening one’s beard. But we also have these narrations above depicting shortening the beard. Don’t these narrations act as “qaraa’in” against the absolute lengthening of the beard as originally mentioned in the amr? Hence, why we probably never heard of SaHaabah walking around with beards to to the ground. But nevertheless, my point is that if there are qaraa'in in place against the amr here, then what implication will that have then in the wujoob-ness of any specified length, according to our usul? Especially given that the specified length here is the qubDah, which has been narrated by deed (not amr) of SaHaabah (not the Prophet (Sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam)).

[AYK1399]

...As for Kitabul Athar, the trimming in it can easily be explained with the couple of athaar before the one quoted which mention what the madhab is...

I believe you're referring to the narration in kitaab al-aathaar that I mentioned above, i.e.:
حدثنا يوسف عن أبيه عن أبي حنيفة ، عن حماد ، عن إبراهيم ، أنه قال : « لا بأس أن يأخذ الرجل من لحيته ، ما لم يتشبه بأهل الشرك

And the aathaar that precedes this above narration of al-nakha`i which I think you're referring to that can be used to explain is the following one:
حدثنا يوسف عن أبيه عن أبي حنيفة ، عن الهيثم ، عن ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما أنه « كان يقبض على لحيته ، فيأخذ منها ما جاوز القبضة »

If this is indeed the one you're referring to then I'm a bit confused how this preceding narration of ibn `umar can be used to explain away the narration of al-nakha`i. The reason for my confusion is that if you take the word "liHyah" in the narration of al-nakha`i to mean a beard longer than that of a qubDah, then you would have to conclude that even having a qubDah would NOT be okay when *if and when* a qubDah resembles the people of shirk...which no one from the aHnaaf has said in my limited knowledge. However, if you take the word "liHyah" in the narration of al-nakha`i to mean a qubDah, then the implied meaning seems to suggest that this (i.e. cutting away from the qubDah) would be okay so long as it doesn't result in what resembles the people of shirk. Therefore, in my humble opinion, I don't think one could reasonably take the narration of ibn `umar and use it to say that the word "liHyah" in the narration of al-nakha`i is referring to cutting that which is longer than a qubDah to the shortened, minimum limit of a qubDah. Because, it would then result in implying that even a qubDah would NOT be okay *if and when* it resembles the people of shirk.