Published: 8th June 2017
For at least the first 600 years of this Ummah, during the greatest period of its once glorious reign, the very idea of a Muslim man shaving or trimming his beard to less than a fist-length, was virtually beyond the realms of possibility. It was an implausible scenario. Although the early Mujtahideen addressed such a scenario adequately enough, as shall be demonstrated in this article from the perspective of supposedly the most lenient of the Four Madh-habs, the manner of their acquittal betrays the fact that they imagined themselves to be dealing with a theoretical event. It was simply inconceivable that a Muslim man – a real one – would mutilate his manhood in such a manner.
Thus, you will find one Mujtahid stating explicitly that shaving the beard is akin to chopping off one’s penis which was likewise – at least yet during his era – virtually beyond the realms of possibility. Another one will address the remotely possible scenario of a man plucking out a few hairs of his beard during a moment of sheer stupidity. Another one will address the scenario of a mindless youth removing the few haphazard hairs that had only just begun to sprout out from his cheeks. And, others will mention the Hurmat (prohibition) of trimming or shaving the beard, in passing, almost as an afterthought, whilst addressing a completely distinct and separate issue altogether.
But, never could the Mujtahideen, the early Fuqaha, and the Muslim masses in general, ever have envisaged an era in which “Muslims” will have started to purposefully trim the whole beard to less than a fist-length, as was the general practice of the Majoos (fire-worshippers), or even shave the whole beard off, as was the general practice of other Kuffaar. Such a grotesque phenomenon could never have featured even in their wildest dreams.
It was only in and around the 7th century that this exclusively Kuffaar practice of self-mutilation began to sprout up satanically within the Ummah, and which prompted Allamah Abu Shaamah (rahmatullahi alayh) the teacher of Imam Nawawi (rahmatullahi alayh), to lament in obvious horror:
“A people (i.e. group of Muslims) have just come into existence who shave their beards, and this is worse than what was related from the Majoos that they used to trim it (i.e. to less than a fist-length).”
وقد حدث قوم يحلقون لحاهم، وهو أشد مما نقل عن المجوس من أنهم كانوا يقصونها
The Majoos were those fire-worshippers regarding whom Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) explicitly commanded the Muslims to oppose by lengthening the beard specifically:
“Cut the moustaches short, and lengthen the beards. Oppose the Majoos (fire-worshippers).” (Saheeh Muslim)
It goes without saying that Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) practice of trimming down to a fist-length – which is valid according to the Hanafi, Maliki and Hanbali Madh-habs – was not the practice of the Majoos which He (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) commanded to oppose. The Majoos would trim their beard to less than a fist-length. Imam Nawawi, confirming the fact that the Majoos would generally only trim their beard, states in his commentary of the Hadith:
“It was the general habit of the Persians to trim the beard (i.e. to less than a fist-length), hence the Shariah has prohibited it.”
وكان من عادة الفرس قص اللحية فنهى الشرع عن ذلك
The trimmed-beard practice of the Majoos condemned explicitly by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is, in fact, identical to the overwhelmingly dominant practice of the charlatan so-called “Shafi’i” scholars of this age as described accurately here by one Nuh Keller, a well-known revert who had been duped into believing that all those charlatans from whom he had acquired his Deen are true Shafi’is, Faqihs, and Sufis:
“I have not met a single Shafi’i scholar (faqih) who did not trim his beard to considerably less than the-handful-below-the-chin length.”
The statement above was actually produced as some kind of “proof”. It typifies the kind of “proofs” the scholars of this age are forced to resort to in order to justify their satanic inclination, condonation, and preference for the accursed Sunnah (practice) of the Majoos (fire-worshippers) and other Kuffaar over the Mubaarak Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
In reality, this so-called “proof” is actually a damning indictment of the scholars of this age. It is, in fact, a concrete, rock-solid and genuine proof that we are well into that age prophecized by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in which the Muslims will be very many, the scholars (so-called “faqihs”) the very worst of them, and the true Deen as represented by the early Mujtahideen and Fuqaha (real Faqihs) will have become Ghareeb (strange, lorn, forlorn).
The Shafi’i Madh-hab – as alleged almost unanimously by the so-called “faqihs” of this age – is supposedly the most lenient of the Four Madh-habs on the prohibition of shaving or trimming the beard to less than a fist-length. For the purposes of this article, we shall not dispute this claim. We shall simply demonstrate that the Mujtahideen and early Fuqaha of this supposedly most lenient of Madh-habs are unanimous in condemning the act of shaving or trimming in the most vehement of terms – such words which preclude even the slightest possibility that Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) command to lengthen the beard is “merely a recommendation”, or that the act of shaving or trimming like the Majoos is “only Makruh Tanzeeh” as alleged by the charlatans of this age.
The complete conformity and agreement of ALL the Shafi’i Mujtahideen in this regard, and the complete absence of anything otherwise for at least the first 700 years of this Ummah, will establish emphatically that the Hurmat (prohibition) of shaving or trimming Majoos-style is of the highest possible category. Thus, as a corollary to having established the ruling of Hurmat of this most lenient of Madh-habs, we will also have established the ruling of Hurmat upheld by the other three Madh-habs which are supposed to be more severe on this issue. The task of establishing the Haqq in more detail on this issue, in regards to the other three Madh-habs, will be left for a separate article insha-Allah.
The narration on the Majoos cited above is just one of numerous authentic narrations in which the tone and tenor of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) emphatic commands leave absolutely no doubt that they are of the Wujoob (obligatory) category. The Wujoob nature of this command is the understanding of ALL the Mujtahideen and early Fuqaha of this Ummah. In fact, such is the force of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) repeated commands to lengthen the beard that according to the Shafi’i Madh-hab there exists no leeway even to trim the beard down to a fist-length.
According to the Usool (principles) of the Shafi’i Madh-hab, the Hadith narrations which permit one to trim the beard down to a fist-length are deemed too weak and too few to restrict or qualify the Mutlaq (absolute) and Wujoob (obligatory) command to lengthen the beard which is established by a whole array of authentic narrations. The beard is to be left as it is even if it grows to a humongous length. This is the position of the Shafi’i Madh-hab as will become manifestly clear from the explicit statements of the Shafi’i Mujtahideen and Fuqaha which we shall produce in this article and in subsequent instalments.
This article is the first instalment of a series of articles on this issue – insha-Allah – as part of the following four-pronged approach which will be taken to hammer home the final nail in the coffin on this issue, and to eliminate every possible loophole the “Shafi’i” charlatans of this age – and their like-minded sisters from the other Madh-habs – are wont to resort to:
1) Statements from at least TEN of the As-haab (early Mujtahideen) and early Fuqaha of the Shafi’i Madh-hab, who came well before Imam Nawawi, will be quoted here which will demonstrate the complete conformity and agreement that existed on this issue, and which will also expose the fact that the vast majority of the so-called Shafi’i scholars of this age are following a different Madh-hab (i.e. Shaytaan’s) to the one founded and established by the early Mujtahideen which they fraudulently claim affiliation to.
2) We shall then proceed to demonstrate that Imam Nawawi (rahmatullahi alayh), who arrived a couple of centuries after the age in which the Mujtahideen had become virtually extinct, and who occupied the pedestal of “Ahlul Tarjeeh” (one who gives preference to a ruling from amongst the rulings of the Shafi’i Mujtahideen IF they differed), was also in complete agreement with the Ashaab on the ruling of Hurmat. The “Makrooh” ruling relayed by Imam Nawawi, which was misunderstood by some of the latter-day (Muta-akhkhireen) Fuqaha, was merely an authentic transmission of the “Makrooh” ruling of two of the Ashaab, Imam al-Ghazali and Allamah al-Khattabi, whose own explicit statements regarding the abomination of shaving the beard will prove beyond the shadow of any doubt that by “Makrooh” in this context they clearly meant Haraam, which was also completely in line with the terminology employed for Haraam during the Mutaqaddimeen (early) era.
3) We shall then prove that even by the admission of the minority of latter-day (Muta-akhkhireen) Fuqaha who adopted the erroneous ruling of Makrooh Tanzeeh based on a misunderstanding of Imam Nawawi’s almost verbatim transmission of the early Mujtahideen, the majority of the latter-day Shafi’i Fuqaha were still in complete agreement with the ruling of Hurmat (prohibition) upheld by ALL the Mujtahideen of the Shafi’i Madh-hab, which is, in fact, the Ijma’ ruling of all Four Madh-habs, and which will forever remain the Ijma’ ruling of the whole Ummah, even if there remains during the final days of Earth one solitary long-bearded Aalim upholding that ruling.
4) Finally, we shall demonstrate that even according to the minority of latter-day (Muta-akhkhireen) Fuqaha who erred in adopting the Makrooh Tanzeeh position, and whose ruling the so-called Shafi’i “scholars” of this age parrot away in pathetic desperation, ALL of these so-called Shafi’i scholars who shave or trim their beard to less than a fist-length, or who legalize such an abomination, have forfeited their manhood (muroo-ah) and their Shahaadat (testimony) even in mundane matters of worldly life, and thus, to a far greater extent, their “Fatwas” on the Deen are forfeited and Mardood (rejected). In fact, their “Fatwas” on the beard specifically are invalidated to an even greater extent due to a clear conflict of interest that exists between their “Fatwas” and their own or their bosom buddies’ mutilated beards. Furthermore, it will be demonstrated that even according to the minority of latter-day Fuqaha who opted for the erroneous Makrooh Tanzeeh ruling, the villainy of shaving the beard which causes one to forfeit his Shahaadat (testimony) and manhood is valid for all times and places, and is not determined by societal norms (Urf).
IJMA’ (CONSENSUS) OF THE SHAFI’I MUJTAHIDEEN
The task of establishing the Haqq on this issue, specifically in the Shafi’i Madh-hab, is made easier by the fact that we need only to demonstrate that it is not possible for the Shafi’i Mujtahideen, the early Fuqaha, and also Imam Nawawi himself, to have regarded the act of shaving as Makrooh Tanzeeh. In doing so, we will have established that any trimming whatsoever is categorically Haraam. This is due to the fact that the so-called Shafi’i scholars of this age, in their desperate and irrational elevation of the 7th century Faqeeh, Imam Nawawi, to a rank above Imam Shafi’i, and above all the other Shafi’i Mujtahideen, are forced to concede the following two points:
1) The ruling of shaving the beard carries the same ruling as trimming the beard. The 7th century Shafi’i Faqeeh, Imam Nawawi, and other Muta’akhkhireen (latter-day) Fuqaha are clear on this fact. Since the whole clique of so-called Shafi’i scholars are completely dependent on bypassing the first 7 centuries of Islam, and then proceeding to misrepresent the words of Imam Nawawi for extracting their deviant ruling of permissibility for shaving the beard, they are all forced to concede this position. In short, whatever ruling we establish for the act of shaving the beard will also apply to the act of trimming.
2) Makrooh is either Tanzeeh, for which there is supposedly no condemnation or criticism, or it is categorically Haraam. In the context of the issue of the beard, there are no rulings in between. The claim of ALL the charlatans masquerading as Shafi’is in this age is that Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) emphatic and repeated exhortation to lengthen the beard is “merely a recommendation“, and hence the act of shaving is “only Makruh Tanzeeh“, which in their definition is an act that cannot be condemned.
The “Fatwas” of the so-called Shafi’i scholars of this age are replete with statements confirming the assertions above, thus dispensing the need for any substantiation on our part. Although we differ vehemently with the attitude of istikhfaaf (treating an aspect of the Deen lightly) these fraudsters display towards acts which are genuinely of the Makrooh Tanzeeh category, for the purposes of this article we shall not object to either of the two assertions above.
To re-iterate again, based on these two assertions upheld by the so-called “faqihs” of this age, if it can be demonstrated that according to the Shafi’i Mujtahideen the act of shaving can never be interpreted to be “only Makrooh Tanzeeh“, and the command to lengthen the beard can never be interpreted to be “merely a recommendation“, then it follows that trimming the beard any amount whatsoever can ONLY be categorically Haraam in the Shafi’i Madh-hab.
THE TABLE TO HAUNT THE CHARLATANS MASQUERADING AS “FAQIHS”
Hereunder is a table to haunt the whole clique of charlatans masquerading as Shafi’is in this age. We hope that at least a few of these fraudsters experience some pleasant nightmares featuring this table which exposes their true status. A scream or two of redemption would be well in order before, hopefully, an awakening of truth insha-Allah.
The table summarises the harsh words and descriptions employed by the Shafi’i Mujtahideen and early Fuqaha, in every age in the first 7 centuries, for the act of shaving, which makes it inconceivable that they regarded Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) command to lengthen the beard as “merely a recommendation“, and the Kuffaar practice of trimming or shaving as “only Makrooh Tanzeeh“.
The sincere reader, while browsing this table, will not be able to help but notice the complete conformity and agreement that existed on this simple issue which has been obfuscated and intentionally made ambiguous by those today who claim to follow the great Madh-hab of Imam Shafi’i.
We have dispensed with the biographies of the Mujtahideen and Fuqaha listed in the table since their Imaamat (leadership), rank and status in the field of Deeni knowledge are confirmed unanimously by all the scholars. The full statements of these illustrious authorities will follow after the table.
|NAME OF AUTHORITY||WORDS USED FOR THE ACT OF SHAVING THE BEARD|
|(1) IMAM SHAFI’I (Born 2nd Century AH):||Not permissible. (“La Yajooz” which is synonymous with Haraam in the terminology of Imam Shafi’i and the Mutaqaddimeen (early Fuqaha) in general).|
|(2) IMAM AL-QAFFAL (3rd Century AH):||Not permissible. (“La Yajooz” which is synonymous with Haraam in the language of the Mutaqaddimeen).|
|(3) IMAM AL-HALEEMI (4th Century AH)||Not permissible. ((“La Yahillu” which is synonymous with Haraam in the terminology of the Mutaqaddimeen). Disfigurement. Notoriety. Imitation of women. Akin to cutting off one’s penis.|
|(4) IMAM AL-KHATTABI (4th Century AH)||Shaving even only the cheeks is mutilation (“Muthlah” – which is categorically Haraam according to all Madh-habs).|
|(5) IMAM AL-MAWARDI (4th Century AH):||Not permissible (“La Yajooz” which is synonymous with Haraam in the terminology of the Mutaqaddimeen). Shaving even the cheeks is mutilation (“Muthlah”). Plucking some of the hairs of the beard is Taghyeer Khalqillah – tampering with Allah’s creation (which is Haraam according to all Madh-habs). Plucking the hairs from the beard is from the category of actions whose ruling does not vary with time, place and circumstances, and which causes one’s Shahaadat to become Mardood. The ruling on plucking the hairs of the beard which causes one’s Shahaadat to become Mardood has no relation with societal norm (Aadaat).|
|(6) IMAM ABU UBAYD AL-HARAWI (5th Century AH)||Shaving even only the cheeks is mutilation (“Muthlah” – which is Haraam according to all Madh-habs).|
|(7) IMAM RUWYAANI (5th Century AH)||Not permissible (“La Yajooz” which is synonymous with Haraam in the terminology of the Mutaqaddimeen). Shaving even the cheeks is mutilation (“Muthlah”). Plucking some of the hairs of the beard is Taghyeer Khalqillah – tampering with Allah’s creation (which is Haraam according to all Madh-habs). Plucking the hairs from the beard is from the category of actions whose ruling does not vary with time, place and circumstances, and which causes one’s Shahaadat to become Mardood. The ruling on plucking the hairs of the beard which causes one’s Shahaadat to become Mardood has no relation with societal norm (Aadaat).|
|(8) IMAM AL-GHAZALI (5th Century AH)||Shaving even when the hairs of the beard have barely started to grow is from the Major Transgressions of the Shariah (Munkaraat ul-Kibaar). By means of the beard Allah distinguishes men from women i.e. to shave is intrinsically and forever Tashabbuh bin Nisaa (which is Haraam). Even plucking a few hairs from the tuft of hair under the bottom lip causes one’s Shahaadat (testimony) to become Mardood (rejected).|
|(9) IMAM IBN AL-ATHEER (6th Century AH)||Shaving even only the cheeks is mutilation (“Muthlah” – which is Haraam according to all Madh-habs)|
|(10) ALLAMAH ABU SHAAMAH (6th Century AH)||Worse than Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar (which itself is Haraam according to all Madh-habs.)|
|(11) IMAM IBN JAREER TABARI (3rd Century AH)||Imam Tabari was an independent Mujtahid who was initially affiliated to the Shafi’i Madh-hab, and remained closely associated with it thereafter. He is listed here since Imam Nawawi and other Shafi’i authorities have cited him on many issues, including the issue of shaving the beard. Imam Tabari classes the act of even a woman shaving her abnormal beard as Haraam, describing it as Taghyeer Khalqillah – Haraam tampering of the creation of Allah. Not much brain cells are required to understand that according to him the act of a man shaving his beard is of a far greater degree of Haraam and a more severe degree of Taghyeer Khalqillah (Haraam tampering of the creation of Allah).|
|(12) IMAM NAWAWI (7th Century AH)||The next installment to this article will cover Imam Nawawi’s position in detail. In short, Imam Nawawi also makes it clear that shaving, which carries the same ruling as trimming, is Haraam. As part of the ten “Makrooh” acts Imam Nawawi transmits, in which are dyeing the beard black and plucking a few hairs of the beard both of which are categorically Haraam according to Imam Nawawi, he describes the act of shaving the beard – which involves a few more thousand hair strands than mere plucking – as the “most despicable” of the ten “Makrooh” acts. Imam Nawawi took on the task of sifting and doing Tarjeeh of the rulings of the Shafi’i Mujtahideen ONLY when they had differed significantly. As is evident from the complete conformity and agreement of the early Mujtahideen, Imam Nawawi had absolutely no sifting or Tarjeeh to do on the act of shaving itself. Hence, he utters not a single word in any of his numerous books in refutation or objection to the ruling of Hurmat as explicitly made clear by all of these earlier Mujtahideen including Imam Shafi’i himself. Imam Nawawi merely transmitted the “Makrooh” ruling of the earlier Mujtahideen whose use of the word “Makrooh” was used for Haraam, and whose explicitly harsh statements regarding the abomination of shaving the beard preclude even the slightest possibility that they meant Makruh Tanzeeh. The only “sifting” or Tarjeeh Imam Nawawi was left to do in regards to the beard was to refute Imam al-Ghazali’s isolated Ijtihaad that it is permissible to trim down to a fist-length – a position that conflicts with the rest of the Shafi’i Mujtahideen who regard any trimming whatsoever to carry the same ruling as shaving which according to them is mutilation, tampering with Allah’s creation, akin to chopping of one’s penis, from the Major Transgressions of the Shariah, imitation of the Kuffaar, imitation of women, a cause for one’s Shahaadat to become Mardood, etc.|
The full statements of these Mujtahideen and Fuqaha are as follows:
Imam Shafi’i (Rahmatullahi alayh) (d. 204H)
In his al-Umm, Imam Shafi’i, declares the Hurmat (prohibition) of shaving in unambiguous terms, while addressing another issue altogether:
“…and if it (i.e. shaving) is in regards to the beard, it is not permissible…”
وإن كان في اللحية لا يجوز
If any group possessed the right to override this explicit ruling of the Imam of the Madh-hab then it would have been exclusively the early Mujtahideen. But, all of them simply re-affirmed this ruling in no uncertain terms, employing, at times, the harshest of descriptions. Not a single ruling to the contrary exists from any of the Shafi’i Mujtahideen or early Fuqaha from at least the first 600 years of Islam. Furthermore, the complete absence of any objection, debate or even discussion on any possible difference of opinion on the Hurmat stated explicitly here by Imam Shafi’i and the other Mujtahideen, seals the Ijma’ (consensus) on this issue – an Ijma’ relayed explicitly by numerous authorities throughout the ages whom we shall cite in the conclusion to this article.
Allamah Abu Sulayman al-Khattabi (319 – 386H)
Allamah Khattabi’s ruling of “Karaaha” on the act of shaving the beard is of significance since, along with Imam al-Ghazali’s ruling of “Makrooh” (and also that of the Maliki authority, Qadhi Iyaadh, a contemporary Mutaqaddimeen), it was cited in the 7th Century AH by Imam Nawawi (rahmatullah alayh) whose transmission of the ruling of the earlier Mujtahideen was erroneously taken to mean Makrooh Tanzeeh by a few latter-day Shafi’i Fuqaha, who themselves conceded that the majority of the Shafi’i Fuqaha, even during their late age, considered the act of shaving or trimming to be Haraam. That even the majority of latter-day Shafi’i Fuqaha adopted the position of Hurmat (prohibition) will be demonstrated in detail in a subsequent instalment to this article.
Let us now establish, in a manner that leaves absolutely no room for doubt, the degree of Karaaha (reprehensibility) in which Allamah al-Khattabi viewed the act of shaving the beard. In his Ghareeb ul-Hadith, Allamah al-Khattabi narrates the following Hadith:
“Whoever mutilates his hair, then for him will be no share (of good fortune) from Allah on the Day of Judgement.”
من مثل بالشعر فليس له خلاق عند الله يوم القيامة
According to Allamah al-Khattabi, the primary application of this Hadith is:
“Mutilation of the hair is shaving it from the cheeks.”
مثلة الشعر حلقه في الخدود
Mutilation is Haraam according to all Four Madh-habs. In the context of the Hadith used as evidence by Allamah al-Khattabi, in which is contained the threat of eternal damnation, mutilation of the hair is of the highest degree of Haraam. Now when Allamah al-Khattabi regards shaving only the hair on the cheeks as Haraam mutilation, then not too many brain cells are required to understand the degree of Haraam mutilation involved in the act of shaving the whole face.
That mutilation is Haraam is even conceded by the whole glut of fraudster “Shafi’is” of this age, although some of these fraudsters attempt to circumvent the mutilation aspect by connecting it with Urf (societal norms). The Urf argument will be demolished later on insha-Allah.
For now, our purpose is served by demonstrating clearly that Allamah al-Khattabi regarded the act of shaving the cheeks as mutilation, hence his ruling of “Karaaha” in the context of shaving indicates the highest degree of Haraam – a ruling of “Karaahah” which Imam Nawawi faithfully transmitted many centuries later on.
Now that Allamah al-Khattabi’s ruling and attitude towards the act of shaving is clear, let us cite Imam Nawawi’s transmission of the statement of Allamah al-Khattabi which is deviously misrepresented by the “shafi’i” charlatans of this age:
“As for i’fa al-lihyah, it is to release it and make it plentiful. It has been made detestable for us (“kuriha”) that we trim it like the practice of some of the non-Arabs. And it was from the dress of the family of Khosrow to trim the beards and make the moustaches long, so he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) exhorted his ummah to oppose them in dress and form.”
وأما إعفاء اللحية فهو إرسالها وتوفيرها , كـُره لنا أن نقصها كفعل بعض الأعاجم , وكان زي آل كسرى قص اللحى وتوفير الشوارب , فندب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أمته إلى مخالفتهم في الزي والهيئ
Even from this text in which Allamah al-Khattabi mentions the issue of trimming in the context of the obligatory command to oppose the Kuffaar (i.e. the A’aajim), it is clear that the literal applications of the words “Karaaha” (reprehensibility) and “Nudb” (exhortation) are in the category of Haraam and Fard respectively. Now that we also have Allamah al-Khattabi’s unambiguous view on the Hurmat of shaving the cheeks there remains no doubt at all that his use of the word ” Karaahah” or “kuriha” in this context carries the meaning of Haraam, which is also completely in line with the terminology used for Haraam acts amongst the Mutaqaddimeen (early) scholars.
MAKROOH AND KARAAHAH
“Makrooh” and its derivatives such as “karaahah”, “akrahu”, and “kuriha” are words which were frequently used by the Mutaqaddimeen (early) scholars for acts that are categorically Haraam. They were used in the literal sense as employed in the following verse of the Qur’an after Allah Ta’ala mentions such grave transgressions as adultery and killing one’s own children:
“All of that (i.e. transgressions such as killing one’s children, adultery, etc.), their evil is ever in the sight of Allah, Makrooh.” [Surah 17:38]
Killing one’s own children, adultery, and all the other transgressions of the Shariah cited in the verses preceding the verse above, can never be Makrooh Tanzeeh. They are all Haraam.
The Shafi’i authority, Allamah Taj ud-Deen as-Subki, explaining the use of the term “Makrooh” in this sense by the early Fuqaha, states:
“Thus (Imam) Shafi’i says “I detest (akrahu) such and such”, he means Haraam (Tahreem), and this was the dominant usage (of this term) by the Mutaqaddimeen.” (al-Ibhaaj)
فيقول الشافعي أكره كذا وكذا ويريد التحريم وهو غالب إطلاق المتقدمين
Similarly, the Shafi’i authority on the Qur’an, Allamah Ibn Katheer, states in several places in his “al-Ahkaam ul-Kabeer”:
“The general intention of the Salaf by (the use of the term) “Karaahah” is Tahreem (Haraam).”
وغالب مراد السلف بالكراهة التحريم
This usage of the term Makrooh for Haraam was not restricted to the Mutaqaddimeen of only the Shafi’i Madh-hab. The Mutaqaddimeen of the other Madh-habs would also employ this terminology.
For example, Imam Abu Hanifah clarifies here what he means by the term Makrooh (akrahu):
“[Imam Abu Yusuf] said to Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah), “When you say regarding a thing, ‘I detest it (akrahu)’, what is your opinion regarding it?” He replied, “Tahreem”.
وقد روي أن أبا يوسف رحمه الله تعالى قال لأبي حنيفة رحمه الله: إذا قلتَ في شيء: “أكرهه”، فما رأيك فيه؟ قال: “التحريم”
Similarly, the Hanbali Faqeeh, Ibn ul-Najjaar, states regarding the frequent usage of Makrooh for Haraam by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and also the Mutaqaddimeen in general:
“And this (i.e. usage of Makrooh for Haraam) is frequent in the speech of Imam Ahmad and other than him from the Mutaqaddimeen.” (Sharh ul-Kawkab)
ويطلق ) المكروه ( على الحرام ) وهو كثير في كلام الإمام أحمد رضي الله تعالى عنه وغيره من المتقدمين
To end with one more, Allamah Ibn Arabi states that whenever Imam Malik’s Ijtihad would lead him to consider something Haraam, he would use the term “akrahu” (i.e. Makrooh). Furthermore, Imam Malik adopted such a usage from his own predecessors:
“That which (one’s) Ijtihaad leads to that it is Haraam, one would say, “Indeed I detest (akrahu) such and such.” (Imam) Malik would act like this, following those who preceded (him) from the Ahl ul-Fatwa (i.e. the Mujtahideen).”
وما يؤدي إليه الاجتهاد في أنه حرام، يقول: إني أكره كذا، وكذلك كان مالك يفعل؛ اقتداء بمن تقدم من أهل الفتوى
Thus, it is in this light that any use of the word “Makrooh” or “Karaahah” by the early scholars (Mutaqaddimeen) should be viewed. And, it is in this light that any verbatim transmission of the “Makrooh” ruling of the early Mujtahideen by later Fuqaha such as Imam Nawawi (rahmatullahi alayh) should be understood. Imam Nawawi only transmitted the ruling of Allamah al-Khattabi, Abu Taalib al-Makki, Imam al-Ghazali and Qadhi Iyaadh, all of whom are from the Mutaqaddimeen era, hence by default, their ruling of “Makrooh” or “Karaahah” in regards to shaving should be taken to mean Haraam. Furthermore, the words that all of them employ in regards to the act of shaving such as “mutilation”, “from the Major Trangressions of the Shariah”, and other similar descriptions are of such severity and harshness which preclude even the slightest possiblity that any of them intended Makrooh Tanzeeh, especially according to the charlatan Shafi’is of today since they all regard Makrooh Tanzeeh to be a category of action for which there cannot be even the slightest of condemnation.
From the fact that the act of shaving, or even lesser crimes such as plucking a few hairs, have been condemned severely in no uncertain terms by the other Shafi’i Mujtahideen too, with such terms as “mutilation”, “tampering with the creation of Allah”, “not permissible”, “akin to chopping of one’s penis”, “imitation of the Kuffaar”, “imitation of women”, “from the major transgressions of the Shariah” etc. it is manifestly clear that the “Karaahah” is of the highest degree of prohibition, and, in fact, of the same category as used in the verse of the Qur’an cited above.
Let us now revert back to the Hadith of Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) and Allamah al-Khattabi’s application of it on the act of shaving merely the cheeks, a ruling which was then approvingly quoted by other Shafi’i Mujtahideen in their authoritative books of Fiqh, whose citations are to come below. Allamah al-Khattabi mentions two other forms of mutilation to which the Hadith applies:
“Regarding mutilation of the hair there is another angle, and that is by it (i.e. mutilation) is intended plucking it, or changing it with black (dye).”
وفي مثلة الشعر وجه آخر وهو أن يكون أريد به نتفه أو تغييره بالسواد
Both the act of plucking the beard and dyeing the beard black are listed as part of the ten “Makrooh” acts described by both Imam al-Ghazali and Imam Nawawi. It is noteworthy that both of these “Makrooh” acts are known to be Haraam according to both Imam al-Ghazali and Imam Nawawi.
While Imam Nawawi listed the act of dyeing the beard black as one of the ten “Makrooh” acts, he states explicitly elsewhere in his commentary of Saheeh Muslim:
“And the Mukhtaar (chosen and adopted position of the Madh-hab) is Tahreem (Haraam) due to his (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) saying, “Avoid black (dye).” This is our Madh-hab.”
وَالْمُخْتَار التَّحْرِيم لِقَوْلِهِ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : ( وَاجْتَنِبُوا السَّوَاد ) هَذَا مَذْهَبنَا
Similarly, while Imam Nawawi mentions plucking the white hairs of the beard as one of the “Makrooh” acts, he makes clear elsewhere that it is, in fact, Haraam. In this regard, Allamah Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, states:
“Imam Nawawi gave Tarjeeh to its Tahreem because of the confirmation of zajar (severe reprimanding) against it.” (Fath ul-Bari)
ورجح النووي تحريمه لثبوت الزجر عنه
In Faydh ul-Qadeer, Allamah Munaawee states the well-known position of Imam Nawawi that both the acts of dyeing the beard black and plucking the white hairs are Haraam:
“… it (plucking white hairs) is in the category of dyeing (the beard or hair) with black as mentioned by Hujjat ul-Islam (Imam al-Ghazali). The demand of this is that the prohibition is (in the category) of Tahreem. Imam Nawawi opted for it (i.e. ruling of Haraam) due to the establishment of Zajar (severe censure) in a number of narrations.”
( نهى عن نتف الشيب ) من نحو لحية أو رأس لأنه نور ووقار والرغبة عنه رغبة عن النور ولأنه في معنى الخضاب بالسواد كذا ذكره حجة الإسلام وقضيته أن النهي للتحريم واختاره النووي لثبوت الزجر في عدة أخبار
Thus, Imam Nawawi makes explicitly clear that at least two of the “Makrooh” acts listed amongst the ten are categorically Haraam. Yet, Imam Nawawi brands the act of shaving even at the beginning of the growth of the beard when the hairs are often sparse and haphazard, as “from the most despicable” (من أقبحها) of the whole lot. And, how can it not be the “most despicable” of the ten acts when shaving involves the far more severe mutilation of thousands upon thousands of more hairs than the Haraam act of plucking or dyeing with black a few beard hairs?
We shall explore Imam Nawawi’s view in thorough detail, covering every possible angle, in the next installment to this article insha-Allah.
Allamah al-Khattabi’s application of the Hadith of Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) on the acts of shaving, plucking and dyeing the beard black, has been quoted approvingly by many of the Fuqaha in subsequent eras. We shall quote in this section at least five of the early Mujtahids and Fuqaha of the Shafi’i Madh-hab who have transmitted Allamah al-Khattabi’s ruling approvingly in their authoritative books of Fiqh and Hadith.
Imam Abu Bakr Al-Qaffaal ash-Shaashee (291 – 365H)
The peerless Mujtahid of the Shafi’i Madh-hab of his age, al-Qaffaal. states in his “Mahaasin ush-Sharee’ah” regarding the abomination of shaving the beard:
“It is not permissible to shave the beard.”
Qaadhi Abu Abdullah al-Haleemee (338 – 403H)
Imam al-Haleemee, in complete conformity with the ruling of the Imam of his Madh-hab, ash-Shafi’i, and also his teacher, al-Qaffal, states regarding the act of shaving the beard:
“It is not permissible for anyone to shave his beard.” (al-Minhaaj)
لا يحل لأحد أن يحلق لحيته
Al-Haleemee goes on to mention just a few reasons for the impermissibility:
“…since it (shaving the beard) is deformity, notoriety, and imitation of women. Thus, it is akin to cutting off the penis.”
فإنه هجنة وشهرة وتشبه بالنساء فهو كجب الذكر
THE SATANIC “URF” ARGUMENT
The few reasons which Imam al-Haleemi cites above are apt and suitable enough for demolishing the stupid “Urf” (societal norm) argument of the modernist liberals of this age. According to the principle-less “Deen” of the modernist liberals, if every man on Earth cuts off his penis, misusing the Hadith which permits circumcision as his basis for concluding that cutting in itself is not prohibited, and the “Urf” of mankind becomes as such, then such an act of depravity will no longer be classed as “deformity, notoriety, imitation of women, and akin to chopping off one’s beard.” But, even the most ignorant and intellectually deficient man is able to understand that this is an abominable perversion of the true Deen.
Exactly in the same manner do these modernist liberals misuse the Hadith which permits cutting the beard to a fist-length to justify a practice of “deformity, notoriety, imitation of women, and akin to chopping of one’s penis” adopted directly from the Majoos and other Kuffaar. In fact, mutilating one’s beard is worse since a whole array of explicit Nass (Hadiths) exist on its prohibition, whilst no such explicit Nass exist on the prohibition of going above and beyond the cutting that is involved in the Sunnah practice of circumcision.
The academic corruptness, bankruptcy and Nafsaani (bestial) opportunism of the so-called Shafi’is are further accentuated by the fact that even those Hadiths which permit trimming down to a fist-length are inadmissible as evidence according to the Usool of the Shafi’i Madh-hab as made clear by Imam Nawawi himself.
In respect to the Hurmat of Tashabbuh bin Nisaa (intentionally causing oneself to resemble women), Imam Nawawi states in his “Majmoo'” the ruling of the Shafi’i Madh-hab, which is also the ruling of the other Madh-habs:
“The Sawaab (correct view) is that Tashabbuh (resemblance) of men with women and vice versa is Haraam by virtue of the Hadith: ‘Allah curses those men who imitate women and those women who imitate men.”
It is easy to understand the self-evident fact that regardless of place, time, circumstances and societal norms, removing the beard will forever be Tashabbuh bin Nisaa – resemblance of women – which is categorically Haraam. Men of all times and places will always sprout beards, and women of all times and places will always fail miserably in sprouting beards. Rare exceptions do not affect the general rule. A few isolated instances of men growing breasts, and a few isolated instances of women failing to grow breasts, do not affect in the slightest the general rule of nature.
Let us dwell for a moment on the example just cited now, which is of a lesser category than mutilation of beard, since no explicit Nass exists on it. Even if every “Muslim” man in the world adopts from some perverted Kuffaar the practice of taking pills which causes the growth of huge breasts, and this subsequently becomes the “Urf” (societal norm) of mankind, then still such an act will remain classed as Tashabbuh bin Nisaa (resemblance of women), Muthlah (mutilation), Taghyeer Khalqillah (tampering with the creation of Allah), and “Ka Jubb uz-Zakar” (akin to chopping of one’s penis). The “Urf” of the whole of mankind, and the desensitization of the whole Mankind to such a perverted and Haraam act, can never ever transform it into one that is Makrooh Tanzeeh. Every person is able to understand this self-evident fact. Thus, to a greater extent, the “Urf” and desensitization of the whole of mankind towards the perverted practice of shaving the beard or trimming it Majoos-style to less than a fist-length for which explicit Nass exists on its prohibition, can never ever transform it into one that is Makrooh Tanzeeh.
Just as chopping off one’s penis, or artificially growing one’s breasts, will forever remain classed as Tashabbuh bin Nisaa, Muthlah, Taghyeer Khalqillah, etc. regardless of time, place, circumstances, or the prevalence of such abominations, so too to a greater extent, the rigidly routine, regimented, and pre-meditated habit of the general Muslim masses and so-called “scholars” of this age of persistently mutilating their manhood will forever be classed by the Shariah as amongst the greatest of transgressions of the Shariah.
Imam Abul Hasan al-Maawardee (364 – 450H)
Imam al-Mawardi’s al-Hawee al-Kabeer gained acceptance as one of the most authoritative books of Fiqh in the Shafi’i Madh-hab from the Mutaqaddimeen era. All the later Fuqaha rely heavily on this book. In three separate places in this book, Imam al-Mawardi makes clear explicitly the Hurmat (prohibition) of shaving the beard.
In the section on Ta’zeer (corporal punishment), Imam al-Mawardi states:
“It is not permissible to shave the hair of the beard.”
ولا يجوز أن يحلق شعر لحيته
In the list of acts which cause a person’s Shahaadat to become Mardood, he describes the act of plucking hair out of the beard as “Taghyeer Khalqillah” – changing the creation of Allah – which is Haraam:
“Due to this, plucking the beard is a (type of) idiocy which causes Shahaadat to become Mardood (rejected), and likewise dyeing the beard is a (type of) idiocy which causes [his] Shahaadat to become Mardood, due to what is in them of Taghyeer Khalqillah (tampering with the creation of Allah).”
ولذلك نتف اللحية من السفه الذي ترد به الشهادة، وكذلك خضاب اللحية من السفه التي ترد به الشهادة، لما فيها من تغيير خلق الله تعالى
Imam Mawardi mentions these two examples as actions which lead to not only one’s Shahaadat to become Mardood but also to Fisq. He explicitly states that they are from the category of actions whose villainy do not change with time, place and circumstances. The purport of Imam Mawardi’s statement above seems to indicate that it was only a moment of monumental stupidity that could have caused a man to pluck some hairs of his beard which he classed as Taghyeer Khalqillah and which would cause the man’s Shahaadat to become Mardood.
When plucking some hairs of the beard causes one’s Shahaadat to become Mardood, then what ruling would Imam Mawardi and the other Shafi’i Mujtahideen have issued regarding the pre-meditated, fully intentional, and persistent practice adopted by the so-called Shafi’i scholars of this age of shaving or trimming Majoos-style in rigorously routine fashion, which involves the mutilation of thousands of more hairs daily?
Imam Mawardi also relates the Hadith of Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) on mutilating the hair and the three valid applications of this Hadith as described by Allamah al-Khattabi previously:
“Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whoever mutilates the hair, for him there will be no share (of fortune) with Allah on the Day of Judgement.” In this there are three angles: The first is that mutilation is changing it with black (dye). The second is plucking it. The third is shaving the cheeks and other than it.”
قال: ” من مثل بالشعر فليس له خلاق عند الله يوم القيامة ” وفيه ثلاثة أوجه:
أحدها: أن مثلة الشعر تغييره بالسواد.
والثاني: أنه نتفه.
والثالث: أنه حلقه في الخدود وغيرها.
Again it is noteworthy that all three acts described above as mutilation are in the ten “Makrooh” acts listed by Imam al-Ghazali and Imam Nawawi. While both dyeing the beard black and plucking it is clearly Haraam according to the Shafi’i Madh-hab, as stated explicitly by Imam Nawawi, both Imam al-Ghazali and Imam Nawawi reserved the most threatening and harshest of descriptions for the act of shaving from all of the ten “Makrooh” acts.
Allamah Abu Ubayd al-Harawi (d. 401H)
Allamah Abu Ubayd al-Harawi, a student Allamah al-Khattabi, relays his teacher’s ruling as follows:
“Regarding the Hadith, “Whosoever mutilates the hair, for him will be no share (i.e. of good fortune and salvation) from Allah.” It is said: It (mutilation) is shaving it from the cheeks. And it is said: It (mutilation) is dyeing it with black.”
في الحديث: (من يمثل بالشعر فليس له خلاق عند الله) يقال: هو حلقه في الخدود ويقال: هو خضابه بالسواد.
Allamah Abdul Waahid Ruwyaani (410 – 502H)
In his Bahrul Math-hab, another authoritative book of Shafi’i Fiqh from the Mutaqaddimeen era, Imam Rooyaani approvingly reproduced from al-Hawee al-Kabeer all of the quotations which we have cited in the section on Imam al-Maawardi.
Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (450 – 505H)
In his Ihya, Imam al-Ghazali transmits in almost verbatim fashion the ten “Makrooh” acts related to the beard first listed in such a way by Abu Taalib al-Makki who was a contemporary of Allamah al-Khattabi. As demonstrated earlier, generally the term “Makrooh” was used to mean Haraam by the scholars of the Mutaqaddimeen era. This was the default meaning of the terms “Makrooh” and “Karaahah”, as explicitly stated by the Shafi’i Fuqaha themselves.
Amongst the ten “Makrooh” acts is dyeing the beard black which is categorically Haraam in the Shafi’i Madh-hab. Yet, Imam al-Ghazali reserves the harshest of descriptions and sternest of warnings for the act of plucking the few hairs of the beard which sprout out often sparsely and haphazardly at the beginning of its growth:
“As for plucking it at the beginning of its growth in resemblance to a beardless youth, then it is from the Major Transgressions of the Shari’ah (Munkaraat ul-Kibaar).”
وأما نتفها في أول النبات تشبها بالمرد فمن المنكرات الكبار
It is inconceivable that a Major Transgression of the Shari’ah can be Makrooh Tanzeeh. Hence, it can only be categorically Haraam.
It is also noteworthy that Imam Nawawi adds “reducing it (the beard) with the razor” (تخفيفها بالموس) to this category of act, and then brands this category as “from the most despicable” (من أقبحها) of the whole list of ten in which is included lesser acts which are categorically Haraam themselves – as demonstrated earlier- according to Imam Nawawi, such as dyeing the beard black, and plucking out a few white hairs.
Imam al-Ghazali proceeds to state that through the beard, Allah distinguishes men from women:
“And by it, men are distinguished from women.”
وبها يتميز الرجال عن النساء
That is, regardless of place, time, circumstances and societal norms (Urf), removing the beard is intrinsically and forever Tashabbuh bin Nisaa – resemblance of women – which is categorically Haraam.
Even plucking a few hairs from the sides of the small tuft of hair below the lips has been classed as an evil Bid’ah by Imam al-Ghazali, and one that causes one’s Shahaadat (testimony) to become Mardood (rejected):
“Plucking the faneekayn is Bid’ah and they are on the sides of the ‘anfaqah. A man who would pluck the Faneekayn gave testimony in front of Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, and he rejected his testimony. Umar bin al-Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu) and Ibn Abee Layla, the Qadhi of Madinah, would reject the testimony of one who plucks the hairs of his beard.”
ونتف الفنيكين بدعة وهما جانبا العنفقة
شهد عند عمر بن عبد العزيز رجل كان ينتف فنيكيه فرد شهادته ورد عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه وابن أبي ليلى قاضي المدينة شهادة من كان ينتف لحيته
Such a “Makrooh” act which is classed as an evil Bid’ah and which causes one’s Shahaadat to become Mardood can never be of the Tanzeeh category, even according to the principle-less “Deen” of the fraudsters masquerading as Shafi’is. Thus, one can readily understand the degree of Hurmat (prohibition), Muthlah (mutilation), and Taghyeer Khalqillah (tampering with the creation of Allah) that is involved in the act of shaving the whole beard which involves thousands of more hairs than plucking a few hairs of the Faneekayn.
Imam al-Ghazali also relates the following narration which is an accurate description of those today who sport the Kuffaar “goatee” style of beard:
“Ka’b and Abu Jald described that in the last times there will be a nation who will cut their beards (so that it appears) like the tails of pigeons… They will have no share (of fortune in the Akhirah).”
Signs of the Last Day, and acts which cause one’s eternal damnation are never of the Makrooh Tanzeeh category. They are all categorically Haraam. No matter which angle one looks at Imam al-Ghazali’s statements, it is not possible in any way to interpret his “Makrooh” ruling on such acts which are of a far lesser category than shaving, as Tanzeeh. Thus, it follows that for the far more abominable act of shaving the whole beard off, Imam al-Ghazali’s ruling will be more severe than just a “Major Transgression of the Shariah” (Munkaraat ul-Kibaar), or an “Evil Bid’ah” or a “Cause of Mardood ush-Shahaadat”, hence of the greatest degree of Hurmat.
TWO RELEVANT RULINGS TRANSMITTED BY CONSENSUS
Before proceeding to relate the statements of the next scholar, we will take the opportunity to quote Imam al-Ghazali on two other issues which expose further the charlatan status of all these fraudulent so-called Shafi’is and also their like-minded sisters – Shayaateen ul-Ins – who, in similar manner, masquerade as followers of the other three Madh-habs.
Vultures of a feather flock together. All of these charlatans who masquerade as representatives of the Four authentic Madh-habs, accredit each other. They sing each other’s praises. They mutilate, distort and misrepresent the Madh-hab they claim to affiliate themselves to. Then they tickle, tittilate and scratch each other’s filthy underbellies, and invite each other to jump into one’s own mutilated and innovated Madh-hab, and partake of the fabricated rulings which they themselves have manufactured in precise conformity with all their base desires.
Hence, many are the “scholars” of this age who, in order to dupe the brain-dead masses and justify their pig-skinned and bare-faced status and lies, claim to have adopted the fraudulent so-called Shafi’i position on shaving the beard. For many years now these charlatans have been responsible for spreading the grave misconception that the Shafi’i Madh-hab is the open refuge for all those who wish to mutilate it and their beards.
Now, that we’ve established in a manner that leaves not the slightest ambiguity, that the Shafi’i Mujtahideen – which IS the Shafi’i Madh-hab – are unanimous in vehemently condemning the act of shaving or trimming, these charlatans will most likely attempt to find refuge in another Madh-hab in an attempt to disfigure and mutilate it, in order to extravasate Deeni sanction for disfiguring and mutilating their own bodies entrusted to them by Allah Ta’ala. We shall turn our attention to the other three Madh-habs and the absolute Ijma’ (consensus) on the prohibition of trimming down to less than a fist-length, in a future article insha-Allah.
On the issue of hopping between Madh-habs, as is the Shi’aar (salient distinguishing feature) of all of these charlatans, Imam al-Ghazali relates Ijma’ on its prohibition. In his Ihya, he explicitly states that “none of the scholars” opined that it is permissible to adopt a Madh-hab other than the one he has selected, and that it is “incumbent on every muqallid to, follow his Imam in every detail”. Imam al-Ghazali then adds:
“…his opposing the Imam (i.e. opposing his Madh-hab on a specific issue) is by agreement (i.e. Ijma’) of the scholars a transgression of the Shariah (Munkar), and he is sinful in opposing.”
لم يذهب أحد من المحصلين إلى أن المجتهد يجوز له أن يعمل بموجب اجتهاد غيره ولا أن الذي أدى اجتهاده في التقليد إلى شخص رآه أفضل العلماء أن له أن يأخذ بمذهب غيره فينتقد من المذاهب أطيبها عنده بل على كل مقلد اتباع مقلده في كل تفصيل فإذن مخالفته للمقلد متفق على كونه منكرا بين المحصلين وهو عاص بالمخالفة
Tens of thousands of righteous scholars still existed during the era of Imam al-Ghazali. It is not possible for Imam al-Ghazali, or Qadhi Iyadh, or Imam Shahrastani, or Imam Maaziri, and other reliable authorities who have related the same, to have hallucinated such an Ijma’.
Another Ijma’ (consensus) corroborated by numerous other authorities is the following one related by Imam al-Ghazali, in which he explains the necessity of belittling and disparaging all these charlatans who drag countless people with them into the depths of Jahannum:
“The ways of the Salaf-us-Saaliheen (radhiyallahu anhum) would differ in expressing hatred for the sake of Allah towards the perpetrators of sins (i.e. private sins which do not affect or influence others). However, ALL of them reached consensus on expressing hatred for the oppressors and innovators, and all who disobeyed Allah with a sin that extends from himself to others…”
وكلهم اتفقوا على إظهار البغض للظلمة و المبتدعة وكل من عصى الله بمعصية متعدية منه إلى غيره
Imam al-Ghazali explains why the issue of condemning these charlatans who misguide the masses is more severe than it is for the Kuffaar:
“…the matter in condemning him is more severe than it is for a Kaafir, because the evil of a Kaafir does not extend [beyond himself] as Muslims believe he is a Kaafir so will pay no attention to his speech as he makes no claim for himself of being a Muslim and believing the truth. As for the innovator who propagates his innovation, and claims what he calls to is true, he is a cause for the misguidance of people, and thus his evil does extend [beyond himself]..”
في الإنكار عليه أشد منه على الكافر لأن شر الكافر غير متعد فإن المسلمين اعتقدوا كفره فلا يلتفتون إلى قوله إذ لا يدعى لنفسه الإسلام واعتقاد الحق أما المبتدع الذي يدعوا إلا البدعة ويزعم أن ما يدعو إليه حق فهو سبب لغواية الخلق فشره متعد
Hence, the Shariah demands exposing, belittling and disparaging such charlatans:
“Thus the desirability of expressing hatred of him, hostility towards him, disassociation from him and belittling him, and disparaging him for his innovation, and driving people away from him, is greater.”
فالاستحباب في إظهار بغضه ومعاداته والانقطاع عنه وتحقيره والتشنيع عليه ببدعته وتنفير الناس عنه أشد
All of these liberal modernists who fraudulently claim affiliation to our tradition invariably tend to find such a tenet, entrenched permanently in the Shariah by Ijma’ (consensus), extremely unpalatable. Moronic and far-fetched reasonings are generally proffered by these liberals in order to circumvent or water down this important tenet of the Deen which serves as a vital vanguard to protect the Ummah from satanic infiltration. More commonly, this tenet of the Shariah is generally received with a deafening silence, since these liberal modernists themselves form an integral cog in Shaytan’s scheme of infiltration.
In reality, the slogan of “tolerance” and “unity” trumpeted by these liberal modernists are but deceptive canards. Their tolerance is restricted to only their own kind. Their idea of unity precludes unity with the Haqq. They bear the greatest of intolerance to the Haqq. Take the example of shaving the beard and the “tolerance” of such liberals for the view that shaving is “mutilation”, “akin to chopping off one’s penis”, “imitation of the Kuffaar”, “imitation of women”, “a huge transgression of the Shari’ah”, “plucking a few hairs causes one’s Shahaadat to become Mardood”, etc. etc. and other similarly harsh descriptions from the Mujtahideen of all Four Madh-habs which are ALL in complete conformity with each other on the Hurmat and evil of such an abomination. Or take the “tolerance” of such liberals for the the view that leaving one’s Madh-hab is a Munkar (transgression of the Shariah) – a view upon which Ijma’ was enacted as transmitted and corroborated explicitly by the likes of Imam al-Ghazali, Allamah Sama’aani, Allamah Shirazi, Qadhi Husayn, Qadhi Iyadh, Imam Shahrastani, Imam Maziri, and other undeniably reliable authorities of the Mutaqaddimeen era, whose awareness of valid or invalid ikhtilaaf spanned the entire Ummah.
While exhibiting extreme tolerance for every conceivable Shaytaniyaat, these fraudsters harbour extreme intolerance for the Haqq as represented by all of these Mujtahideen and early Fuqaha. While their filthy tongues maintain complete silence over the world of filth, not infrequently do words slip out of their wagging tongues which provide a revealing glimpse into the extreme hatred and intolerance for the Haqq nurtured and harboured in their terminally diseased hearts.
Allamah Ibn ul-Atheer (544 – 606)
In his Nihaayah fee Ghareeb ul-Hadeeth wal-Aathar, the peerless Muhaddith of his era, Allamah Ibn ul-Atheer, re-iterates Allamah al-Khattabi’s ruling on shaving the cheeks:
“Mutilation of the hair is shaving it from the cheeks. And, it is said (also): plucking it or changing it with black (dye)”
Allamah Abu Shaamah (599 – 665H)
Allamah Abu Shaamah’s statement was cited earlier in the introduction. Allamah Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, in his Fath ul-Baari, quotes him as follows:
“A people (group of Muslims) have just come into existence who shave their beards, and this is more severe than what was related from the Majoos that they would (only) trim their beards (i.e. to less than a fist-length).”
IJMA’ (CONSENSUS) THAT SHAVING IS HARAAM MUTILATION
The complete absence of any discussion, debate, or objection to the explicit rulings of Hurmat stated by Imam Shafi’i and all the Shafi’i Mujtahideen cited here, by any Shafi’i Fuqaha from the greatest period of this Ummah is a proof that the Shafi’i Madh-hab is completely in line with the Ijma’ (consensus) on this issue. From the fact that even shaving the cheeks is classed as Haraam mutiliation by the Shafi’i Mujtahideen, one can understand the degree of Haraam mutilation that is involved in the act of shaving the whole face.
Imam Ibn Hazm (384 – 456H) transmitting a clear-cut Ijma’ on this self-evident fact, states in his authoritative book dedicated to recording the rulings upon which there exists a clear consensus:
“They have reached consensus that shaving the beard is mutilation that is not permissible.”
واتفقوا أن حلق جميع اللحية مثلة لا يجوز
The Maliki scholar Allamah Abul Hasan ibn al-Qattaan (d. 628H) also records this fact in his own work on Ijma’:
“They have reached consensus that shaving the beard is mutilation that is not permissible.”
واتفقوا أن حلق جميع اللحية مثلة لا يجوز
The Hanbali scholar, Ibn Muflih, transmits this Ijma’ from Imam Ibn Hazm as follows, confirming and approving the Wujoob of lengthening the beard:
“Ibn Hazm stated consensus (Ijma’) that clipping the moustache and lengthening the beard is obligatory (Fard).” (al-Iqnaa’ fee Masaa-il ul-Ijmaa’)
وذكر ابن حزم الإجماع أن قص الشارب وإعفاء اللحية فرض
The Maliki scholar, Allamah Nafrawi (d. 1126H), states that this is the consensus of all of the Aimmah (i.e. the Mujtahideen of the Four Madh-habs):
“Thus, the practice of the army in our times of instructing its personnel to shave their beards and leave their moustaches is undoubtedly Haraam according to all the Aimmah for it is in defiance of the Sunnah of Mustafa (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and furthermore it is in accord with the practice of the non-Arabs and the Majoos.”
The Hanbali scholar, Allamah Safaraani, transmits the ruling of the earlier Fuqaha that no difference of opinion exists on the Hurmat of shaving:
“In al-Furoo’ it is stated: ‘It is Haraam to shave it. Our Shaikh mentioned it.” It has been mentioned in al-Insaaf without recording any difference on the matter.”
قَالَ فِي الْفُرُوعِ: وَيَحْرُمُ حَلْقُهَا ذَكَرَهُ شَيْخُنَا. انْتَهَى. وَذَكَرَهُ فِي الْإِنْصَافِ وَلَمْ يَحْكِ فِيهِ خِلَافًا.
The Hanafi authority of the 9th century, Allamah Ibn al-Humam, also explicitly upholds this Ijma’, and states that NONE had ever permitted trimming to less than a fist-length which was a practice exclusive to some westerners and bisexuals.
“As for taking from it (i.e. the beard) when it is less than that (i.e. a fist-length), as some westerners and effeminate men do, none have permitted it, and taking all of it is the practice of the Jews of India and the Zoroastrians of the non-Arabs.”
وأما الأخذ منها وهي دون ذلك كما يفعله بعض المغاربة ومخنثة الرجال فلم يبحه أحد وأخذ كلها فعل يهود الهند ومجوس الأعاجم
The statement cited above that no one has ever permitted trimming to less than a fist-length was re-iterated and reproduced approvingly by Allamah Ibn Nujaym of the 10th Century, Allamah al-Shurunbulaali and Allamah al-Haskafi of the 11th Century, and Allamah Ibn Aabideen even as late as the 13th Century.
All of the scholars cited above who transmitted this Ijma’ had innumerable teachers, associates, and students from all Four Madh-habs. Yet, they were completely unaware of the so-called Shafi’i acceptability of shaving and trimming propagated by the Shafi’i charlatans of this age. They were completely unaware of the so-called Hanafi acceptability of trimming Majoos-style propagated by the Hanafi charlatans of this age. They were completely unaware of the so-called Maliki acceptability of trimming Majoos-style propagated by the fraudulent Malikis of this age. And, they were completely unaware of the so-called Hanbali acceptability of trimming Majoos-style propagated by the fraudulent Hanbalis of this age.
Where on Earth or Hell were all those Hanafis, Malikis, Shafi’is, and Hanbalis upholding or “reviving” this so-called acceptability of trimming Majoos-style which was condemned by none other Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself? What would they have said regarding all those bisexual perverts and their bosom buddies today who are masquerading as “scholars” of the Four Madh-habs, and who intentionally and knowingly commit the crime of Istihlaal (Halaalizing Haraam) which is an infinitely worse act than the accursed act of shaving itself?
Amongst the Muslims, shaving used to be almost exclusively the practice of the hermaphrodites, who might have been born with both male and female organs. However, those who are born as sound males but insist on intentionally shaving their manhood off, or chopping off their penis, or artificially growing breasts, can justifiably be branded as bisexual perverts.
We have already expounded on and exposed the stupidity of the Usool (principle) of the bisexual pervert “scholars” of today whose “Deen” dictates that if a sufficient number of their pervert Mureeds adopt a fast-growing “Urf” (societal norm) of cutting off their penis or artificially growing women-like breasts, then eventually such acts would no longer be classed as Muthlah (mutiliation), Taghyeer Khalqillah (tampering with the creation of Allah), or Tashabbuh bin Nisaa (resemblance with women). According to their Usool the widespread prevalence of huge women-like breasts on male bodies would result in their being eventually classed as Islamically valid male-breasts. But, even a child is able to understand that such an Usool is a satanically evil one and a complete perversion of the true Deen.
Only a few genuine Shafi’i authorities from the Muta-akhkhireen era, who themselves accepted that they are the minority, had committed the grave error of opposing the complete Ijma’ of all the early Shafi’i authorities, based on a misunderstanding of Imam Nawawi’s transmission of the “Makrooh” ruling of those early authorities. The view of a minority of scholars from the Muta’akhkhireen era which conflicts with an earlier Ijma’ transmitted by numerous authorities throughout the ages effects absolutely no dent on that Ijma’. Such errors fall in the category of the following grave threat issued by the Salaf and re-iterated throughout the ages by the Fuqaha:
“Whosoever adopts the Nawaadir (fringe opinions) of the Ulama, makes his exit from Islam!”
من أخذ بنوادر العلماء خرج من الإسلام
And indeed, commiting Istihlaal (making Halaal what is Haraam) based on the Nawaadir (fringe opinions) of some latter-day Ulama endangers one’s Imaan and can cause a person to exit from Islam without the person even being aware of the abyss of eternal doom he has just plunged himself into. The crime of Istihlaal is, in fact, INFINITELY worse than the sinful act itself. One who listens to music, for example, while believing it to be Haraam, remains a Muslim albeit a terribly sinful one. However, one who commits the same act while believing it to be Halaal based on the errors of a few righteous Ulama, hovers on the brink of Kufr or may even have made his exit from Islam.
In order to illustrate the rationale behind this grave threat issued by the Salaf, and the villainy and depravity of those who persist in following the fringe opinions of a minority of latter-day Fuqaha, let us cite the error of Allamah Ramli of the 10th Century, who is a latter-day scholar whom the charlatan so-called Shafi’is of this age raise to a rank above that of Imam Shafi’i, and above that of all the Mujtahideen of the Four Madh-habs, who all constitute the clear-cut Ijma’ on the Hurmat of shaving.
Allamah Ramli states in regards to the act of shaving and plucking the beard:
“Shaving the beard of a man and plucking it is Makrooh, not Haraam. The statement of al-Haleemi in his Minhaaj: “It is not permissible for anyone to shave his beard or his eyebrows.” is weak.”
For righteous authorities of the past who commit such grave errors as the one above, the Shar’iah obliges us to adopt Husn-e-Zann in order to exonerate them. It is obvious from the statement above that, other than the view of al-Haleemi, Allamah Ramli was unaware of the view of all the other Shafi’i Mujtahideen whose vehement condemnation of the act of shaving which are all in complete conformity with each other, and also in complete conformity with the Ijma’ of the other three Madh-habs, leave no doubt whatsoever that the act of shaving could ONLY have been Haraam according to them. For, if he was truly aware, his statement would read like the following ridiculously Baatil one:
“Shaving the beard of a man and plucking it is Makrooh, not Haraam.
The statement of al-Haleemi in his Minhaaj: “It is not permissible for anyone to shave his beard or his eyebrows.” is weak.
The statement of Imam Shafi’i in his al-Umm: “It is not permissible to shave the beard.” is also weak.
The statement of al-Qaffal: “It is not permissible to shave the beard.” is also weak.
The statement of al-Khattabi: “Shaving the cheeks is mutilation.” is also weak.
The statement of al-Harawi: “Shaving the cheeks is mutilation” is also weak.
The statements of al-Mawardi: “It is not permissible to shave the beard”, and “Shaving the cheeks is mutilation”, and “Plucking some hairs from the beard is an idiocy which causes one’s Shahaadat to become Mardood” are all also weak
The statements of Ruwyaani: “It is not permissible to shave the beard”, and “Shaving the cheeks is mutilation”, and “Plucking some hairs from the beard is an idiocy which causes one’s Shahaadat to become Mardood” are all also weak
The statements of al-Ghazali: “Plucking the beard at the beginning of its growth is from the major transgressions of the Shari’ah”, and “By means of the beard Allah distinguishes men from women” and, “Plucking some hairs from the tuft of hair under the bottom lip causes one’s Shahaadat to become Mardood” are all also weak.
The statement of Ibn ul-Atheer: “Shaving the cheeks is mutilation” is weak.
The statement of Abu Shaamah: “This (shaving) is worse that what was related from the Majoos” is weak.”
The Husn-e-Zann that the Shari’ah commands us to adopt for the pious personalities of the past, obliges us to believe that Allamah Ramli was simply unaware of the views of the Shafi’i Mujtahideen stated above. Never would a personality such as Allamah Ramli, or Allamah Ibn Hajar Haytami, have the audacity to utter or to harbour in the heart, such a ridiculously Baatil view as the one above. Such pious and genuine authorities would have submitted instantly and wholeheartedly to the truth if they had been fully apprized of the views of all the Shafi’i Mujtahideen, and fully apprized of their error in misunderstanding Imam Nawawi’s almost verbatim transmission of the “Makrooh” ruling of the earlier Mujtahideen who all clearly intended by it the meaning of Haraam.
However, the very same Husn-e-Zann cannot be extended to the charlatan “scholars” of this age who legalize such acts as shaving, listening to music, Christmas and birthday celebrations of the Prophets (alayhis salaam) etc. based on the errors of some Ulama in the past. And, we are certain that the vast majority of those charlatans, and also the blind-followers of those charlatans and of their lusts, will prove the correctness of and vindicate the prohibition of extending Husn-e-Zann to their ilk, by persisting in clinging desperately onto the fringe view of a few Ulama from the Muta-akhkhireen era, despite being fully apprized now of the Ijma’ of all the Shafi’i Mujtahideen who alone constitute the Madh-hab which the latter-day Ulama were simply tasked with transmitting authentically.
Confirming the fringe status of his own erroneous view even as late as the 10th century, Allamah Ibn Hajar al-Haytami states:
“And it’s apparent (meaning) [i.e. referring to al-Mawardi’s view] is the Hurmat of shaving it. And this is based on its Hurmat upon which (view) is the MAJORITY of the Muta-akhkhireen.”
وظاهره حرمة حلقها وهو إنما يجيء على حرمته التي عليها أكثر المتأخرين
It is only natural, and completely in accordance with the prophecies of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), that such fringe and minority errors of the righteous Ulama of the past will become the so-called majority view during these worst of ages in close proximity to the Final Hour. The majority view in an age regarding which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) explicitly stated that the Haqq and its upholders will become Ghareeb (strange, lone, forlorn) does not alter in the slightest the fringe status of such errors which only began to gain traction during the Muta-akhkhireen era.
Those who knowingly commit ‘Kufr’ (rejection) of the view of Imam Shafi’i, Kufr of the view of Allamah al-Qaffal, Kufr of the view of Allamah al-Haleemi, Kufr of the view of Allamah al-Khattabi, Kufr of the view of Allamah al-Harawi, Kufr of the view of Allamah al-Mawardi, Kufr of the view of Allamah Ruywaani, Kufr of the view of Imam al-Ghazali, Kufr of the Ijma’ of the other three Madh-habs also, and proceed satanically to instead leech onto the fringe view of a minority of latter-day Ulama whose error and conflict with the earlier Mujtahideen have become manifest, are indeed likely of having committed Kufr of Islam itself. It is in this sense that the Salaf had issued the grave threat quoted above which the Fuqaha have re-iterated throughout the ages.
All of such people who intransigently persist in following that which conveniently conforms with their bestial inclinations fall under the purview of Allah Ta’ala’s severe reprimand of the Muslims of Bani Israeel for following the errors of their senior “Shaykhs”, “Maulanas”, and “Muftis”:
“They take their ahbaar (molvis) and ruhbaan (shaykhs) as gods besides Allah…”.
Says Rasulullah (sallallahu alayh wasallam) in explanation of the grave Shirk committed by the Muslims of Bani Israeel, and as an everlasting admonition for this Ummah:
“When they (i.e. senior “Muftis” and “Shaykhs”) Halaalized something for them, they (i.e. the Muslim masses) considered it Halaal…”