[hasasnn2345tv]

Brother I will ask you directly, do you have a full, fist length beard?

I do (it has actually gotten a little bit longer than a fist length...) but again, this is completely besides the point. If a brother without a beard objects to a scholar who doesn't have a beard, he has every right to because he is looking at the scholar for Islamic knowledge and him practicing upon the knowledge he has.

There are many sunnahs that I sometimes forget to do myself, such as reciting the du'a after waking up or drinking water in three breaths and countless others that I have heard of but forget to put into practice. But, if I found a shaykh who would habitually omit all these "little" things, it would raise some alarms in my head and I would probably avoid him since my imaan is too weak and frail - and I'd want someone who makes no compromises with the sunnah to be my guide.

When you as a jaahil see a scholar doing something that you don't understand, the correct course of action for you is to ask the scholar why he is doing that. If he is following a valid opinion, then what are you, a jaahil, doing speaking about? The difference between an everyday layman being lax on the sunnah is understandable and thus it would be jaahil of me to rebuke him because I know that differences of opinion exist. But, if a scholar is taking the easy way out, we have every right to warn others about such a thing - even if ikhtilaaf exists. That is because there is certainty on a full beard being sunnah but there is doubt about the short beard or the trimmed beard. It is not something restricted to the Hanafi madhhab, though. All the madhahib recommend that the ideal beard is one that is left alone. What they specify as the mandatory or the required beard is where the difference of opinion exists. Amongst the Shafi'is, even stubble fulfills the requirement of a beard but it is still not the sunnah beard - how can anyone say that Rasoolullah or the sahaba had stubble on their faces only?

The point is this, when there is valid ikhtilaaf, why are you saying that it is a doubtful matter? Should a Hanafi make wudu if they touch a member of the opposite sex then? I believe all the other three mathahib say that one should, so would it not be better for a Hanafi to do this when it comes to something so essential? This is a completely different issue since both are evidenced from the sunnah - that one may still have wudhu after touching a woman or one may not. The same goes for other issues, such as the second sajdah of surah al-Hajj. There is proof from the sunnah for both sides of the issue and thus both sides can be followed as even the sahaba differed on this. On the other hand, the beard and various other sunnahs are confirmed and there do not exist any doubts about them. None of the ulama of the past or present have claimed that Rasoolullah had a short beard or that he trimmed it to a short length or shaved. The only evidence we have mentions only lengthening of the beard and we see confirmation of this command amongst the sahaba . We don't hear of sahaba ever shaving or cutting off their beards to less than a fist length.

Just because you or certain ulama have doubts about certain things, this does not mean everyone who practices those certain things have doubts. The could be fully convicted as to the validity of the opinion they are following because of proofs that the others are not aware of. Better to ask the scholar if you are concerned about such doubtful things, as I am sure talking behind someone's should be considered doubtful by most (but then there are those who will make some excuse for this). I am not talking about any specific scholar. I don't even know the shaykh that this thread was started about. I am talking in general terms only. Furthermore, talking behind someone's back would entail talking about something that would normally be hidden, not something that is there for all to see. If a person does something unashamedly in public, it is not considered backbiting to warn against such a person. When it comes to where we seek knowledge from, the criteria is even more strict since our imaan is on the line.

Would any of us trust someone with our deen if that person wears silk or gold or partakes in riba or promotes anti-Islamic ideologies? Or even if one promotes minority opinions to accommodate for himself? A spiritual teacher has to be held to the strictest of standards because you're trusting this shaykh with the development of your imaan.

Also, I know of a few people that practice their deen in such a way that even though they are Hanafi, they do certain things so that all the madhahib are satisfied. For example, saying the tasmiyah before wudhu is compulsory in the Hanbali madhhab and these brothers have made it a point to say it before every wudhu, even though it is not obligatory upon them in the Hanafi madhhab. Even the knowledge that touching one's private parts can break one's wudhu for some non-Hanafis has been incorporated, in that once wudhu is made, a conscientious effort is made to not touch the private parts even by mistake or when one has finished performing ghusl. There are some things that you'll find amongst even the lay Hanafis, such as considering the entirety of the dog to be impure, including its hair - when only the saliva is considered impure. Of course in some issues, not all the madhahib can be satisfied since there is a clear difference but derived from the sunnah, such as saying "aameen" loudly or reciting al-Faatiha+surah behind the imam - in which case the adopted madhhab (Hanafi) is strictly adhered to in opposition to the other madhahib.