[hasasnn2345tv]

How is keeping a short beard disobeying the command of the Prophet salallahu alaihi wa salim? The brother Rifai is trying to point out that there is fiqhi ikhtilaaf among the ulama as to what constitues having a shari beard. Some ulama said not to trim it at all and to leave it, other ulama said to leave grow without trimming it was makruh, some ulama said that the beard could be trimmed to a fist length, some said it should be trimmed to a fist length, some said the fist starts under the chin, some said the fist includes the chin, there are even various definitions as to what facial hair is considered the lihya, etc. This is not just a simple issue as everyone always tries to make everything in the deen, ulama have discussed this and various ulama should be consulted as to what their proofs are. Why not contact Shaikh Babikr rather than discuss him behind his back?

Also I really hope all the people criticizing the esteemed Shaikh's beard all have beards and full length ones at that, otherwise, they would be really shameless.

The point that is being made here is that a Sufi master should not choose the side of doubtfulness and ikhtilaaf over the side of caution. So, even if there are differences of opinion on the matter, there is no difference of opinion on a full beard being sunnah. The differences only exist for the minimum required length, whether it be stubble or a fist length, while there are no differences of opinion on fist length and beyond.

If we go to a restaurant and there is doubt about whether the food is halal or not, we would always err on the side of caution (hopefully...) and not eat the food. Why can we not do the same when it comes to everything else and "err" on the side of caution? We always err on the side of caution when it comes to our health and our wealth but we always say that there is ikhtilaaf on matters of deen and then err on the side that may or may not be contrary to the deen. Since there is ikhtilaaf, there is just as much a chance that it may be sinful as it may be permissible but then, you see the dichotomy that is created? Permissible vs sinful. It isn't beneficial/mustahabb/sunnah to have a short beard but it may be sinful. Shouldn't we try to avoid the possibility of sinning if we're going to be teachers and helpers to others in the path of deen? If you know for certain that a certain Hanafi shaykh regularly delays his Dhuhr salaah to such an extent that it is 'Asr time according to the other madhahib but still Dhuhr in the Hanafi madhhab, would you go to such a person for spiritual betterment (and let's not even mention that he isn't at the masjid during jama'ah times)? Even then, it is a lot easier to find excuses for such a person than a person who cuts the beard.

I remember when there was a big program in my city a few years ago, with many amazing ulama who came from around the world to give lectures. There were thousands of people who showed up to listen. During the question and answer session, someone noticed that the ulama were not drinking water in three breaths so he wrote down his observation and sent it up. The ulama did not respond by saying that it is the internal aspect that is more important than the external or that it is the intention that matters - they admitted that they had forgotten and did not repeat this - despite the fact that it isn't makrooh or haraam to not drink in three breaths/sips. The ulama are held to a much higher standard. When you ask people like myself who aren't laymen about the length of our beards when we discuss this issue, you should realize that we are not ulama. Even if we may or may not have sunnah beards or sunnah clothing, people do not look up to us for spiritual guidance since we are jaahil. No one says that fulaan shaves regularly so it must be okay or that fulaan listens to music so it must be okay - but when they see a scholar, someone who has 'ilm engaging in these things, then they become "excuses" by the laymen when they want to do the same thing. I am happy to say that I'm a jaahil when it comes to telling laypeople anything about Islam since I don't know any better, but the ulama are the standard bearers of Islam and should be as close to Rasoolullah in their emulation of him as possible.

[km2000]

The point that is being made here is that a Sufi master should not choose the side of doubtfulness and ikhtilaaf over the side of caution. So, even if there are differences of opinion on the matter, there is no difference of opinion on a full beard being sunnah. The differences only exist for the minimum required length, whether it be stubble or a fist length, while there are no differences of opinion on fist length and beyond.

If we go to a restaurant and there is doubt about whether the food is halal or not, we would always err on the side of caution (hopefully...) and not eat the food. Why can we not do the same when it comes to everything else and "err" on the side of caution? We always err on the side of caution when it comes to our health and our wealth but we always say that there is ikhtilaaf on matters of deen and then err on the side that may or may not be contrary to the deen. Since there is ikhtilaaf, there is just as much a chance that it may be sinful as it may be permissible but then, you see the dichotomy that is created? Permissible vs sinful. It isn't beneficial/mustahabb/sunnah to have a short beard but it may be sinful. Shouldn't we try to avoid the possibility of sinning if we're going to be teachers and helpers to others in the path of deen? If you know for certain that a certain Hanafi shaykh regularly delays his Dhuhr salaah to such an extent that it is 'Asr time according to the other madhahib but still Dhuhr in the Hanafi madhhab, would you go to such a person for spiritual betterment (and let's not even mention that he isn't at the masjid during jama'ah times)? Even then, it is a lot easier to find excuses for such a person than a person who cuts the beard.

I remember when there was a big program in my city a few years ago, with many amazing ulama who came from around the world to give lectures. There were thousands of people who showed up to listen. During the question and answer session, someone noticed that the ulama were not drinking water in three breaths so he wrote down his observation and sent it up. The ulama did not respond by saying that it is the internal aspect that is more important than the external or that it is the intention that matters - they admitted that they had forgotten and did not repeat this - despite the fact that it isn't makrooh or haraam to not drink in three breaths/sips. The ulama are held to a much higher standard. When you ask people like myself who aren't laymen about the length of our beards when we discuss this issue, you should realize that we are not ulama. Even if we may or may not have sunnah beards or sunnah clothing, people do not look up to us for spiritual guidance since we are jaahil. No one says that fulaan shaves regularly so it must be okay or that fulaan listens to music so it must be okay - but when they see a scholar, someone who has 'ilm engaging in these things, then they become "excuses" by the laymen when they want to do the same thing. I am happy to say that I'm a jaahil when it comes to telling laypeople anything about Islam since I don't know any better, but the ulama are the standard bearers of Islam and should be as close to Rasoolullah in their emulation of him as possible.

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

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 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?

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).

[Enjknsua]

I think the point abdulwahhab was trying to make is that according to everybody, the sunnah of the Prophet and the sahaba is not less than fist length. Before the invention of the electric trimmer, it wasn't even possible for people to sport the glorified 5 o'clock shadows that pass for beards nowadays. Therefore, the mashayikh should be adopting what is afdhal and not what is merely permissible, since they are supposed to be examples for everyone. I'm not familiar with other places in the world, but for Indian subcontinent turuq, one of the things they look for in choosing a shaykh is strict adherence to the inward and outward sunnah. That's probably why the question arose.

It was a bad idea for us to turn this thread into a beard discussion, since it has detracted from the original video itself (which I have started to practice on since I heard it, , may Allah reward the shaykh for that). I don't think it was anyone's intention to backbite...as for contacting the mashayikh personally, I have tried this on a few occasions, but usually there is no way to contact them directly, or you will get no response.

And yes, I have been given tawfiq to grow a sunnah beard,

[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.

[Caunnysup]

My beloved brothers,
Please do not let the discussion get too heated where we call each other "Jahil" and what not.

Sidi Abdulwahhab:

The point is not the beard. You and I can both keep our beards, as I am sure we do insha'Allah. The point is that almost instantly the title of the video was criticized, for Shaykh Babikir (ha) could not possible be a true Sufi-shaykh due to the shortness of his beard, or so it was claimed. Such criticism and attacks on the Shaykh are unwarranted, whether one believes that his lack of beard is haram or sufficient to fulfill the Sunnah of the beard. It is not just Shaykh Babikir, but the general trend of attacking Shuyukh as soon as we A) disagree with them, or B) spot something that we consider a flaw or shortcoming. It is not a healthy approach for (presumably young) students to have.

While unrelated to the inner state of scholars; there have been instances where brothers have rejected taking knowledge from some scholars, while later finding out that they are considered to be from amongst the greatest of Muhaddithun and Fuqaha. Just like some brothers called Shaykh Akram Nadwi, "some random uncle in the masjid". People have this idea of how a scholar, pious, or even generally decent brother is supposed to look and talk like. Like I said, not a very healthy approach.

wassalam

[hasasnn2345tv]

I have just read the thread from the start to see how the discussion started. Please verify the following claim regarding this scholar:

for the video

I'm not happy with the title "spiritual master" though. A person who trims his beard, is not comfortable with full segregation and thinks music is permissible - is he really a "spiritual master"?

I have to agree with brother Rahmaniyyah if all these claims are true. It may be easy for some to overlook the lack of a few obvious sunnahs but I would not be comfortable at all with someone who does what is claimed in the above quote being referred to as a "spiritual master", let alone a sufi.

If someone calls a shaykh who fulfills the dhahiri sunnahs as "some random uncle", then that is ignorance - but we know that there are confirmed sunnahs that should be put into practice by anyone who is claimed to be a spiritual guide to others. The image of how someone is supposed to look and talk like should be in closest accordance with what Rasoolullah looked like and talked like. If a person who claims to be a shaykh only talks about hatred and divisions, speaks lies and deceptions, then of course he is a person who should not be looked at seriously, but then many of us have no reservations when a person does things that are contrary to the external sunnah. Why this double standard? I'm reminded of a famous hadeeth:

عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه، قال: قال رسول الله : { إن الله تعالى طيب لا يقبل إلا طيباً، وإن الله أمر المؤمنين بما أمر به المرسلين فقال تعالى: يَا أَيُّهَا الرُّسُلُ كُلُوا مِنَ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَاعْمَلُوا صَالِحاً [المؤمنون:51]، وقال تعالى: يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُلُواْ مِن طَيِّبَاتِ مَا رَزَقْنَاكُمْ [البقرة:172]، ثم ذكر الرجل يطيل السفر أشعث أغبر يمد يده إلى السماء: يا رب ! يا رب ! ومطعمه حرام ومشربه حرام وملبسه حرام وغذي بالحرام فأنّى يستجاب له؟ }.

In this hadeeth, there is no mention of the person's inner state. So, even though we know the importance of the purifying one's inner state, we cannot do so at the expense of our outward state, whether it be in our rizq, our dress, our demeanor.

[vaalmerruutel]

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

I've probably met more than ten members of this forum in real life, and only a couple did not have a fist-length beard.

[km2000]

I've probably met more than ten members of this forum in real life, and only a couple did not have a fist-length beard.

What is the point of this?

[km2000]

My beloved brothers,
Please do not let the discussion get too heated where we call each other "Jahil" and what not.

Salaam alaikum Sidi Rifai,

You are right and I should not say that, but I can't stand how people act when they don't have any authority to speak. It disgusts me, especially when these people want to connect themselves to the akabir ulama of Deoband. Its lke they have no clue whatsoever as to adab. For example, I read in Shaikh Masihullah Khan (rah) discourses For Friends, where he mentioned that once Shaikh Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rah) once said in a dars that musical instruments was haram, and then someone asked what he thought of Shaikh Nizamuddeen (rah), one of the very early shuyookh of the Chisti Tariqa, as having listened to musical instruments during sama'a. You know what the response was from the esteemed Shaikh and Faqih, our Master Rashid Ahmad Gangohi? He did not say, this is a false narration, he did not say that Shaikh Nizamuddeen had been wrong, etc. He said that the Shaikh (Nizamuddeen) must have been acting upon an opinion or proof that he was unaware of. AMAZING, that even such a great scholar, one of the shining lights of this ummah, would be so humble and cautious when it comes to saying something about someone else. I personally believe there are very very few ulama today that would match Shaikh Rashid Ahmad Gangohi in knowledge, and yet, while he was so cautious and respectful of the possibility of there being a proof he was unaware of and leaving it at that, the people (who admit they are not scholars and even say they are jaahil) fearlessly discuss an individual's maqam and whether or not he is engaged in doubtful or even sinnful matters. The saying "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" paints the perfect picture. It is sad we don't have anything but the appearence of the previous generations, and we think we have reached the destination, or atleast we act like it.

[pobrierce]

Me want snacks.

[km2000]

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.



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?



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.



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.

Brother, as usual, you seem to miss the point. If you agree that there are valid opinions that say that the shari'i beard is fulfilled by less than a fist length, then how can you say it is a doubtful matter? No one says that the Prophet salallahu alaihi wa salim had a short or even trimmed his mubarak beard. As you said we have proof of Sahabah trimming it to a fist length, but is there any proof that this is the limit? Do any Sahabah say that the beard can only be trimmed to a fist length, otherwise it is against shari'ah? No. If there were such sayings, it would be different. So some ulama said that trimming to a fist length is the limit, while others said trimming to whatever length is permissable, this is valid ikhtilaaf and no one can say otherwise. You can stand upon your opinion, but you can't call another person doubtful, since you could be wrong and they could be right.

As far as the wudu issue, yes there is evidence for both clearly, BUT even then the afdaal thing to do is try and fulfill all the positions of all the mathaahib (as you mentioned). But the beard length issue is NOT clear issue, since Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wa salim and the Sahabah radiyallah anhum did not specify the limits.

Anyway, it is a small matter, how about someone talk about pride or something that will really effect us. We can have a big beard but if we are too proud to take benefit from the ulama, how will this help us? Many people are saddly like this, myself included.

[L6RLnyfl]

Let's continue this discussion in a manner that is sensible.

naqshbandiosmanli: clearly you are very emotional and you are making very unfair insinuations because of this. Please take some time out and come back to the discussion with a clear mind. About your point on Mawlana Gangohi (ra): I understand what you are saying about Adab. But, I think the point that is repeatedly being missed here, is the issue of ikhtilaf does not come into the beard discussion. Beard was kept by the Prophet and all the Sahabah (ra) and all the Prophets that Allah ta'ala ever sent.

People belittle the Zaahiri sunan, saying it is merely superficial, or it is not as bad as terrible Akhlaq. I think Ustadh abdulwahhab has given very clear responses and the points have been made thoroughly. A further point is the amount of time and effort that goes into trimming the beard - meaning a conscious decision has to be made regularly to stand before a mirror and go against the Sunnah. So do you not see how this is different to "leaving" a Sunnah - one thing is "leaving" and another is "opposing".

I do not want this discussion to be about Shaykh Babikr and trying to pinpoint his faults. Imagine if we were put in the same position. However, this is supposed to be a matter of principal and I am tempted to split this thread because of the benefit of the Shaykh's message is being lost. Anyone who wants, may confirm the beard question, his views on music and his views on segregation by contacting the respected Shaykh Babikir.

[L6RLnyfl]

It is sad we don't have anything but the appearence of the previous generations, and we think we have reached the destination, or atleast we act like it.

brother naqshbandiosmanli

This is an example of unfair/emotional statements. No one is saying we have reached the destination just by acting on the Zaahir.

[L6RLnyfl]

This is a point which is way above me and is to do with spiritual states that I can't begin to comprehend. But once I heard from a Shaykh about this concept of Fanaa fi-sh Shaykh, Fanaa fi-r Rasul and Fanaa fi-l Llah

So he says the Mureed annihilates his ego in complete adherence to his Shaykh, and that this will take him to the stage of annihilating his ego in the Prophetic model/example alone and following the Sunnah totally will make him reach Allah.

The question here is, how can you choose a Shaykh that you know for certainty does not resemble Nabi ? Additionally, acting on the Zaahir is infinitely easier than the Baatin.

Fanaa fi-r Rasul also means that the ego no longer exists - i.e. the ego is only and only in line with the Sunnah. So who cares if there's Ikhtilaf? If I know what my Nabi practised, then ikhtilaf doesn't even come into the discussion.

Yesterday I was listening to a talk given by one of the Bengali Sufis in the tariqah of Hazrat Gangohi (ra) (Chormonai er Pir). In this talk, he mentions a story from the old times http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zauJO4tC604

He says that once there was one Pir (spiritual master) who goes to meet another Pir to ask for his Du'as. When he arrives, he finds that the Pir is absent so then asks the Mureedin "where does the Pir make 'ibadah so we can sit and take barakah from that Musalla" so they pointed towards a stone floor. The Pir used to pray so much on this stone, that the stone itself became worn out on those parts of the floor which the Pir would pray. So the visiting Pir saw that the finger marks on the floor were outspread, and he said to his Mureedin "let's leave from here, we won't get what we came for" so they asked "what do you mean" and he said "the fingers on the Musalla are outspread, in contrast to the Sunnah which is to keep the fingers closed when in Sajdah; so this person can never be a Wali".

^ I heard this same incident from a great Naqshbandi Shaykh of our time.

There's also a saying "hasanaatul abraari sayyi'aatul muqarrabeen" - the hasanaat of the pious, are the sins of the Muqarrabeen (a high class of Awliya that Allah draws them near Him). My point in narrating the above incident is not that we have such a strict criteria - it's true it'll be difficult to find nowadays; but the beard must certainly be placed in our criteria. How can it not be? Have we forgotten the Hadith when the Prophet said:

My Lord orders me to trim the moustache and lengthen the beard

[hasasnn2345tv]

Brother, as usual, you seem to miss the point. If you agree that there are valid opinions that say that the shari'i beard is fulfilled by less than a fist length, then how can you say it is a doubtful matter? No one says that the Prophet salallahu alaihi wa salim had a short or even trimmed his mubarak beard. As you said we have proof of Sahabah trimming it to a fist length, but is there any proof that this is the limit? Do any Sahabah say that the beard can only be trimmed to a fist length, otherwise it is against shari'ah? No. If there were such sayings, it would be different. So some ulama said that trimming to a fist length is the limit, while others said trimming to whatever length is permissable, this is valid ikhtilaaf and no one can say otherwise. You can stand upon your opinion, but you can't call another person doubtful, since you could be wrong and they could be right.

As far as the wudu issue, yes there is evidence for both clearly, BUT even then the afdaal thing to do is try and fulfill all the positions of all the mathaahib (as you mentioned). But the beard length issue is NOT clear issue, since Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wa salim and the Sahabah radiyallah anhum did not specify the limits.

Anyway, it is a small matter, how about someone talk about pride or something that will really effect us. We can have a big beard but if we are too proud to take benefit from the ulama, how will this help us? Many people are saddly like this, myself included.

You asked me a direct question so let me ask you one in return:

Would you trust a shaykh who delays all his salah without any appropriate reason? He actually makes an effort so that he ends up praying 'Fajr just before sunrise, prays Dhuhr just before 'Asr starts, prays Maghrib just before the redness of the sky disappears, prays 'Isha just before Fajr starts.

Is such a person worthy of being relied upon to guide you?

Also, you cannot say what is or isn't afdhal when it comes to the wudhu issue between the opinions of the madhaahib (unless one is a scholar) since both sides are proven from the Qur'an and the sunnah by the ulama of the madhaahib - so even refraining from doing something that Rasoolullah did (i.e. touching a woman after wudhu and then praying) can be considered going against the sunnah, albeit not makrooh.

And yes, the minimum length of the beard is an issue of ikhtilaaf but all the ulama are on a consensus that a full beard is the beard of Rasoolullah . To have a beard less than a fist length and consider it sunnah IS something that is doubtful. It may fulfill the requirement of a beard but it is most definitely not the sunnah beard - upon this, there is no ikhtilaaf. So, why go with the minimum when there is ikhtilaaf upon it and not go to the maximum, upon which there is no ikhtilaaf? The sufi avoids the doubtful matters as if they were haraam. The minimum length of the beard may be different amongst the various madhahib but the sunnah length is not. There is no ikhtilaaf on the sunnah length of the beard.

[km2000]

Let's continue this discussion in a manner that is sensible.

naqshbandiosmanli: clearly you are very emotional and you are making very unfair insinuations because of this. Please take some time out and come back to the discussion with a clear mind. About your point on Mawlana Gangohi (ra): I understand what you are saying about Adab. But, I think the point that is repeatedly being missed here, is the issue of ikhtilaf does not come into the beard discussion. Beard was kept by the Prophet and all the Sahabah (ra) and all the Prophets that Allah ta'ala ever sent.

People belittle the Zaahiri sunan, saying it is merely superficial, or it is not as bad as terrible Akhlaq. I think Ustadh abdulwahhab has given very clear responses and the points have been made thoroughly. A further point is the amount of time and effort that goes into trimming the beard - meaning a conscious decision has to be made regularly to stand before a mirror and go against the Sunnah. So do you not see how this is different to "leaving" a Sunnah - one thing is "leaving" and another is "opposing".

I do not want this discussion to be about Shaykh Babikr and trying to pinpoint his faults. Imagine if we were put in the same position. However, this is supposed to be a matter of principal and I am tempted to split this thread because of the benefit of the Shaykh's message is being lost. Anyone who wants, may confirm the beard question, his views on music and his views on segregation by contacting the respected Shaykh Babikir.

I agree I am very emotional. This is a dangerous thing, and I appreciate you pointing this out and reminding. I don't like it when people insinuate things against the ulama, and I am the same when people insinuate things against the Deobandi akabir. People are not fit to speak negatively about the ulama, and I don't know why people allow this.

As far as not making this about Shaikh Babikr, why brother did you make about him? I am asking this sincerely to you? Why cast doubt in people's minds about him, by questioning his status? Why not keep such things to yourself, ask Shaikh Babikr, go see him, sit with him, etc? This is all I want people to do; before they say anything negative or raise some suspicion about someone, first atleast tell about their good qualities. Your very first post, you say jazakallah khair for the video. It would have been better if you had stopped right there, but instead you added doubt and questions, you brought up a question mark upon the Shaikh, so now someone reading this thinks to themselves "maybe I should not listen to this person." Any benefit immediately is lost now, you bring up his beard, purdah issues, and music all in your first extremely brief post, and ask the question "is he really a spiritual master?" Why brother, I am sincerely asking you, why ask this? Brother I am crying right now it bothers me so much. You are a beautiful brother, you have done khidma for me and you don't even know it, I love you very much. But why bring up these things, and later say, I don't want this to be about Shaikh Babikr?

And the same I ask you my dear brother, no one here is saying there is ikhtilaaf in having a beard. No one has said this my dear brother, this is a sunnah of Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wa salim, but there is valid ikhtilaaf conerning what a beard is, how long it should be, should it be trimmed or not, etc. There is ikhtilaaf on this, and for you to say a person has to stand infront of a mirror and trim the beard, and this is knowingly going against the sunnah, brother trimming the beard is not against the sunnah, shaving yes ofcourse, but not trimming it. Please don't say this.

Please dear brother and ever other person, we are all Muslims, we are supposed to act a certain way and this is the most important, Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wa salim came to correct and perfect character, yes the beard is there, but we must act properly as well. Don't bring up things about this Shaikh or any other Shaikh that will cause regular people to be deprived of their benefit. So many people have lost a connection with the ulama, and when they see a scholar talking about following the orders of Allah, following and loving the Prophet salallahu alaihi wa salim, talking about the benefits of zikr, many people, who are very lay or don't have much connection to the deen will listen to this and could get benefit, but if other people immediately raise doubts about the scholar, and they may even be valid doubts, its like the open door for these lay people is shut because this person maybe can't be trusted. You know how Shaitan works, any waswas will lead people away from ulama, please my dear brother Rahmaniyya and all other brothers who have some knowledge, don't shut doors towards haqq by immediately raising objections and doubts. Sure, maybe we don't agree with everything that some ulama say, but not everyone that reads these things comes with that knowledge, many people are fresh and don't know, converts, born muslims away from deen trying to come back, and by raising such secondary questions, without any intention of actually asking the scholar in question, but rather just having a little back and forth, we give our points the other gives their points, then the thread fizzles out its not worth the risk of sending someone away with ill opinions. Always when I see a thread I'll see at the bottom of the page signed in members and then also guests. I try to think about these guests, maybe they are non-muslims who want to come to Islam, maybe they are are new converts trying learn something, or born muslims coming back to the deen, so what are they going to see? The majority of the time they will see objections, doubts raised, question marks, and this will get to a point that they either become like this, or get so frustrated by the pettiness that they turn elsewhere. We will regret it later, and like I said, speak highly of all Muslims FIRST, mention all there good points FIRST, and then if you really feel it is needed and there will be some benefit, raise doubts and questions.

[hasasnn2345tv]

Brother the danger appears when people start dropping the importance of sunnah. Just recently, a sister on this forum who said she was Hanafi became upset and angry when people brought up the fact that the shaykh she was following didn't just trim his beard, but completely shaved it, saying that having a beard was "just a sunnah". This is the mentality of many Muslims nowadays. We all know the excellence of the character of Rasoolullah and thus even the least knowledgeable of Muslims can see who is or isn't a good representative of the akhlaaq of Rasoolullah - but the apparent sunnahs, when not adhered to, can be given less and less significance. And I'll reiterate: the full beard is the sunnah of Rasoolullah , less than a fist length is not the beard of Rasoolullah .

[km2000]

You asked me a direct question so let me ask you one in return:

Would you trust a shaykh who delays all his salah without any appropriate reason? He actually makes an effort so that he ends up praying 'Fajr just before sunrise, prays Dhuhr just before 'Asr starts, prays Maghrib just before the redness of the sky disappears, prays 'Isha just before Fajr starts.

Is such a person worthy of being relied upon to guide you?

Also, you cannot say what is or isn't afdhal when it comes to the wudhu issue between the opinions of the madhaahib (unless one is a scholar) since both sides are proven from the Qur'an and the sunnah by the ulama of the madhaahib - so even refraining from doing something that Rasoolullah did (i.e. touching a woman after wudhu and then praying) can be considered going against the sunnah, albeit not makrooh.

And yes, the minimum length of the beard is an issue of ikhtilaaf but all the ulama are on a consensus that a full beard is the beard of Rasoolullah . To have a beard less than a fist length and consider it sunnah IS something that is doubtful. It may fulfill the requirement of a beard but it is most definitely not the sunnah beard - upon this, there is no ikhtilaaf. So, why go with the minimum when there is ikhtilaaf upon it and not go to the maximum, upon which there is no ikhtilaaf? The sufi avoids the doubtful matters as if they were haraam. The minimum length of the beard may be different amongst the various madhahib but the sunnah length is not. There is no ikhtilaaf on the sunnah length of the beard.

Salaam,

Ok to your question, if there was such a Shaikh that did that, I would not immediately think they have no reason, even though it may seem to me that they don't. I would make all efforts to ask them directly about it or get someone I know to ask. If they have a valid reason, and explain it I will accept it, I may not agree for myself, but I will accept it for them. If they say "I know that this is not good, but in this regard I am very weak, and I am trying to change" I would not hold this against them and I would not deprive myself of the beneficial things that they have; for example, if they had knowledge of tajweed, I would learn from them, if they held ta'lim of hadith, I would sit and listen, etc. I would not hold it against them because I can't see how I would benefit myself buy totally ignoring them and not taking the good that they have. I mean, I know people who have taking shahada from kuffaar, from shia, from qadianis, ismailis, etc, they became muslim through these people (and later became normal sunni Muslims), so I know that benefit can be found in many places.

I never said one or another mathaabs opinion was afdaal may friend, I said that I have been told by ulama that the afdaal stance is to try and fulfill the requirements of all the mathaahib in regards to wudu. So please don't put things to me that I did not say.

OK so here is the question: Does Shaikh Babikr or any of the other ulama consider that their short beards are sunnah, or that they are fulfilling the shari'i requirement? I assume, as we should, that the ulama know that there is no proof that the Prophet salallahu alaihi wa salim trimmed his beard (as far as I understand, and if I am wrong someone inform me please), fist length or other, so they would also know that by trimming it they are following the sunnah of Sahabah (which is great).

As far as you asking why go with the minimum and not the maximum, you should ask those ulama who do the minimum if you really want to know brother, please try and ask them. I personally don't know why, but I am not going say anything against them unless I have asked them, because maybe they have a perfectly good reason.

As to what a sufi avoids and so on, please, there or some people that think that a sufi must be like Abu Yazid Bistami (rah), who would only eat an almond in 40 days, and being zaahid even from the permissable things. The reality is we a sufi is supposed to be like Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wa salim in as many ways as Allah allows them to be, and one of the major things is to be lenient on others while being hard on your ownself. Dont scare people from the deen by making it hard, allow people to take the easiest valid opinion, otherwise people may completely go the other way. I have seen converts leave Islam because people made things too hard for them, and those people never thought they were doing anything wrong because they were calling towards the sunnah. This is not a simpleton's religion and humans are not cookie cutter people, everyone has their level. So perhaps people can see Shaikh Babikr and others and think, well I may not be able to have a huge, untrimmed beard, as it is difficult for me, but I can have something. We don't know why the shuyukh do the things they do and for what reason and how they bring people closer to the sunnah by apparently not fulfilling it. The only way we will know however, is if we ask them, and not discuss it to no end on an insignificant internet forum.

[Enjknsua]

Unfortunately, there is usually no reliable means of contacting these mashayikh, or if there is an e-mail address or something, it's usually managed by one of their assistants so the likelihood of actually getting a response is low.

[km2000]

Brother the danger appears when people start dropping the importance of sunnah. Just recently, a sister on this forum who said she was Hanafi became upset and angry when people brought up the fact that the shaykh she was following didn't just trim his beard, but completely shaved it, saying that having a beard was "just a sunnah". This is the mentality of many Muslims nowadays. We all know the excellence of the character of Rasoolullah and thus even the least knowledgeable of Muslims can see who is or isn't a good representative of the akhlaaq of Rasoolullah - but the apparent sunnahs, when not adhered to, can be given less and less significance. And I'll reiterate: the full beard is the sunnah of Rasoolullah , less than a fist length is not the beard of Rasoolullah .

Salaam,

You are right in this, and at the same time you are wrong in this. There are people today who would call themselves muslims who are so far away that they know nothing about Rasulullah salallahu alaihi wa salim. You should spend sometime in tabligh jamaat to see this and the state of the ummah.

As for that sister, I don't know who she is or who she was following, and I don't need to, but all I can ask is, why were people, who I assume don't know her, don't know how close she is to deen, don't know her struggle, don't know her level, trying to break perhaps her only connection to the deen? There are people, Muslim people, brother and sisters, in horrible situations, who make a huge jihaad just by doing things that some of use would feel are so simple and so easy. Why upset the sister? How is that going to help her? All that happens is that she might say somethings she should not because she doesn't know. You know there was an anecdote mentioned about the father of Mufti Taqi sahib's father, that he went I think with some darul uloom graduates to a restaurant and they had tables there, so there was some discussion about whether or not to ask to have a sufra placed and to eat in accordance to the sunnah. Mufti Shafi'i Uthmani, may Allah bless him and all the ulama from among the hukama, said no, rather they should eat at the table, since the people there (even though I think they were muslim) may make fun of it, and this was more dangerous than leaving that particular sunnah. That story is in Islahi Khutbaat of Mufti Taqi sahib.

This is no joke, people have to think about what they are doing, muslims need to know we will chase other muslims away in the name of upholding the sunnah, it is extremely dangerous, and you have to take this into serious consideration. Like that sister, if she got angry and people just were flippant about her shaikh, do they think she is going to listen to them? What was their aim, to bring her closer to haqq or to drive her further away? And what was the result, EVEN IF the ones that pointed out the person's faults were correct? What was the gain, how did haqq spread and batil decrease? These are questions we should ask, these are not simple things, and we do not deal with simple people, everyone has their own difficulties and hardships that they face, so don't make it harder for them.