Read on Twitter
The Beard in the Hanafi school of thought: I usually tend to avoid talking about issues of fiqh, but I’ve noticed a great deal of unawareness and misinformation regarding the issue of the beard in the Hanafi school, especially among my own generation and Muslims in the west.
I genuinely believe that if people were actually made aware how serious cutting any portion of the beard is for a lot of Muslims, we would have much fewer jokes about patchy beards or beards connecting.
Because of this lack of awareness, you find that many brothers with certain style beards (due to genetics) are criticized for not trimming or lining them up. People are unaware of the jurisprudential implications of doing so according to some opinions within the Hanafi school.
As the Hanafi school is the most prevalent and the most widespread, it’s only natural that it’s super diverse. The ruling of the beard is one of those issues that is debated among contemporary Hanafi scholars of different regions.
Today, it is generally the Hanafis of the subcontinent that have stricter rulings regarding the beard, whilst we find Hanafis outside the subcontinent to be much more lax, some to the point that they permit shaving it off entirely.
Scholars of the subcontinent are often portrayed as excessively stringent when it comes to the ruling of the beard, but I believe this is really unfair. To my knowledge, the majority of the core Hanafi texts all point to: 1) the obligation of keeping the beard (wājib);
2) the prohibition of cutting it whatsoever if it doesn’t exceed the length of one’s fist (makrūh tahrīmī, thus sinful); 3) the encouragement of trimming what does exceed the length of one’s fist (sunnah). The scholars of the subcontinent simply faithfully adhere to these texts.
It should be noted that this adherence to the classical texts is not simply blind taqlīd. Shaykh al-Hadith Maulana Zakariyya Kandhlawi (ra) wrote a treatise entitled “The Obligation of the Beard” in which he systemically proves its obligation based on Hanafi principles.
Contemporary Hanafi scholars on the other hand, usually those outside the subcontinent, do not agree with the above rulings, and make arguments from points of usūl al-fiqh to defend their view. This is all fine, I will not argue against a faqīh’s right to practice applied fiqh.
However, some try to support their view by reinterpreting the classical texts, which leads to extremely flimsy arguments. Dr. Salah Abu’l-Hajj attempts to do this in his paper Ḥukm Qaṣṣ al-Liḥya wa Ḥalqihā ʿinda l-Ḥanafiyya. Though it is a respectable effort,
one can easily notice that the attempts at reinterpreting classical fatwas, which are already quite clear and unambiguous, are rather lacking in strength. His arguments are based on a false assumption and his interpretation of the fatwas results in inconsistencies& contradiction.
A well-respected scholar from whom I have personally benefitted immensely also attempted to reinterpret a statement of Ibn al-Humām (ra), وأما تقصير اللحية دون قبضة كما يفعله بعض المغاربة والمخنثة من الرجال فلم يبحه أحد, by claiming that it was a conditional clause as opposed to
an illustrative clause, as is commonly understood. To me it’s rather obvious why this is a weak argument. The apparent meaning must be illustrative. If it were truly conditional, then the condition would be explicitly explained, and that is never done (to my knowledge).
Another argument posited by the Shaykh was that the beard is a matter of ādāb and hay’āt (propriety) and thus any rulings regarding it are for encouragement as opposed to obligation. I believe this approach, i.e. arguing from usūl, is much sounder and more stable than the first.
So to summarize, without going deep into the technicalities and without taking a firm stance on either side, we should at the very least understand that the differences arise due to: 1) the type of action; and 2) a question of priority.
For those who consider the beard merely a matter of propriety, they will not consider the fist-length beard the minimum, but allow for shorter than that. They will also be able to prioritize neatness and tidiness of the beard since length is not too important of a factor.
They will also have to be comfortable with the fact that they are going against the view of the majority of classical Hanafi scholars, whose texts are quite unambiguous in this regard. There is no need to try to make clear texts open for interpretation.
On the other hand , for those who consider the beard an obligation, they will consider it sinful to trim any part of the beard shorter than what exceeds the fist. And this often comes at the cost of tidiness, neatness, and aesthetic presentation.
Obviously this doesn’t mean that the latter shouldn’t attempt to maintain and tidy up his beard at all! But rather, he is more restricted in how he can maintain his beard due to prioritizing the obligation over the presentation.
We find hadith in which the Prophet ﷺ disapproves of a man whose hair is disheveled saying, “Could he not find anything with which to groom his hair?” And we find hadith in which the Prophet ﷺ exclaims to his companions, “Do you not listen? Do you not listen?...
“...Verily unkemptness (al-badhādha) is from faith! Verily unkemptness is from faith!” One man tidies up his beard, another lets it grow despite its patchiness. One person wears clean, vibrant clothing,
All of these differences of opinions and practices within the Ahlus Sunnah are various manifestations of the Sunnah and teachings of the Prophet ﷺ. All are deserving of respect and admiration. May Allah enrich our lives with the sunnah of His beloved ﷺ.
