Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Acts that Correspond to the Nature of Mankind – Circumcision (Tamaam al-Minnah)

After the topic of  "Going to the Bathroom"

Under the Topic: “Acts that Correspond to the Nature of Mankind – سنن الفطرة”

His (Ustadz Sayyid Sabiq) commentary:
[pg. 21; 2nd paragraph: “Circumcision…”; – PDF pg 46 (Arabic pg 25)]

My (Shaykh al-Albaaniy) comment: This isn’t so, as claimed without exception or restriction. It is an authentic narration which mentions the Prophet’s instruction to some women who performed circumcision for girls in Medina:
“ اخفضي و لا تنهكي ، فإنه أنضر للوجه ، و أحظى للزوج–
Scrape a little and do not overdo, for it makes the face glow brighter and more satisfying for the husband”, 
as narrated by Abu Dawud, al-Bazzaar, at-Tabaraaniy and others. It has many routes and supportive narrations from a few companions and I have given its Takhreej (the sources of narrations) in “as-Sahihah”: 2/353-358 extensively, you would probably not get in other writings and I explained therein that Circumcision for women was popularly known among the Salafussolih, unknown to those who have no knowledge concerning  narrations.

From the supportive evidence to justify so, is this popularly known hadeets:
“إذا التقى الختانان فقد وجب الغسل – when the two circumcised organs (of a husband and wife) meet, the ritual shower (of janaabah) has become obligatory”
Its Takhreej is clarified in “al-Irwaa’” no: 80.

Al-Imam Ahmad said:
“و في هذا دليل على أن النساء كن يُختَن – in this is a proof that women of that time (the time of the Prophet) were circumcised”
See “Tuhfat al-Mawdood fie Ahkaam al-Mawlood” by Ibn al-Qayyim pg. 64 (India’s publication).

Then he (Ustadz Sayyid Sabiq) said about “الختان – Circumcision” (the very last part)

As for the specification of its time, then there are 2 hadeets:

One: from Jaabir that the Messenger of Allah did ‘Aqeeqah for al-Hasan and al-Husayn and circumcised them on the 7th day.
Narrated by at-Tabaraaniy in “al-Mu‘jam as-Saghier: pg. 185, with an all trustworthy narrators’ Sanad, but it has (one of the narrators) Muhammad bin Abie as-Sariy al-‘Asqalaaniy and he was disputed (narrator) with regard to his memory and al-Walied bin Muslim was guilty of committing Tadlies at-Taswiyah[1] (misrepresentation of narrarators) and narrated it in ‘an‘anah (equivocal) manner.
This hadeets is mentioned by al-Hafiz in “al-Fath”: 10/282 as from the narration of Abu ash-Shaykh and al-Baihaqiy and he did not make any comment on it and most probably their narrations are of different routes.

Two: From Ibn ‘Abbaas who said: Seven are from the Sunnah with regard to a baby (newborn) on the 7th day: Name given, circumcised…the hadeets.
Narrated by at-Tabaraaniy in “al-Awsat”: 1/334/562) and al-Haitsamiy said in “al-Majma‘: 4/59”: It’s Rijaal i.e. narrators, are reliable.
But al-Hafiz in “al-Fath”: 9/483 said regarding it: Transmitted by at-Tabaraaniy in “al-Awsat” and it’s Sanad has weakness.      

My comment: That is the truth as in it’s sanad, Rawwaad bin al-Jarraah who has a weakness as (mentioned) in “al-Kaashif” by adz-Dzahabi, yet one hadeets strengthen the other as they are from different source and none of them has a doubtful element of “guilty or suspected of lying - متهم” and the scholars of Shaafi‘iee school used it as a source of justification, such that they ruled out that it is recommended (mustahab) to do circumcision on the 7th day from the time of birth as in “al-Majmuu‘”: 1/307 and others.

As for the maximum age limit for circumcision (latest), then it is before puberty. Ibn al-Qayyim stated: “It is not permissible for the guardian of a child to neglect the child’s circumcision until he exceeds the age of puberty”. See “Tuhfat al-Mawdood fie Ahkaam al-Mawlood”: 60-61 by Ibn al-Qayyim.

With regards to the ruling of Khitaan – Circumcision, we are of the view that it is compulsory (waajib) and it is the view of the majority (Jumhoor), like Maalik, ash-Shaafi‘ie and Ahmad, and Ibn al-Qayyim favoured this view. He cited 15 aspects as points of justification for that ruling. Although each point does not stand as a proof of justification, yet altogether they serve to justify it and I see it not befitting to quote all them here and thus I consider it sufficient by quoting 2 of them here:

First: Allah The Most High says:

So We have taught thee the inspired (message), "Follow the ways of Abraham the True in Faith..."” [2] and al-Khitaan – Circumcision is part of the “ways of Abraham” as in the hadeets of Abu Hurayrah mentioned in the book (Fiqh as-Sunnah) and this is the aspect which is the strongest point of justification (for circumcision is compulsory), as remarked by al-Bayhaqiy and quoted by al-Haafiz (10/281)

Second: Circumcision is one of the most distinctive Symbols/Emblem (Shi‘aar) which separates a Muslim from a Christian, to the extent that it is known, that all Muslims are “circumcised people” and rarely “non-circumcised”.

Whoever wishes to read the other points, he can refer to the book “at-Tuhfah”: pg 53-60.
(Among others is point no: 9, covering the ‘awrah is compulsory and exposing the ‘awrah is prohibited yet it is permissible to expose the ‘awrah for the procedure of circumcision, due to  Daroorah – urgent need which is inevitably fulfilled. If it is not compulsory, exposing the ‘awrah would not be permissible for the procedure – translator from Tuhfat al-Mawdood – Arabic – Fasl/Topic no: 4)

Then he mentioned (under point no: 7):
[pg. 22; 2nd paragraph: “Oiling and Combing One’s Hair…”; – PDF pg 47 (Arabic pg 26)]

My comment: This ‘Ata’ – عطاء was a well-known Taabi‘ie (successor to the Companions – their disciple), thus the hadeets is Mursal, Da‘ief, and it has been narrated in a Mawsool version, i.e the hadeets of Jaabir, with another wording which is longer than this (‘Ata’s narration) and it came without the mentioning of “beard” as narrated by Abu Dawood and others and it’s Takhreej given is in detail in “as-Sahihah”: 493.

Then he said (continuation from above):
[pg. 22; 2nd paragraph: “Oiling and Combing One’s Hair…”; – PDF pg 47 (Arabic pg 26)]

My comment: This hadeets is not Sahih from Aboo Qataadah due to it’s Sanad which is Munqati‘ (a broken chain of narration) and Idtirab (inconsistency due to discrepancies and contradictions) in it’s Matan (wording/content).
As for the clarification on it’s Inqita (Munqati‘) then it is what narrated by an-Nasaa-i in his Sunan: 2/292 via the narration of ‘Umar bin ‘Aliy bin Muqaddam (as in at-Taqreeb) who said: Yahya bin Sa‘eed narrated from Muhammad bin al-Munkadir from Aboo Qataadah…
This isnad seems Sahih at face value, as the Rijal (narrators) are reliable narrators of  ash-Shaykhayn (the narrators approved by al-Bukhaariy and Muslim) but it has an ‘illah khofiyyah (hidden weakness) and it is that Ibn Muqaddam although a Tsiqah (trustworthy reliable) narrator, was guilty of peculiar Tadlees (misrepresentating the narrators) as clarified by Ibn Sa‘d:
He was a Tsiqah and yet he committed a lot of Tadlees by verbally phrasing: {Sami‘tu – I personally heard directly} or {Haddatsana – Narrated directly to us verbally by} then he would pause (an interval) then only he would say: Hishaam bin ‘Urwah and al-A‘mash…

For that, al-Hafiz said in “Muqaddimah al-Fath” (Introduction of Fath al-Baari) pg: 431:
They (the Scholars of Hadeets and Jarh wa Ta‘deel) blamed him for doing a lot of Tadlees such that I could not find a single narration of his in as-Sahih unless it is supported by another version/narration (Mutaba‘ah)” (meaning whatever he narrated does not stand as a reliable narration on it’s own – translator) and he (al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar) did not classify him as a Tsiqah narrator in at-Taqreeb and only said: “He did a lot of Tadlees
So a narrator like him is not worthy to be a source of justification even if he narrated with “Tahdeets – unequivocally phrased that he heard directly” except when his narration is supported by another narration or version, but how when it is opposing (this narration opposses other narration or version which supposedly be a supportive one to it – translator)?!
Verily, Maalik said in his narration (3/624): “From Yahya bin Sa‘eed who said that Aboo Qataadah al-Ansariy: said… ” and he mentioned the hadeets in full.
So Muhammad bin al-Munkadir was dropped between Yahya and Aboo Qataadah (if compared to Ibn Muqaddam’s narration) and with that it is Munqati‘ as Yahya bin Sa‘eed – and he was ibn Qays al-Ansariy al-Madaniy – did not meet Aboo Qataadah, and for that reason, as-Suyuti in “Tanweer al-Hawaalik” said:
It is Munqati‘ and it has been transmitted by al-Bazzaar from the route of ‘Umar bin ‘Aliy al-Muqaddam from Yahya bin Sa‘eed from Muhammad bin al-Munkadir from Jaabir.
My comment: This is in contradiction to an-Nasaa-i’s narration, as that is from Aboo Qataadah and this is from Jaabir. This is another point of discrepancy in the isnaad (chains of narration).
I have also discovered for it (this hadeets) another route (of narration) from both Aboo Qataadah and Jaabir.
As for the route of Aboo Qataadah, at-Tabaraaniy made this comment in “al-Awsat”: no: 4090: “‘Aliy bin Sa‘eed ar-Raazi narrated to us saying: Sulaymaan bin ‘Umar bin Khaalid ar-Ruqqiy narrated to us saying: Yahya bin Sa‘eed al-Umawiy narrated to us from Ibn Jurayj from ‘Ata’ from Aboo Qataadah from the Prophet (sallalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) who said:
Whoever keeps his hair long then he should take care of it or else shave it – من اتخذ شعرا فليحسن إليه ، أو ليَحْلِقه and Aboo Qataadah used to comb it occasianally (غبا)” and at-Tabaraaniy concluded:
None narrated it from Ibn Jurayj except Yahya bin Sa‘eed al-Umawiy alone.
I say: He was a Tsiqah from among the narrators of ash-Shaykhayn (al-Bukhaariy and Muslim), and likewise those narrators before him (in the chain of narration), apart from the need to evaluate those (narrators) after him and al-Haitsamiy said in “Majma‘ az-Zawaa-id”: 5/164:
Transmitted by at-Tabaraniy in al-Awsat from his Shaykh (teacher) ‘Aliy bin Sa‘eed ar-Raazi and ad-Daaraqutniy said: not strong (not reliable) and the rest of them are the Rijaal (narrators) of as-Sahih
That was what he said! Yet Sulaymaan bin ‘Umar and his father, both were not Rijaal of as-Sahih and as a matter of fact, not even from the narrators of as-Sunan al-Arba‘ah – the 4 Most popular Sunan Books of Hadeets, and the former (the son) his status/biography mentioned in “al-Jarh wa at-Ta‘deel”: 2/1/131 written by Aboo Haatim from him. Whereas in “Tsiqaat Ibn Hibbaan”: 8/280 he said: Transmitted to us from him via our Shaykh (teacher) al-Khadar bin Ahmad bin Qayda huuz bi Harraan and others. He passed away on the year 249.”
As for his father ‘Umar bin Khalid ar-Ruqqiy, I have not found any of his biography except that which was mentioned by Ibn Hibbaan a very brief one as he said (8/444):
“He narrated from Musa bin A‘yun and his son Sulaymaan bin ‘Umar bin Khaalid narrated from him”
I would conclude: He was among those unknown narrators. Wallaahu a‘alam. 

Next, we go on to deal with the other route from Jaabir, and in reality, it goes back to the first route narrated by an-Nasaa-i as at-Tabaraaniy said, also in al-Awsat (1/387/675 – printed version): Ahmad transmitted to us, he said: Mansoor bin Abie Muzaahim conveyed to us saying: Ismaa‘iel bin ‘Iyaash narrated to us from Yahya bin Sa‘ied al-Ansariy from Muhammad bin al-Munkadir from Jaabir who said: “كان لأبي قتادة جمة، فسأل النبي فيها. فقال: أكرمها و ادَّهنها – Aboo Qataadah used to have thick hair so he asked the Prophet regarding it. So he (the Prophet) said: Honour it (treat it well) and oil it”.
at-Tabaraaniy commented: “No one narrated it from Yahya except Ismaa‘iel”.
My comment: Ismaa‘iel was a tsiqah (trustworthy reliable) narrator, but his narrations from al-Hijaaziyieen (narrators of the Hijaaz – Arabian Peninsular – Makkah and Madeenah) are weak and this is among them. However, Ibn Muqaddam’s route serves as a supportive narration to it, as mentioned earlier, except for the fact that he (Ibn Muqaddam) was a Mudallis such that there is a probability that he received it from Ismaa‘iel then he made the misrepresentation (of the cahin of narrators), as such, this supportive route serves no value and most likely, due to it, at-Tabaraaniy made the convincing statement: “No one narrated it from Yahya except Ismaa‘iel”. And Allaah knows best.
As for the issue of “Idtirab (inconsistency due to discrepancies and contradictions) in it’s Matan (wording/content)” this is rather obvious from the narrations cited above and this can be summarized in these following points:
1. an-Nasaa-i’s narration, which is Marfoo‘: to comb daily.
2. Maalik’s narration: Aboo Qataadah would likely oil it twice a day.
3. ‘Ata’s narration: Aboo Qataadah used to comb it occasianally (غبا)   
4.   Ismaa‘iel’s narration which is Marfoo‘: (You are to) Honour it (treat it well) and oil it.
As you can see, this is a grevious inconsistency and there is no way to reconcile these differences except by taking the Tarjeeh approach (take the strongest and discard the weak ones), but there is no way for us to do that due to the weaknesses in all it’s Isnaad as you have seen, thus we have to look for a Murajjih (element/point which serves to strengthen one over the other in the process of Tarjeeh) from an outside source (i.e. not within this narration’s circle of Isnaad and Matan). We discovered 2 hadeets:
1. “نهى عن الترجل إلا غِبّاً – (the Prophet) prohibited combing the hair except occassionally”
2. “كان ينهانا عن الإرفاه: الترجل كل يوم – He (sollaalLaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) used to forbid us from al-Irfaah; that is, combing the hair daily”
These 2 narrations are listed in “as-Sahihah” no: 501 and 502.
It is crystal clear that the first one (no: 501) invalidates the first point (an-Nasaa-i’s narration) and supports or strengthens the third point (‘Ata’s narration). The second narration (502) confirms the nullification of the first point (an-Nasaa-i’s narration) and the strength of the third point.
In conclusion, the two narrations which the author cited from Aboo Qataadah and Jaabir are Munkar narrations both from their Sanad and Matan, hence not valid as proofs of legal justification and it is not permissible to take them and their content as they oppose the 2 Sahih hadeets mentioned above.
As for the exhortation or recommendation to honour one’s hair or treat it well, it is an established ruling mentioned in so many hadeets and I gathered some of them in  “as-Sahihah” and they are to be understood together with 2 hadeets mentioned earlier (501 & 502). May Allah Guide. 

His statement: 

[pg. 23; 2nd paragraph: “Changing the colour of grey hair by using Henna…”; – PDF pg 48 (Arabic pg 27)]

My comment: I could not find anyone before him mentioning this claim of his and I do not know if it has any origin at all, most likely he meant what had been narrated from some Companions, which ash-Shawkaaniy quoted from them in “an-Nayl”: 1/103, and all these quotes are merely with regard to which is preferable or worthy to be prefered and not in anyway disliked. If we take it that truly it has been narrated from one of them, yet it does not stand as a point of justification, due to 2 issues:

Firstly: The Companions (as-Sahabah) were not in concensus over this ruling. In fact, some of them would dye their hair/beard (using henna) like the 2 Shaykhs (Aboo Bakr and ‘Omar) may Allah be please with both of them, as narrated in “Sahih Muslim” and others and some of them did not. But their choice of not dyeing does not in anyway indicate that it is disliked, instead it only justifies that it is permissible to leave it and not to dye it.
Secondly: It is contrary to what has been established from him (the Prophet) verbally as well as his (solLaalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) action.
As for what has been established from him verbally, the author himself mentioned 2 hadeets regarding it.
Whereas for his action, it is in “Sahih al-Bukhaariy” and other books from the hadeets of Umm Salamah (radhiyalLaahu ‘anhaa) that she took out some dyed hair of the Prophet(solLaalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). Somewhat of the same meaning there are a number of hadeets, which at-Tirmidzi (rahimahulLaah) gathered them under one chapter in his “ash-Shamaa-il al-Muhammadiyah”; “باب ما جاء في خضاب رسول الله – Chapter: What has been narrated pertaining to Rasulullah’s dyeing” and you can look up for them in my book, if you so wish, “Mukhtasar ash-Shamaa-il”: 41/37-41.

If he (al-Ustadz Sayyid Saabiq) meant by it (his statement), that these had been mentioned from the Prophet (solLaalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), as this is understood apparently (from his statement), then this we have to say: If he meant just the mentioning of these ahaadeets, I mean, irregardless of their status of Sahih or Da‘ief, then it is acceptable. However, if he meant (by his statement) that they are Sahih as understood at face value (from his statement), then this is rejected, as at the most of what narrated regarding it (i.e. it is disliked to dye one’s hair), are 2 hadeets: one of them is weak and the other has no origin at all (fabricated).

The first one is the hadeets of ‘Abdur Rahmaan bin Harmalah, that Ibn Mas‘oud said: “The Prophet of Allah (solLaalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) disliked ten things (characters/acts): Using yellow coloured (with saffron) perfumes (i.e. for men to use women’s perfume), changing grey hair…(the hadeets) –كان نبي الله يكره عشر خِلال: الصُفْرة يعني الْخَلوق، و تغيير الشيب...الحديث ”
Narrated by Aboo Dawood (2/197), Ahmad (no: 3605, 3774 and 4179) and this ‘Abdur Rahmaan, as Ibn al-Madienie said about him: “We never knew him as the companions/students/disciples of Ibn Mas‘oud”. Al-Bukhaariy said: “His hadeets (narration) is not authentic” and he meant this particular hadeets. Adz-Dzahabi cited it after this comment of al-Bukhaariy, then went on to say: “and this is Munkar”. But then, adz-Dzahabi forgotten this, such that he agreed with al-Haakim who graded it (this same hadeets) in his “al-Mustadrak” as Sahih  as in at-Talkhies.

As for Ibn Hibbaan’s classification of this ‘Abdur Rahmaan as a reliable narrator, then it is not justified due to what I’ve explained in the Introduction (of Tamaam al-Minnah; that Ibn Hibbaan’s classification of narrators is not justified unless supported by other Scholars of Hadeets due to his extreme lenience) and thus his classification was ignored by adz-Dzahabi as in “al-Miezaan” as well as al-Haafiz in “at-Taqreeb” when he said that there are elements of weaknesses in his (‘Abdur Rahmaan’s) narration and likewise, do not be bothered by ash-Shaykh Ahmad Muhammad Shaakir classification of this hadeets as Sahih as his classification was based on Ibn Hibbaan’s classification of this narrator and he did that a lot and he graded many hadeets as Sahih, many of which never before graded as Sahih and I did discuss with him on this issue in Madinah Munawwarah while he was staying in a hotel in the year 69Hijriyah (1949/50M) after the Hajj season, but unfortunately I did not get the end result (of this discussion – unfinished or not finalised/conclusive), may Allah bless us and bless him.

The second hadeets: From ‘Amr bin Shu‘ayb from his father from his grandfather who narrated in a Marfoo‘ form with it’s wording: “Whoever gets a strand of grey hair it will be a light unless he plucks it or dyes it – من شاب شيبة فهي نور إلا ينتِفها أو يخضِبها”
That was how some of them mentioned it and it is in Sunan Abi Dawood and at-Tirmidzi graded it Hasan and Ibn Maajah “من هذا الوجه” (i.e. from this same route of narration/with this same wording) as well, but without the phrase “إلا ينتِفها أو يخضِبها – unless he plucks it or dyes it.” and likewise in al-Musnad: 6672, 6675, 6937, 6962, 6989.
And in his other narration: “نهى رسول الله عن نتف الشيب، و قال هو نور – The Messenger of Allah solLaalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prohibited the plucking of grey hair and said: it is light”

This prooves that the mentioning of “الخضاب – dye” in the hadeets, has no origin. Al-Haafiz said in “al-Fath” after mentioning this hadeets with the first wording: Transmitted by at-Tirmidzi and he graded it Hasan, however I’ve never seen in any of it’s routes with this exemption (i.e. the phrase: “إلا ينتِفها أو يخضِبها – unless he plucks it or dyes it.”)

My comment: It is collaborated with the narration of Ahmad which mentions “النتف - plucking”.
There is a third hadeets which the ruling of “الخضاب – dye” can be derived from it’s unrestricted meaning wording: it is from Umm Sulaym in a Marfoo‘ form:
“Whoever gets a strand of grey hair in Islam, it will be a light for him as long as he does not change it – من شاب شيبة في الإسلام كانت له نورا ما لم يغيرها”
Narrated by al-Haakim in “al-Kuna” as in “al-Jaami‘ as-Saghier” with a denotement of Hasan in status, as al-Munawi said in his Sharh, yet the heart is not at peace with as-Suyuti’s classification of it as Hasan for what known of his leniency and being complacent, so do refer to the Introduction (of Tamaam al-Minnah;) Principle no: 8.

Then I analysed the Sanad of the hadeets, and it became clear to me that I was right in not relying on his grading of the hadeets as Hasan, which I exposed the cause of it’s weakness in “as-Sahihah” under hadeets no: 1244 and I classified it as a fabricated one, as such I included it in “Da‘ief al-Jaami‘ as-Saghier”: 5651 and it is a book which gathers a great amount of weak and fabricated ahaadeets yet to be superseded by other books of it’s kind. And Allah is the One who grants guidance.

In conclusion, it is not permissible to oppose those ahaadets which are Sahih permitting “الخضاب – dye” and encouraging it by taking these weak ahaadeets. If any of these ahadeets is Sahih, then for certain, it is obligatory to reconcile them and resolve the conflict by means of one or more aspects of reconciliation of ahaadeets, and there are many of such ahaadeets and reconciliation. For the aspect of reconciliation here, in this case, is that the “change”, changing grey hair that is mentioned in the first and third hadeets is “النتف - plucking” and it is clearly forbidden as in the second hadeets of Ahmad’s narration. Or that (the prohibition to change) is to dye it black, as it is prohibited. In this way, reconciliation for both hadeets is done, see al-Khattabi “al-Ma‘aalim” and al-Munaawi in “al-Faydh” and Ibn al-Qayyim said in “Tahdzeeb as-Sunan”: 6/103:
“The truth is, the ahaadeets in this issue have no contradiction in an aspect, for the Messenger solLaalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam prohibited in the matter of changing grey hair are 2 things; One of it, is the “النتف - plucking”  and the other is “الخضاب – dye” using black dye, as mentioned earlier. What is permissible is to dye it and change the hair with other than black dyes, like henna and saffron which the Sahabah (Companions) radhiyalLaah ‘anhum used.”

He also said: “As for dyeing using a Black dye, a group of scholars detest it, and it is correct beyond doubt as explained earlier. Imam Ahmad was asked: Do you dislike dyeing with a Black dye? He replied: By Allah, yes. Indeed.

Some others permitted it. Among them are the Companions of Aboo Haneefah and it has been claimed that al-Hasan and al-Husayn also said the same, yet the soundness of this claim (of this narration as from their opinions) should be re-evaluated and even if there truly be such narrations then nobody’s word is to be taken into consideration when it opposes the Messenger’s words and his Sunnah is to be followed above all, irregardless of who is the one who contradicts his sunnah.”

My comment: From the established abovementioned ahaadeets which encourage the dyeing of hair, the Companions used to busy themselves, performing this Sunnah, such that we see the historians while providing their biographies would say: “و كان يخضب – he dyed his hair” and “و كان لا يخضب – he did not dye his hair” and this Sunnah is continuously being practised in some Muslim countries, especially those which were not influenced by Western Modernism and it’s bad culture/ways.

The truth is, it is an establshed and continuously practised Sunnah and the Salaf practised it – as mentioned earlier on – and there are many ahaadeets which encourage it’s practice, as such, it is not permissible for the Muslims to innovate a new trend or norm which opposes it, especially when the reason or wisdom for it to be practised, is established in the hadeets of al-Jama‘ah’s narration:
“إن اليهود و النصارى لا يصبغون فخالفوهم – The Jews and the Christians do not dye theirs so you are to be different from them” and it’s takhreej is mentioned in “Ghaayat al-Maraam fee Takhreej Ahaadeets al-Halaal wa al-Haraam”: 104

For that, we assert with certainty that what the author concluded as his opinion, that dyeing of the hair depends on a community’s norm and practice is a grievous mistake, not permissible to be taken into consideration. May Allah guide.

[There is a mistake in the translation:

And the correct translation should be: There are some narrations that state that dyeing is disliked, and apparently this varies according to (depending on) (a person's) age, (his) norm/surrounding and customary practices (of his community)]

I do believe that the author – may Allah forgive me and him too – had opened, with this opinion of his, a very wide door to harm that can never be shut except by giving the Prophet’s commandments and his Sunnah in matters of worship, their due respect and status. For if he sees that neglecting  “الخضاب – dye” even though it is an established Sunnah of the Prophet solLaalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, from his (sallalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) verbal expression and action, due to it being a matter which is against the norm and practice of the Muslims today, what would stop others (other people) – among those who have no knowledge of the Sunnah and those who are not up to the author’s level of knowing the Sunnah – from taking other matters/issues (of fiqh or ruling) or treating other issues just like this issue (to their own hands and manipulation), allowing all the Sunnah, despite his (sallalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) commandments and encouragement, all to be abondoned or neglected when they are against the norm and practice of the Muslims today and their preference?! Who are these Muslims? The Muslims of 20th Century?!

Many a times, we have been complaining about the rejection to act upon the hadeets by the majority of Muslims due to their fanaticism towards their Imams (of specific Madzhabs), and we are also lamenting over some among the Sufis who would go against the rulings of the Sharee‘ah – with their claim – that such rulings do not fit their “taste”/“touch/feel”/“sense” (in Arabic “dzouq” here refering to their claim that such rulings of Sharee‘ah are not befitting them and not applicable for them to act upon them, as they have this “sense” granted by Allah, to sense what would please Allah or otherwise, irregardless of what stated in the Sacred Texts of the Quran and Sunnah and the Concensus of Scholars), and yet, here we are today – claiming to honour and uphold Islam and put to practise the Sunnah – vis-à-vis a new form of fanaticism, a novelty of Sufism, put our preference and our norm as well as customary practices and becoming fanatics in defending them (the customary practices) above his (sallalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) guidance/teachings and commandments, without having anyone who preceded us, not a single trusted Imam in knowledge and “senses”!

I have read, days ago, a book “al-Islam al-Musaffaa” (the Purified Islam) [3]  authored by one among those who have the enthusiasm to honour Islam – as apparently understood from his book - among those who are keen at preserving it (Islam) pure and perfect as how it was originally during his (sallalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) era, and yet he said – after citing authentic ahaadeets in relation to the commandment to let beard grow to oppose the  polytheists – his very words:

The commandment to let one’s beard grow is merely a recommendation/encouragement (not obligatory)! It’s case is just like the case of all outwardly appearances which Islam never had any concern for them, never made it compulsory upon it’s followers, instead left them (appearances) to their taste (choice) and that which suits their environment and time/era”!

Look at this enthusiasm to honour Islamic rulings, how the manipulation of taking the commandment of letting grow one’s beard as a mere recommended act as the first step, paves the way for his claim that Islam left this recommended act to the muslims’ preference and their surrounding, such that if they feel like acting upon it, they do it, not that it is a matter commanded by the  Prophet (sallalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), rather what suits their taste and era and if they do not feel like doing it, they neglect it and having no concern that it opposes the instruction of the Prophet (sallalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), even if we were to take it as a recommended act!

I am indeed worried if the author’s view is somewhat close or similar to this, as what could have stopped him from explaining the ruling of letting grow the beard, since there are many texts (narrations) pertaining to it, whereas he defended and asserted the ruling of circumcision, though there is no explicit text regarding it, as we have cited previously and refuted it, except for his commentary on the Prophet’s (sallalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) word: “Let your beard grow…”:

The scholars/jurists understood this commandment as obligatory and they ruled out that it is forbidden to shave the beard….” For it is not expressed clearly from him as his personal opinion of choice, especially when he knew that the defiance against keeping of the beard, is more widespread and apparent as compared to negligence in performing circumcision, such that many among the scholars and learned Syuyuukh (are tested by Allah) fell into this calamity, even worse they shave it for vanity, to the extent, some of them even have the audacity to permit the shaving of the beard and especially so in Egypt, where Sayyid Saabiq and as-Salmaan are residing. This would have been a sufficient reason for him to explain this defiance, and thus, I take this opportunity to explain the Shar‘ie ruling in this matter and I see it befitting to be a refutation against the statement which I quoted from the book “al-Islam al-Musaffaa” (the Purified Islam), due to it’s strong connection to the topic at hand, so I say:

Firstly: He mentioned that the commandment to let beard grow is meant as a recommended/superogatory act, and we have heard this a lot from other than him and to invalidate this claim I say:
This is contrary to what has been established as a principle of ruling in “علم الأصول – the discipline of Usool Fiqh” for whatever he commanded fundamentally mean to be obligatory/compulsory/mandatory, due to the aayah, Allah says: 
Meaning: “…then let those beware, who withstand the Messenger's order, lest some trial befall them, or a grievous Penalty be inflicted on them.”
And many other proofs not to mention them now, and to evade this established principle is disallowed except when supported by a valid authentic proof but the writer did not provide even a single proof (daleel) that supports him to oppose this principle n this matter, except for his claim that Islam never had any concern for all outwardly appearances…and it is also a claim without having any proof and it is falsified by many hadeets and it is as in our next clarification:

Secondly: He claimed that all outwardly appearances had never been a concern of Islam and beard is one of them:
I say: This claim is certainly false, beyond doubt, for any impartial truth seeker not influenced by desire will acknowledge and be convinced, when he comes face to face with these ahaadeets and all of them are Sahih.   
  1. Ibn ‘Abbaas narrated: The Messenger of Allah (solLaalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) cursed those men who imitate women and thuse women who impersonate men”
  2. From ‘Aa-ishah that a girl from among the Ansar got married and she suffered hairfall, so they thought of joining her hair to elongate them and they asked the Prophet (solLaalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) about it and he (solLaalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) replied saying: “Allah curses those who join hair (make it longer) and the ones who ask for it”
  3. Ibn Mas‘oud narrated in a Marfoo‘ narration: “Allah curses those who draw tattoos and those who ask for it, those who shave their facial hair and the ones asking people to do it for them, those who would indulge in beautifying themselves and changing the creations of Allah (aesthetic).  
  4. ‘Abdullaah bin ‘Amr reported: The Messenger (solLaalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) saw me wearing 2 pieces of garment dyed with saffron and he (solLaalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: “These are indeed from the garment of the disbelievers, so do not wear them”
The 2 Shaykh of Hadeets (al-Bukhaariy n Muslim) in their respective Sahihs, except for the last (fouth) one, as only Muslim recorded it and their chains of narration and sources are elaborated in “Aadaab az-Zifaaf” and “Hijaab al-Mar-at al-Muslimah”.
On this topic, there are so many hadeets and it is the matter of discussion in the Book: “IqtidaSiraat al-Mustaqeem Mukhaalafatu Ashab al-Jaheem” written by Shaykhul Islaam Ibn Taimiyah, do read it.
Thus these sacred texts clearly serve as proofs most evidently that Islam does concern for the outwardly appearances, in fact having extensive concern for them to the extent, sternly curses those who oppose the rulings, so how with all these it is valid to claim: Islam never had any concern for all outwardly appearances…?!
If the writer had never discovered these proofs, then it is most astonishing as how he can have the audacity to write on this topic, which has many sub topics branching out of it without even referring to a single (book of) Primary Resources/References of the Islamic Resources! If he did discover them, then my worst fear is that his response would be that they (the proofs) do not suit his taste! Or he would say: It is illogical! As he said regarding the Descent of ‘Isa (‘Alaihi as-Salaam) (pg. 75) and if that is the case, then there is no answer and I can only seek Allah’s Help.
From the aforementioned sacred texts, a true muslim whose inborn nature of fitrah is pure and “not contaminated”, should be able to take the many convincing proofs that keeping the beard or letting it grow is mandatory, obligatory and shaving it is Haraam, forbidden:

Firstly: ash-Shaari‘ (Allah the Exalted, the One who formulates Islamic Rulings) commanded the growing of beard. The fundamental established principle is that a commandment means that the matter being commanded is obligatory/compulsory/mandatory. So the claim is justified.

Secondly: The prohibition of men imitating women and shaving the beard for men is a resemblance of women as it (having no beard) is the most prominent feature of feminine/womanhood. Hence, the prohibition is established and on the contrary, growing and keeping the beard for men is compulsory.

Thirdly: “an-Nasimah” i.e. one who shaves facial hair – the one who shaves her eyebrows or others for beautification or vanity sake – and the reason behind it (the prohibition) is changing the creation of Allah and the one who shaves his beard, does it for vanity’s sake too – as claimed – and it is the ac of changing Allah’s creation as well. Therefore it shares the same 100% ruling as “an-Nasimah” and no different except for the word. I don’t think there is anyone on earth today that would take a word exclusively for it’s own apparent meaning and not contemplating on it’s variety of meanings, especially when the reasons for it’s diversified complementary meanings are lucid, as the Prophet said in this case: “vanity sake… changing the creation of Allah”.

(Fourthly): There is this fourth proof, it is that the Prophet (solLaalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) legislated the letting grow of beard as part of “al-Fitrah” (acts that correspond to Human Nature) as how he (solLaalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) prescribed the cutting of nails and shaving the pubic hair as part of these acts and others as narrated by Muslim in his “Sahih” and it contain a stern refutation against the writer and those who would tread the same path, claiming that the beard is a matter related to the norm and custom of the people, and the ruling of keeping or letting it grow, varies according to time and context! Because “al-Fitrah” is among the matters in Shari‘ah, which does not change, even with the change of norms and customs:

So set you (O Muhammad) your face towards the religion of pure Islamic MonotheismHanifa (worship none but Allah Alone) Allah’s Fitrah (i.e. Allah’s Islamic Monotheism), with which He has created mankind. No change let there be in Khalqillaah (i.e. the Religion of Allah Islamic Monotheism) that is the straight religion, but most of men know not .”[4]

If they disagree on this too, I can imagine that the day will come when there will be among the Shuyuukh and writers influenced by a degraded surrounding, and the customary practice is to leave the pubic hair and letting it grow, instead of shaving it and letting the beard grow! Keeping the nails long like wild beasts! I can imagine the day will come when they will permit all these acts which oppose the Fitrah, claiming that the era they are living in, see these as good and praiseworthy! And that they are merely from the outwardly appearences which Islam gives no attention or concern over them, in fact left them to their preferences!! They say this when the outcome would be the lost of the true Muslim’s Identity which signifies the strength of the Ummah, may Allah guide you.

His statement:
[pg. 23; 2nd paragraph: “Changing the colour of grey hair…”; – PDF pg 48 (Arabic pg 27)]

My comment: As for dyeing with other than black colour, it is a fact that they (the Companions – may Allah be please with all of them) did so and it is according to his (solLaalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) action and saying.
As for his (the author – al-Ustadz Sayyid Saabiq) statement: “و خضب جماعة منهم بالسواد – and a group of them used a black dye ”
I say: If this is truly narrated from them, it carries no weight as a justification, because it is against the authentic Sunnah from him (solLaalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), both actions and words and Allah the Most High says:

(And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger… [5]  the verse.

It has been authentically narrated from the Senior Companions like Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, that they dyed (their hair) using henna and katm as mentioned earlier and it is compulsory to take this, due to it being in accordance to the Sunnah, not the action of the Companions whom the author named, who did dye their hair different from the Sunnah, and especially so, since the authenticity of the narrations from them are questionable, as previously cited by Ibn Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) and for that reason an-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said (in al-Majmuu‘: 1/294):
“All of them unanimously agreed that it is detested to dye the head (hair) or beard with the black dye, and the apparent statements of our scholars indicate that it is Makrooh, the type which is Tanzeeh (not Haram), but the correct (ruling) is and in fact, the truth is, it is Haram (forbidden) and among those who unequivocally stated it’s non-permissiblity was the author of al-Hawi (al-Maawardee). (an-Nawawi said): the proof for it’s prohibition is the hadeets of Jaabir…”
Then he cited the following hadeets which is in this book with it’s wording: “و جنبوه السوادand avoid black (dye)”.

Unfortunately, the author (Ustaz Sayyid) – may Allah forgive us and forgive him – made a twisted interpretation of it such that it’s indication had been invalidated (to stand as a justified proof) and the refutation on this will come, if Allah wills.   
His statement:
[pg. 23; 2nd paragraph: “Changing the colour of grey hair…”; – PDF pg 48 (Arabic pg 27)]

My comment: If this truly with an authentic chain (isnad) from az-Zuhri (died: 124H), yet it still doesn’t serve as a justified proof, because it is a Maqtoo‘ (broken chain of narration) and Mawqoof (the chain of narration ended at him, instead of the Prophet or any of the Companions). Even if it was narrated in a  Marfoo‘ form, yet it still doesn’t serve as a justified proof, as it will fall into the category of Mursal narration. It is astonishing how the author used it to reject the clear indication from Jaabir’s hadeets, which will come (be mentioned) after this Inshaa’ Allaah alongside with the refutation.
Ash-Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradhawi made a strong statement in his book “al-Halaal wa al-Haraam” regarding the purpose of mentioning this Atsar (narration from az-Zuhri) in his book, citing it to justify that the meaning of the Prophet’s (solLaalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) saying: “و جنبوه السوادand avoid the black (dye)” is specific and applicable only to an old man whose head and beard are all white (grey)! I refuted him in “Ghaayat al-Maraam” pg. 83-84. Do refer to it.

[1] It is the worst form of Tadlies. It is when a Mudallis narrator (one who is guilty of misrepresenting the narrators in a chain of narration), heard a hadeets from a reliable teacher, but the teacher received it from a weak narrator who received the hadeets from a trustworthy teacher. He then deliberately misrepresent the chain of narration by omitting the weak narrator from the chain, as if the chain only consists of reliable trustworthy narrators, using equivocal phrases like “’an‘anah” or similar and he used a phrase which clearly means “direct transmission” between him and his immediate teacher, since truly he ahs heard from him, hence giving the idea that the narration is acceptable. Yet such manipulations are detectable by the experts in this field, like that (as cited and clarified in) Sharh ‘Uloom al-Hadeets by al-‘Iraaqi pg. 78. Some would do the same, not due to the weakness of a narrator but due to his young age, to give an impression that the narration is reliably strong.
[2] Qur’an: Soorah an-Nahl: 16: 123.
[3] Written by Muhammad ‘Abdullaah as-Salmaan, and he is – the truth need to be told – a valuable book which dealt with many issues and principles of importance to the  muslim of the modern era, but may Allah forgive him, he blabbed a lot in many matters and has wrongfully addressed them, for eg, in keeping the beard, his rejection of the Intercession (Shafaa‘ah) the Prophet (sallalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) for the sinners (among the believers), the Descent of ‘Isa, the Emergence of the Dajjaal and the Advent of al-Mahdi.
He rejected all these and even classified them as “Invented/Fabricated Misguidance/Deviation –  ضلالات مصنوعة” and claimed that all the ahaadeets in relation to them are Aahaad, do not reach the level of Tawaatur/Mutawaatir.
This 2 short comments we say to the Ustadz (writer): 
1. Your claim that all these ahaadeets are not Mutawaatir, is not acceptable from you,  nor from those who preceded you, like ash-Shaykh Shaltout and others because this claim does not come from the experts in the Field of Hadeets and as a matter of fact, the experts’ testimony is against this claim like al-Hafiz Ibn Katseer, Ibn Hajar, ash-Shawkaaniy and others, whereby they explicitly expressed that the hadeets of ‘Isa’s Descent is Mutawaatir and it implies the inclusion of the Emergence of Dajjaal as Mutawaatir as well, in fact to a greater extent, as the routes of narration (about the Dajjaal) are more, as a non hidden fact known by those who are the people of this noble knowledge (the field of Hadeets studies). 
I myself did gather the authentic routes only, on certain occassions, in relation to the (hadeets of the) Descent (of ‘Isa) and it has more than 20 routes from 19 Companions, is this not Tawaatur?
2. Your categorization and others like you – no matter how you do it – Authentic Hadeets into 2 categories: One (category), as an obligation upon the muslim to accept them, act upon them and these are those relating to rulings and their likes and the Other (category) not incumbent upon the muslim to accept and base his belief on them and they are the ahaadeets pertaining to Beliefs and those associated with the Unseen. I say: this categorization is an innovation, and has no origin in the Book of Allah and not even in the Sunnah of the Messenger (sallalLaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), never known by the Salafussolih, instead the generality of the evidences prooves the acceptance of ahaadets for both categories, no difference, and whoever claims a specification (of solely the rulings not matters of Belief), he is to provide a sustantiated valid explanation! Would he be able to provide that? Would he?
Then I wrote 2 essential articles in verifying the fallacy of the abovementioned categorization, the first; “The Obligation of taking the Aahaad Ahaadeets in Matters of Belief –  وجوب الأخذ بحديث الآحاد في العقيدة”  and the other; “The Hadeets itself is a valid proof in Matters of Belief and Rulings – الحديث حجة بنفسه في العقائد و الأحكام”.
[4]Al-Qur’an: Soorah ar-Ruum: 30:30.
[5] Al-Qur’an, Soorah an-Nisaa: 4:59
Copyright 2011
Template by freethemelayouts