₦airaland Forum

The Objective Lens: A Rebuttal to “70 Questions the Shi’ah Cannot Answer”

by Agboola Olawale Abdwasi


The Objective Lens is a comprehensive academic response to the lecture delivered by Professor Muhammad Mansour Ibrahim (Uthman Dan Fodio University, Sokoto, Nigeria). This lecture was translated from Hausa to English and subsequently transcribed into a book titled "70 Unanswered Questions – A Challenge to the Shi'ah." Professor Mansour posed 77 questions aimed at challenging the fundamental beliefs of the Shi'ah. Interestingly, some of these questions are academically grounded, while others are polemical and often directed at the Shi'ah.

In addition to providing answers to each of the 77 questions to dispel long-standing misinterpretations and, at times, deliberate misrepresentations of Shi'ah beliefs, this book serves as a golden key to unlocking further research fields in Islamic Studies. Written in a clear and scholarly style, it is designed for students of knowledge and open-minded readers. The book addresses various topics, including Wilayah, the Ahl al-Bayt, the Sahābah, the Noble Qur'an, and al-Taqiyyah, among many other sensitive subjects.

It is hoped that this research work will help ease the tensions surrounding the Sunni-Shi'ah dichotomy rather than intensify them.

https://www.amazon.com/Objective-Lens-Rebuttal-Questions-Cannot/dp/B0FBL49HXK?ref_=ast_author_dp

African Reincarnation Revisited: A Critique of Yoruba Religio-cultural Belief in Reincarnation in Light of Hikma Al-Muta’āliya

by Agboola Olawale Abdwasi

Humans are often concerned with three fundamental theological questions of existence: Where do I come from? What is my purpose here? What happens after death? Fundamentally, death is inevitable for every soul. However, the nature of life after death varies across different beliefs. While some religions believe that the human soul continues its journey in an Imaginal World ('Ālam al-Mithal or 'Ālam al-Barzakh) before the Day of Judgment, others believe in metempsychosis or reincarnation, which refers to the soul's rebirth in another body. African religions, particularly the Yoruba religio-cultural belief, also uphold the concept of reincarnation (àtúnwáyé) in three forms: Ìpadàwáyé (ancestor’s rebirth), Àkúdáàya (reappearance after death), and Àbíkú (destined to die).

The Àkúdáàya phenomenon, the Sunni theological concept of bodily resurrection (on the Day of Judgment), and the Shi'ah theological concept of Raj'ah (return) all involve the transmigration of the soul into either its original body or a semblance of it, which broadly defines reincarnation. Interestingly, in an attempt to explain the phenomenon of Àkúdáàya (reappearance after death), some Muslim scholars speculate that it could be the work of the Jinn, who are believed to possess the ability to transform from their semi-incorporeal form into a corporeal one.

What is the reality of these concepts and phenomena in light of Mulla Sadra's Hikma al-Muta'āliya (Islamic Transcendent Philosophy)?

This book revisits and critiques these concepts through the lens of Mulla Sadra's philosophical principles.

Mulla Sadra, a 17th-century Islamic philosopher, revolutionized Islamic philosophy by synthesizing Kalam (Islamic Speculative Theology), 'Irfan (Islamic Mysticism), and Hikma Masha'iyyah (Peripatetic Philosophy), among others, in his Transcendent Philosophy.

https://www.amazon.com/African-Reincarnation-Revisited-Religio-cultural-Al-Muta%C4%81liya/dp/B0FBBLSJWN?ref_=ast_author_dp

Is the Qurʾān a Clarification of Everything?

The remit of Q. 16:89, where God declares the Qurʾān as “a clarification of all things” is something of a discussion amongst exegetes. On the one hand it seems clear that there is only a certain number of verses speaking on specific topics, and on the other, is it really the concern of the Qurʾān to provide clarification for mundane matters? For this reason, many exegetes have opted to understand the use of “all things” as referring to all things that are related to human guidance and progression. Others have widened the scope more by saying that the Qurʾān contains the principles by which even the mundane can be navigated. In this post we will look at the views of Allāmah Ṭabāṭabāʾī and Allāmah Hasanzādah Āmulī.

While Tabatabai agrees with the idea that the Qurʾān explains all that is relevant for human guidance, and indeed this is what makes it a timeless text, he widens this scope to include clarification of what has occurred previously and what will occur in the future, which is an aspect of the taʾwīl of the Qurʾān. The Qurʾān is a manifestation of the Guarded Tablet (al-lawḥ al-maḥfūẓ) or the Well-protected Register (al-kitāb al-maknūn). Accessing the Guarded Tablet is the meaning of taʾwīl, which means to access the origin of something. As Q. 56:78-80 states the Kitāb Maknūn is only accessible to the purified. 

Hasanzādah instead interprets “all things” to mean all existent realities which is the prerogative of those established in knowledge (al-rāsikhūn fi-l-ʿilm) referred to in Q. 3:7 who know the taʾwīl of the Qurʾān. His view of the “and” preceding those established in knowledge is that it is a continuation (ʿatf) rather than the start of another sentence (istiʾnāf) unlike Ṭabāṭabāʾī who thinks the opposite. The Qurʾān is an explanation of realities of the cosmos. Those realities are contained within the souls of humans. The Qurʾān indicates those realities through its text and is therefore a clarification of all things.

For both scholars then, the Qurʾān clarifies everything as it is a window to the Guarded Tablet for the purified. Within the Tablet are the realities of all existent things which are accessed through the process of taʾwīl. Although they reach this conclusion using different thought processes, both see a wider remit for Q. 16:89 than that which pertains to the guidance of mankind.

✍️ Dr. Zoheir Ali Esmail

Fake News, and unfortunately, you can see gullible drinking it like mirinda.

I live in Qum, Iran, where Imam Khomeini's house is. Below are my pictures at the house of Imam Khomeini this morning.

BEWARE OF FAKE NEWS.

This is a super shameless FAKE NEWS.
I live in Iran. Below is my picture at Imam Khomeini's house this morning

coke75:
No, I get it bro. You're the one who doesn't 'get it'. I know Iran is based on sharia, thanks for the amazing insight.
So what? I'm saying that law is unjust. Immoral. Not so hard to understand, is it?
Just because something is a law doesn't make it just or moral. American law allowed slavery and later segregation. German law lead to the mass deportation and killing of Jews.


No. I respect the iranian women who fight for their freedom.

I'm not here to debate with you which law is just or upright. That's for another day. The point here is: "ìlú tí ko ba si òfin, ẹşẹ̀ ko si níbè (there is no sin in a lawless state)". What is the standard to judge Morality and justice? You or the Western world?

With all your dangling mouth and so-called moral justification, if you do something contrary to Nigerian civic law, you will be dealt with beyond recognition. Let's learn how to respect other people's law and principles first before subtly challenging it.

kris:
Your great grand parents were just fine walking around naked for years.

Perhaps that was what yours did, roaming naked. Mine used to dress up well.

coke75:
No, it's about recognizing that it's not for you to dictate how other people live their life. You want to wear a head scarf? Go ahead, but don't force other people against their will to wear one.
If you come to me and tell me what to do, my answer is that I'm going to shove my AR15 up your asshole. And it seems like the brave iranian women have a similar idea.

You still don't get it bro. Every society has laws that governs it. Iran is an Islamic state govern by Islamic law (following the referendum of 1979 where 98% of the population voted for Islamic Shariah law). It is rational that citizens and foreigners should abide by the laws of the land.

If Western World with their secular law prefer that their women should be roaming unclad on the street, that's their choice. Learn how to respect other people's law.

kris:
So you are saying that slavery is good today, because some people practiced it in the past? That we should accept it?

Yes Christians have killed a lot of people in the past in the name of religion, but that doesn't make it alright for other religions to do the same today. It was horrible then and it is horrible now.

Please try again later. Your juxtaposition never add up.

coke75:
So basically your argument is that you are like neanderthals who's moral values haven't progressed in a 1000 years.

Ohhh... progress of moral value is unclothedness and indecent dressing that the Western World is known for today?! Hmmm

Many do not know how very strict the US and UK were in the 1900s regarding public dressing. [See attached pics]. Of course, in the name of the so-called civilization, that has been thrown out of the window.

Islam has been maintaining its culture for more than a 1000 year when it comes to Morality. So, if in an Islamic society, a woman fail to comply with societal dress code, and she is dealt with, why the cries? It is a fact that everybody cannot be religious, the least expected of every citizen is to abide by laws of the land.

God1000:
This is serious, so Iran's President didn't realize that he's in America for now.

I support Christiane Amanpour on this, I'm sure she will wear it if she travels to Iran for this interview, but this is USA na.

We've seen western female journalists covering their heads in the middle East because it is necessary to do so over there.

Again this is coming when women across Iran are protesting against the death of a 22 year old woman in the custody of morality police and with dozens of protesters killed already.

First, Amanpour is an Iranian herself (Iranian-American-British [whatever]). So, if Iranian President sits with her without scarf, he will be sending a very wrong signal back home. Anyway, terms and conditions cannot be met, so no hard feelings.

NeoWanZaeed:
Shia .. Refuting Sheik Al Islam Abu Abdul Rahman Muhammad Ali Jabata..

Laughing..


Not surprised sha..

Even Yahya solaati (Sufi), Ahmadiyyah and other non Muslim did their own too..


Only a dumbass will take anything you say seriously

Laughing

This was years back:
https://www.nairaland.com/3052755/sheik-muhammad-ali-jabata-checkmated

NeoWanZaeed:
Shia .. Refuting Sheik Al Islam Abu Abdul Rahman Muhammad Ali Jabata..

Laughing..


Not surprised sha..

Even Yahya solaati (Sufi), Ahmadiyyah and other non Muslim did their own too..


Only a dumbass will take anything you say seriously

Laughing

Sheikh al-Islam? Who gave Ali Jabata that? Did he give himself or his followers dubbed him that? Where's the dalil from kitab wa sunnah? Bunch of liars.

Anyways, you better be scared. Shi'ah are not Sufi or Ahmadiyyah o. No one dealt with Salafiyyah more than the Shi'ah. Why do you think Aduww al-Islam ibn Taymiyyah wrote his ignoramus book "Minhaj Sunnah [Umawiyyah]? He wrote in response to Allamah al-Hilli (ra), Ibn Mutahar.

Dealing with you never starts today. It's not ariwo and takfiri as your leader - Jabata used to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI4f12hUURY

Clarifications on sheikh Muhammad Ali Jabata's Misconceptions About the Shi'ah

Part 1: Shi'ah and the Qur’an


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0kkuZ_XIY0

Empiree:
I have requested for short lecture on the verse explained by Sheikh Mubarak. Hopefully I get it soon.

@movado19

The "waaw (and)" is no doubt "waaw al-atf (conjunctive waaw); and the pronoun "HU" goes back to Jesus. The siyak (context) of the verse and the syntax rules within it makes it evident even though some claim that the pronoun "HU (he or it)" refers to the Qur'an.

However, the muraad (meaning) of the verse is what is important and not necessarily the pronoun.

CRITIQUE ON SHEIKH JAQMAL AND SHEIKH MUBARAK'S "FATWA" OF NON-EXISTENCE OF KAFAARA ON ONE WHO BREAKS HIS FASTING INTENTIONALLY

CASE OF KAFAARAH

Claimant 1: Sheikh Abdulwasi Jaqmal is of the view that there is no kafaara for someone who intentionally eats or had sex with his wife while fasting during the month of Ramadan.

Why? He cited three reasons:

1. Qur'an did not mention it.
2. Abu Huraira's Hadith on kafaara is rejected
3. The fact that some people who are capable of fulfilling the kafaara (expiation) conveniently are abusing it by continuing sinning while paying the kafaarah.

Claimant 2: Sheikh Saheed al-Mubaraq supports the ruling of Sheikh Abdulwasi Jaqmal by "exposing" Abu Huraira's hadith in which the Prophet fixed punishment [of freeing a slave or feeding 60 people or fasting two consecutive months] for intentionally fast breaker.

INVESTIGATION AND RESPONSES

There is no doubt that whoever intentionally breaks his fasting has deliberately disobeys Allah.


Allah says:

" Permitted to you, ON THE NIGHT OF THE FASTS, is the approach to your wives. They are your garments and ye are their garments. Allah knoweth what ye used to do secretly among yourselves; but He turned to you and forgave you; so now associate with them, and seek what Allah Hath ordained for you, AND EAT AND DRINK, UNTIL THE white thread of dawn appear to you distinct from its black thread; THEN COMPLETE YOUR FAST TILL THE NIGHT; but do not associate with your wives while ye are in retreat in the mosques. Those are Limits (set by) Allah: Approach not nigh thereto. Thus doth Allah make clear His Signs to men: that they may learn self-restraint. [Quran 2: 187].

The mafhum (understanding) of this noble verse is that it is not permitted (i.e haram) to approach one's wife during the day of fasting. And it is also not permitted to eat between dawn and night.

# No doubt, whoever breaks these commandments has indeed committed great sins.

KAFAARA IN THE QURAN?

Why has Allah kept mute on its (i.e breaking of fasting intentionally) expiation when even (as "small" as) breaking of oath is given expiation in the Qur'an?

First, both Sunni, and especially Shiah have narrated various ahadith on the expiation of intentional breaking of fast.


# If all these traditions are put together, *one will realize various judgements due to circumstances or situation of the sinner*.

THE JUDGEMENT

In both Sunni and Shi'ah traditions, the expiation is ranging from feeding X number of people, freeing slave or fasting consecutive X months. Yet, there is a situation where the person is required to pay charity of whatever he can afford or could be pardoned due to not having capability of any of the above-mentioned expiations. And in Shi'ah traditions, a situation of this crime might even warrant death penalty.

FOR SUNNI HADITHS:

1. Sunan Tirmidhi, hadith no. 724 reported by Abu Huraira: https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:724

The same hadith is also in Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 1936: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/30/43

2. Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith 1935, reported by Aisha: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/30/42

FOR SHIAH HADITHS:

Sheikh Al-Kulayni documents various ahadith in his al-Kaafi:
https://thaqalayn.net/chapter/4/2/22


❄️ Answer to the initial question as to why Allah did not mention expiation in the case of breaking fast intentionally is that:

1. Allah knows best

2. However, based on the above-cited varying judgements according to books of ahadith, it is crystal clear that it allows AL-SHAARI' - the Legislator i.e the Prophet or his true successors to assess the circumstances and situations of the sinner before dishing out a suitable judgement. If the Qur'an is to mention (few) possible circumstances and situations of intentionally fast breakers, the verse might not only lose its cohesion due to cumbrousness but also would have close the door for other circumstances or situations not mentioned.

And once Allah has said "Obey Allah and His Messenger..."[sura Aali Imran: 32], "O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority amongst you... [sura al-Nisa: 59], "Say, (O Muhammad): If ye love Allah, follow me... [sura Aali Imran: 31]; "...So take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you.[sura al-Hashr: 7]; so a believer should not look for excuses but must follow and obey Allah's legislated Legislators (the Prophet and his true successors).

THOSE WHO ABUSE KAFAARA

Expiation is very important to ditter sinners from repeating the act. In the Shari'a, if there's deliberate continuous repetition of sinful act (even if he pays expiation which has now becomes ineffective), the person might get death penalty as he will be judged as those who causes fitnah and fasad on the land. [Sura al-Ra'd: 25, sura al-Maidah: 33]. And who knows whether a deliberate persistent sinner will eventually surrender to his Lord [sura az-Zumar: 53]. Therefore, it is wrong to close the door of Forgiveness by saying "there is no kafaarah because a few abuse it." Why should we close the door because of deviant to deny non-deviants? Did Allah and His Messenger not know there would be deviants? So, it is very wrong to rule over Allah and His Messenger's judgements.

"O you who believe! be not forward in the presence of Allah and His Apostle, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing." [sura al-Hujurat: 1]


SHEIKH AL-MUBARAK'S GROSS ERROR

#  Why has Sheikh Abdulwasi Jaqmal reject Abu Huraira's hadith?

He did this because Abu Huraira was unreliable. Yes, he was unreliable even amongst the sahabah themselves, and he had been caught red-handed for lying against the Prophet. However, in this case of kafaara (and even other cases), one needs to prove the unreliability of Abu Huraira before rejecting his hadith. Interestingly, A'isha also narrated similar hadith as documented in Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith 1935, https://sunnah.com/bukhari/30/42

So, why can't A'isha's narration too be rejected as well?

#  Sheikh Saheed al-Mubarak in a bid to defend Sheikh Abdulwasi Jaqmal's unsubstantiated rejection of Abu Huraira's hadith tried to "expose the falsity" of Abu Huraira's hadith by bringing the hadith of Salman bin Sakhr Al-Ansari.

Summary of the Hadith is that Salman had sexual intercourse with his wife AFTER LIKEN HER BACK TO HIS MOTHER'S. Incidentally, the intercouse happened AT THE NIGHT of Ramadan. Then, he went to the Prophet and the later dished out kafaara (expiation) of freeing a slave or feeding 60 poor to him. When Salman expressed his inability of either of these expiations, Prophet gifted him a large basket (of dates probably) to feed 60 poor.

This hadith can be read in the links below:

1. Tirmidhi hadith 1200
https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:1200

2. Tirmidhi 1199
https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:1199

The conclusion of Sheikh al-Mubarak is that Abu Huraira "tapped" (i.e plagiarised) this hadith, edited it and formulate his narration. Let's take a look at Abu Huraira's hadith once again.

SUMMARY: A man came to the Prophet that he slept with his wife WHILE IN A STATE OF FASTING. And the Messenger of Allah fixed kafaara for him to free a slave or feed 60 poor or fast two consecutive months. When this man expressed his inability to fulfill any of these, Prophet gave him a full basket of dates to feed the poor. Yet, the man expressed how needy he himself is and the Prophet said he should instead used the dates to feed his family.

Again, this hadith is in:

1. Sunan Tirmidhi, hadith no. 724 reported by Abu Huraira: https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:724

The same hadith is also in Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 1936: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/30/43

2. Sahih al-Bukhari, hadith 1935, reported by Aisha: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/30/42

Questions:

# Sheikh Saheed al-Mubarak must answer how Abu Huraira plagiarised and edited the hadith of Salman? Is it not possible to say it was Abu Huraira's hadith that was plagiarised and edited to make Salman's hadith? Yes it is. Our Sheikh was not objective at all in his submissions.

# What Salman bin Sakhr Al-Ansari committed is called ZIHAR which Qur'an explains in sura Mujadalah: 1 - 4. And he did it at the night of Ramadan, meaning he was not fasting then. Besides, it doesn't matter when he did it, Ramadan or no Ramadan.

On the other hand, what "a man" in Abu Huraira and A'isha's narrations committed is breaking his fasting during the day of Ramadan which Qur'an has made haram in sura al-Baqarah: 187.

These two incidents (in their mawdu'aat - subject matters) are completely different from each other even though their hukm (judgement) is similar. And talking about that hukm, it is wrong to conclude that because of their similarity, Abu Huraira might have plagiarised and edited the hadith. This is because, hukm (judgement) for killing a believer unintentionally is also similar [sura al-Nisai: 92].

And the last difference in the two hadiths is that in the end, Salman ibn Sakhr Al-Ansari "feed" the sixty poor but "a man" in the hadith of Abu Huraira was granted permission by the Prophet to feed his poor family instead.

Therefore, Sheikh Saheed al-Mubarak's criticism, allegation and submission and the fatwa of Sheikh Abdulwasi Jaqmal hold no water. It is just a mere unsubstantiated attempt and a futile fatwa that has no basis.

CONCLUSION

It is haram and a great sin to deliberately breaks one's fasting during the month of Ramadan, and whoever does must repent sincerely, pay expiation (kafaarah) for it and make up the missed fast.


Writing by: Abdulwasi Olawale Agboola

Alhajiemeritus:
Well, nice points you have there. But I was actually made to understand that the Surat Israh being referred to has nothing to do with Nabi Muhammad S.AW. It's all about Prophet Musa and the Israelites.
Look at the verse that immediately followed the verse of journey.
Allhau Allam.

First, Verse 1 of surah al-Israi strictly talks about Israi wa al-Miraj and details of the journey is given in surah an-Najm. However, verse 2 starts with "waaw al-istinafiyah", a "conjunction" that starts NEW sentence and new story entirely different from the previous. This was one of my rebuttals to Sheikh al-Mubaraq who argued that verse 2 suggested that verse 1 is being referred to Prophet Musa and not the noble Prophet of Islam because of the waaw (and). He understood the waaw to be atf (conjunction). The waaw is istinafiyah (waaw that starts new information different from the previous). And all the gramatical conditions are fulfilled to know it is waaw al-istinaf and not waaw al-atf.

Second, yes surah Israi talks largely about Prophet Musa and Bani Israil, but that doesn't mean it does not talk about our Prophet and other things. This is the style of the Qur'an. Surah Maryam talks about other than Maryam; Surah al-Jinn talks about other than Jinns etc etc.

aumeehn:
So which of the three are we going to believe? So a total of three Angels came to Rasulullah to inform him of Hussein Matyrdom? Angel of Rain visited prophet Rasulullah, I have never heard of that. Shiites and unnecessary Bid'ah. May Allah SWT guide us to the Right path. Ameen

So, why are you opposing what you are ignorant of? The honorable thing to do is to research or find out on it. Besides, OP has given you explicit SUNNI hadiths to establish the facts. So, why taken your anger out of "Shi'ah?" Please let's learn civility.

If you are challenged as to why you rejoice and celebrate Mawlid An-Nabiyy, ask them if Muhammad is a mercy and grace to Mankind? If they say yes, then:

[Surah Yunus, Verse 58]:

Say: In the grace of Allah and in His mercy-- in that they should rejoice; it is better than that which they gather."

Validity of celebrating Mawlid an-Nabiyy

https://www.nairaland.com/6809264/validity-celebrating-mawlid-an-nabiyy#106860157

EXCELLENT NOTE ON MAWLID AN-NABIY


They said: Celebrating the birth of Messenger of Allah is Bid’ah (innovation)


We said to them: Is the birth of the noble Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) a favor or curse?


They said: It is a favor from Allah.


We said to them:

"And as for the favor of your Lord, do announce (it)." [Surah Ad-Dhuha, Verse 11]



Happy Mawlid An-Nabiyy

A SHORT REFLECTION ON MAWLID AN-NABIYY CELEBRATIONS

Allah says:

"That you may believe in Allah and His Apostle and may aid him and revere/venerate him (i.e the Prophet); and (that) you may declare His (Allah's) glory, morning and evening."[1]

It is established in the hadith[2] of Abu Saeed al-Khudri that even the sahabah gathered in a group with good intentions to "venerate and honor" the noble Prophet by thanking Allah for blessing them with Muhammad, salallahu alayhi wa ahlih.

What day exactly did this event of the Sahabah correspond with? Was it a one time or continuous event? No information is available to shed light on these questions, but what we gathered is that Prophet NEVER rebuked their gathering or intentions rather, he commended and appreciated their initiatives.

This clearly shows us the Prophetic approval of " any gathering with good intentions and righteous acts in his blessed name."

This is a good pointer to the establishment of Mawlidu-n-Nabiyy celebration where people gather with the intention to praise Allah and thank Him for blessing us with Muhammad, peace be upon him and his family.


HYPOCRISY!!!

Some tag Mawlidu-n-Nabiyy a Bid’ah act with the excuse that Prophet or the Sahabah did not practically "celebrate" it as it is being done today.

Simple response to this is that there are 1001 things that these Mawlidu-n-Nabiyy antagonists do repetitively that the noble Prophet never practices. A simple example is saying "RadiyAllahu anhu or Rahimahullah" after the mentioning of any sahabi or a dead righteous Muslim respectively. Despite the fact that Allah uses the sentence in several places in the Qur'an, Prophet and the sahabah never used it as Mawlid an-Nabiyyi antagonists used those sentences today. Why can't they tag that a Bid’ah act as well for the same reason they declared Mawlid an-Nabiyy celebration as Bid’ah?


Peace be upon the Noble Prophet and his Ahl al-Bayt.

Happy Mawlid An-Nabiyy


Written by Abdulwasi Olawale A.

.................

References:

1. Surah al-Fath: 9

2. Sunan an-Nasai 5426
In-book reference : Book 49, Hadith 48
English translation : Vol. 6, Book 49, Hadith 5428
https://sunnah.com/nasai/49/48

Peace be upon those who seek guidance.

Peace upon those who seek guidance.

nisai:
Ok sir. But I will appreciate proof to back it up.

The only hadith of the Prophet that talks about beard says, "trim your moustache and leave your beard so you can be different from the Jews"

Fi'l al-Amr [commanding verb] usually indicates either: compulsion (waajib) or recommendation (isti'bab). If something is compulsory and you do it not intentionally, then there is punishment for it. Recommended act if done attracts great reward but if left undone, it attracts no punishment.

In the abovementioned hadith, the "command" in its tone and style is a recommendation, never compulsory (even if some too know group of people have made it compulsory for themselves).

You can decide to have beard, trim or shorten it. It's a choice. Sincerely, beard is manly and always look good if kept well.

nisai:
Thanks. What about beard?

Beard is simply a recommended act, NEVER a compulsory act.