There is No Prohibition on Shaving The Beard
I have concluded that there is no prohibition, since the basis of prohibition is the hadith which states: "Clip the mustache and spare the beard, and do not appear as the Jews." If then, the ruling is predicted on a consideration of appearance for the purpose of differentiating between Muslims and Jews, then this is specific to the situation where the Muslims are a minority and others a majority which calls for some demarcation. When Imam Ali was asked about the words of the Messenger of God: "Change your gray hairs by dyeing them; do not appear as the Jews do," he responded, "He said that when Islam was a minority, but now it has become known and widespread, so let the person do what he chooses."
It is understood from the hadith that the prohibition of shaving the beard was contingent on a time-related issue at the beginning of the Islamic message. Afterwards, however, the shaving of the beard became a matter of appearance. If people wanted to make an example of a person and ostracize him, it was said: "Shave his beard"-the same way that the head is now shaved as a form of punishment.
There are some jurists who seek proof in the biographical accounts of the Prophet and the Imams. But biography is not a proof for prohibition, since their conduct may have been the result of opinion, or a natural state of affairs where shaving of the beard was unknown amongst the Muslims.
Are there jurists who allow its shaving?
Al-Sayyid al-Khui disallowed shaving on the basis of obligatory precaution and not as a prohibition.
Shaking Hands With The Opposite Sex
The basic rule is that a man is not allowed to shake hands with a woman who is not his mahram. It was narrated regarding the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet that when the women came to him, he said "I do not take the hands of women," and he placed a bowl of water, wherein the woman would put her hand at one end, and he would place his hand at the other end, and took the pledge in this manner.
It was narrated from the Ahl al-Bayt that "a man does not shake hands with a woman who is not his mahram, except from behind a piece of cloth."
If, however, such a situation threatens to cause great harm or to lead to a crisis that do not normally correspond to the circumstances, then it is permissible.
The other person may feel that you wish to humiliate him if you do not return his handshake.
It is possible in this case for a person to clearly understand the issue. The important thing is that a person must first be in an extremely difficult situation, whose circumstances he cannot bear; for God has said, " [God] has not caused you difficulty in your religion" (al-Hajj, 22:78). How one determines what is difficulty differs according to the persons and the place. One person may be so insecure that, if he does not shake hands he may be imprisoned; or be accused of belonging to some particular party, as in the countries which seek to impugn and to test Islamic activists and followers through this method.
Purity (Taharah) of The People of The Book
I rule on the purity (taharah) of every human being, regardless of whether he is a non-believer or a Muslim, for there is no impure (najis) person in his essence. He may be impure in his beliefs, in his feelings or perceptions, but there is no proof, in my analysis of the Shariah, for the impurity of any person qua person. The believer and the non-believer both become impure by known impurities.
The martyr Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr saw purity in every human being, but he was cautious about the nonscriptural non-believer because of the consensus (ijma) on this issue.
What about the ritual impurity (najasah) indicated by the Quran?
The "impurity" meant here is the impurity of polytheism, the (mental) defilement of polytheism, and the proof for this is: "Verily the polytheists are impure, and they may not come near the Sacred Mosque"(al-Tawba, 9:28). If intrinsic uncleanness were intended, the impurity is achieved by fresh moisture; without this there is no impurity. Even those who propound the uncleanness of the non-believer, state that we do not use this verse as proof of uncleanness, since the meaning here is abstract.
Good enough-but what about eating their meat?
No, the premise being that it is stipulated the name of God must be invoked. The prevalent opinion is that the slaughterer must be a Muslim. However, we find that the ruling on the legality of meat from a person of the People of the Book is similar to the view of the Shahid II. We thus feel that the ruling of prohibition in the assumed scenario is based more on precaution, as is the position of the martyr Sayyid al-Sadr.
Music...The Lawful and The Unlawful
Views clash concerning music, and it is the same regarding singing. Is there a juridical view that puts this controversy to rest?
When we study legal texts which count as the basis for the prohibition of music, we find that they rely on the verse, "There are those people who pay for mere pastime of discourse, and detract from the path of God without knowledge" (Luqman, 31:6); or, "And shun false talk" (al-Hajj, 22:30)-which are said to corroborate the prohibition on singing. There are also hadiths which classify singing as having no foundation; and another hadith about a man who was listening to some maidservants who were singing at a corner of his house; he was ordered to seek forgiveness.
We understand from the foregoing that the Shariah ruling on singing and music is based on two issues: First, that the singing should be distracting, interrupting the remembrance of God, and having some influence. We do not intend here to present the basic jurisprudential proof, because that requires long research. Our view is that music which does not fan the impulses; does not lead to entertainment which alters the normal state of the person; and has nothing which may lead to lust must be seen as permissible, by virtue of all this.
If what is called classical music falls within these parameters, it is permissible; likewise for symbolic or inspirational music, the kinds that raise spirits, calm the nerves, soothe the mentality, etc.
Perhaps the jurists who had ruled on singing by prohibiting it were referring to the illicitness, wantonness, and evil of the people of corruption.
Its Tune or Its Ancillaries?
There are those who explain that singing is prohibited because it is accompanied by music.
The prohibition of singing-in the prevalent view of the jurists-stems from the natural melody of song; and if singing covers some illicit aspects, then those things are another haram.
Another jurist (Mulla Muhsin al-Kashani) who ruled that the prohibition on singing pertains to what singing entails and its ancillaries, not its melody per se. The overwhelming majority of jurists, however, do not agree with this. When we study the issue of singing, we see that its influence is due to the melody that underlies it, even though its ancillaries do enter the picture.
I do rule in favor of abstinence in this area, which perhaps agrees with what the above mentioned jurist has opined, namely, that when music deals with prophetic praises, or poetry, or what is close to a melodic Quranic recitation which grabs the attention, then we do not see this as a waste of time or a wrong. This is because the melody and its ancillaries in this respect do not convey a meaning in the mind that is deeper than if it were delivered in a normal way.
