Firstly, the origin of this matter, from which the difference arose, is the narration of the Hadith of Umm Salamah, which was narrated by Muslim and others, that the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: “Whoever has an animal to sacrifice, let him not take anything from his hair or nails when the crescent of Dhul-Hijjah appears until he sacrifices.” So, has this prohibition remained in effect, or was it abrogated by the actions of the Prophet and the companions to the contrary? And is this prohibition considered obligatory or recommended? Is it valid for us to act in a matter where is a widespread affliction based on a narration that has not reached the level of well-known hadith? And why is cutting the hair restricted specifically, unlike other things that are prohibited for the pilgrim?
Secondly, the four major schools of thought have differed on this issue, resulting in three main opinions:
1- The permissibility of shaving and trimming the hair and not subjecting the sacrifice to the rules of Hajj, as it is a separate act. Therefore, the one sacrificing is allowed to do what is permissible for others. This is the opinion of our Imams in the Hanafi school and is also the view among the Maliki scholars. The great Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “It is not disliked because it is not prohibited for him to engage in marital relations or wear regular clothes. Therefore, there is no dislike in shaving the hair and trimming the nails, just as if he did not intend to sacrifice.”
2- The Shafi’i school of thought states that it is not prohibited, but rather disliked, as an application of the preceding Hadith. This stance combines the earlier Hadith with the original permissibility, recognizing that the prohibition implied in the Hadith is not absolute in its indication of prohibition.
Imam Nawawi, in his book “Al-Majmu'”, said: “Our school of thought is that removing hair and nails during the ten days (of Dhul-Hijjah) for those intending to offer a sacrifice is disliked out of precautionary dislike until the sacrifice is performed.”
3- The Hanbali school of thought holds that it is prohibited for the one intending to offer a sacrifice to cut their hair or trim their nails from the beginning of Dhul-Hijjah until the sacrifice is performed.
Ibn Qudamah al-Hanbali said, “Whoever intends to offer a sacrifice and enters the ten days (of Dhul-Hijjah), they should not take anything from their hair or skin. The apparent meaning of this is the prohibition of cutting the hair. This is the opinion of some of our companions, and it was reported from Ibn al-Mundhir through Ahmad, Ishaq, and Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib. Al-Qadi and a group of our companions said: It is disliked (makruh) but not prohibited.”
Thirdly: What we lean towards is the opinion of our Hanafi scholars, and this is due to the following reasons:
1- The texts are conflicting in this matter as the narration from Umm Salamah is not a well-known hadith in spite of the widespread affliction. Moreover, “I used to make garlands for the sacrificial animals of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, then he would put them on the animals by his hand, then he would send them. Nothing permissible that Allah made lawful for him was prohibited until he sacrificed the animals.” Therefore, this narration holds more strength and applicability than the narration reported by Muslim through Umm Salamah for the following reasons:
– Lady Aisha had a deeper understanding than Lady Umm Salamah and retained more from the teachings of the Prophet.
– Lady Aisha reported from the Prophet, peace be upon him, an action that could abrogate his previous narration by Umm Salama.
– The statement of Lady Aisha indicates that the ruling persisted until his, peace be upon him, passing, whereas the narration of Lady Umm Salama arrived without specification. This is valuable in understanding abrogation.
– The narration of Aisha is one on which both Bukhari and Muslim agreed, while Muslim alone narrated the narration of Umm Salama.
2- What the Hanafi scholars have mentioned about the prohibition, when it is due to the resemblance of a pilgrim during their state of consecration (ihram), necessitating abstention from sexual intercourse and wearing stitched clothing as well, so why is this restriction limited to head shaving and nail trimming, excluding other prohibited actions?
3- Assuming that the one offering a sacrificial animal adopts the same prohibitions as the pilgrim, the pilgrim themselves is only restricted from shaving their head and trimming their nails during the state of ihram, not for the ten days of Dhul-Hijjah. So, how can we impose greater restrictions on the one offering the sacrifice compared to what we mandate for the pilgrim, even though the latter is the one subject to the prohibitions?
4- Imposing upon the one offering a sacrificial animal the restriction of not shaving their head and not trimming their nails is an injustice, especially considering that this individual is actively engaging in obedience in comparison to others who do not perform the sacrifice. Those who do not offer a sacrifice are permitted to engage in all actions without incurring any cost, whereas those who offer a sacrifice are denied the ability to shave and trim, along with the imposition of a cost. This arrangement is not consistent with the principles of Islamic law.
5-Prohibiting shaving and nail trimming for a duration of ten days or more, if the sacrifice is performed on the eleventh or twelfth day, introduces hardship and contradicts the Islamic principle of cleanliness. This contradicts what Islam has instructed us on the day of Eid regarding the preparations for the holiday through washing, shaving, and trimming nails, as the act of sacrifice does not precede the prayer.
Therefore, based on all of this, what is permissible for the one offering a sacrifice is what is permissible for others as well.
And Allah knows best.
Fatwa by Dr. Khālid Naṣr