Thread by @IbneKhan01

The Ĥanafī position

However, this opinion of Imām Nawawī was a minority position. The majority of scholars, even of his own madh'hab, held that it was only impermissible when the look was one of desire.

This is also the position of the Ĥanafī madh'hab.

https://twitter.com/IbneKhan01/status/1378507552581898243

Állāmah Muĥammad Álāuddīn al-Ĥaşkafī al-Ĥanafī [1025-1028 AH / 1616-1677 CE] writes in Durr al-Mukhtār:

“{It is not permissible to look at it [i.e. the face of a woman] with desire, similarly the face of an amrad} Looking at her face and the face of an amrad is prohibited when

there is doubt of desire, as for in the absence of it, then it is permissible [to look at an amrad], even if he be beautiful.”

Sayyid Muĥammad Ibn Áābidīn al-Ĥanafī al-Shāmī [1198-1252 AH / 1784-1836 CE] writes in Radd al-Muĥtār, commenting on this:

“{Similarly the face of an amrad} he is a youth whose moustache has come out, whilst his beard has not yet grown. It is said in Multaqat: When the youth

reaches the maturity of men, and is no longer beautiful, then the ruling regarding him is the ruling regarding men, and if he is beautiful then the ruling regarding him is the ruling regarding women, and that is áwrah from head to toe.

Sayyid Imām Abu'l Qāsim said: That means it is not permissible to look at him with desire, as for khalwah [remaining alone] with him and looking at him without desire, then there is no harm in it, and for this reason he is not commanded to do niqāb [veil the face].

I say: This includes the one whose cheeks have begun to grown hair, in fact some of the sinners prefer him over the amrad whose cheeks are free [of hair] and pure from the growing of the moustache...The meaning of him being beautiful is that he be beautiful according to the

nature of the beholder, even if he be black, because beauty differs according to the differing natures. By the similarity of the face of the amrad with the face of the woman it is understood that the prohibition of looking at him with desire is a greater sin because the fear of

fitnah with him is greater than with her, and because he is never permissible [for him] in any state, as oppose to the woman...For this reason, the Salaf exceeded in repulsion from them...Ibn al-Qattān said: They formed consensus that it is impermissible to

look at a beardless youth with intent to find pleasure by looking and the enjoyment of the sight with his beauty, and they formed consensus upon its permissibility without the intent of pleasure, and also that the beholder be safe from fitnah.”

Vol. 1, pg. 273.

He writes elsewhere:

“It is not hidden that the safest is to completely avoid looking. It is said in Tatārkhāniyyah: Muhammad ibn al-Ĥasan [al-Shaybānī] was a beautiful youth, and Abū Ĥanīfah would seat him behind his back, or behind a column during his lesson,

fearing the betrayal of the eye, despite the perfection of his piety [taqwā].”

Vol. 5, pg. 233.

Şadru’sh Sharīáh Mawlānā Amjad Álī al-Aáżamī al-Ĥanafī [d. 1367 AH / 1948 CE] writes in Bahār e Sharīát:

“When a boy becomes murāhiq [close to puberty], and he is not beautiful, then the ruling relating to him with regard to looking is the same as that of a man.

If he is beautiful, then the ruling relating to a woman is upon him, that is, to look at him with desire is harām, and if there is no desire then he may look at him also and to be alone with him is also permissible [when there is no desire].

The meaning of there being no desire is that he have certainty that by looking there shall not be desire, and if there is even a suspicion of it, then he should definitely not look. The wish to kiss also enters the boundary of desire.”

Vol. 16, pp. 86-87.

Therefore, it is not forbidden to look upon a beautiful amrad in the Ĥanafī madh'hab nor is it impermissible to be alone with him, unless there is desire. However, the safest and most cautious path is to avoid it all completely.

The following of these rulings prevents the widespread sin of enjoyment of beardless boys which occurs in society.