Is it permissible to use a hairbrush made out of boar bristles? It is
said that these bristles (which pigs have instead of fur or hair) are
good for the hair, sothey are used in the manufacture of these
brushes. But I am not sure whether it is permissible to use it, and
people differ concerning this matter. Ihope that you can explain.
Praise be to Allah.
The fuqaha' differed as to whether boar bristles are najis (impure).
The majority of Hanafis, Shaafa'is and Hanbalis are of the view that
theyare najis (impure). The Maalikis are of the view that they are
taahir (pure).
According to the view that they are najis, it is not permissible to
use them when they are wetor to let them touch anything that is wet,
because najaasah (impurity) is transmitted by wetness.
Inal-Mawsoo'ah al-Fiqhiyyah(20/35) it says: The majority are of the
view that boar bristles are najis, so it is not permissible to use
them because that is using something that is najis in and of itself.
According to the Shaafa'is, if a khuff (leather slipper) is stitched
with thread made from boar bristles, the place where the stitches are
cannot be made pure by means of washing or using dust, but it may be
overlooked and forgiven, so the individual may offer obligatory and
naafil prayers in them because it is too difficult to avoidthis thing.
According to the Hanbalis, if it was stitched when wet it must be
washed, and it is permissible to use a sieve made of impure bristles
if it is dry, because the impurity is not transferred, but it is not
permissible to use it if it is wet because the impurity is transferred
by wetness.
The Hanafis regarded it as permissible for those who do stitches to
use boar bristles in cases of necessity.
The Maalikis were of the view that boar bristles are taahir (pure), so
if they are cut off with scissors it is permissible to use them, even
if theyare cut when the pig is dead, because the matter has nothing to
dowith whether the animalis alive or dead. But it is mustahabb to wash
them because there is some doubt as to whether they are taahir (pure)
or najis (impure). But if the bristles are plucked, then they cannot
be taahir (pure). End quote.
It also says (26/102):
The Maalikis are the onlyones who say that boar bristles are taahir
because they (the bristles) are taahir whenthe boar or pig is alive.
This applies if the bristles are cut off and not plucked. If they are
plucked then the roots are najis but the ends are taahir.
They quoted as evidencefor that the verse in which Allah, may He be
glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):"…and of
their wool, fur, and hair (sheep wool, camel fur, and goat hair), a
furnishing and articles of convenience (e.g. carpets, blankets, etc.),
a comfort for a while" [an-Nahl 16:80]. This verse appears in the
context of reminding people of Allah's blessings, so the apparent
meaning is that it includes animals both dead and alive.
They also quoted as evidence the hadeeth of Maymoonah (may Allah be
pleased with her) according to which the Messenger (blessings and
peace of Allah be upon him) said concerning a sheep of Maymoonah's
(that had died) when he passed byit: "It is only haraam to eat it."
According to another version: "Only its meat is haraam for you; you
are allowed to make use of its skin."
On the basis of reasoning they concluded that the dead animal is
regarded as pure when alive, and issue of whether the hair (or
bristles) is pure has nothing to do with whether the animal is alive
or dead.
The most correct view is that the bristles of pigs and the hair of
dogs andother animals are taahir (pure).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:With
regard to hair growing on a body that is impure, Imam Ahmad had three
reports:
1.That all kinds of hair are pure, even the hair of dogs and the
bristles of pigs. This is the view favoured by Abu Bakr 'Abd
al-'Azeez.
2.That all kinds of hair are impure, as is the view of ash-Shaafa'i.
3.That if the hair of the dead animal was pure when it was alive, then
it is pure, as in the case of sheep and mice; but the hair of animals
that are regarded as impure when they are alive is also impure, as in
the case of dogs and pigs. This is the view favouredby the majority of
his companions.
The most correct view is that all hair is taahir (pure), whether it
comesfrom a dog, a pig or other animals. This is unlike the saliva.
Based on that, if the dog's hair is wet and it gets onto a person's
clothes, there is no problem with that, as is the view of the majority
of the fuqaha', Abu Haneefah and Maalik, and of Ahmad according to one
of the two reports from him. That isbecause the basic principle
concerning substances is that they are pure, and we cannotregard
anything as impure or haraam except on the basis of evidence to that
effect, as Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the
meaning):
"He has explained to youin detail what is forbidden to you,
exceptunder compulsion of necessity"
[al-An 'aam 6:119]
"And Allah will never lead a people astray after He has guided them
until He makes clear to them as to what they should avoid"
[at-Tawbah 9:115].
The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said in the
saheeh hadeeth: "One ofthe most serious sins a Muslim may commit is to
ask about something that was not forbidden, then it becomes forbidden
because of hisasking."
Inas-Sunanit is narratedfrom Salmaan al-Faarisi in a marfoo' report
that he said: "What is permissible is that whichAllah has permitted in
His Book, and what is forbidden is that which Allah has forbidden in
His Book. And what He has said nothing about is that which He has
forgiven. As that is the case, the Prophet (blessings and peace of
Allah be upon him) said: "The purification of the vessel of one of
you, if it is licked by a dog, is to wash it seven times, the first of
which should be with dust." All versions of this hadeeth mention
nothing except licking; they do not mention anyother parts of the dog,
so regarding the dog itself as impure is a conclusion that is reached
only by analogy… With regard toevery animal that was said to be
impure, the argument concerning itshair or feathers is like the
argument concerning the hair of the dog. If it is said that every wild
animal that has fangs and every birdthat has talons is impure – except
cats and whatever is smaller than them, as is the view of many of the
scholars, thescholars of the people ofIraq, and it is the better known
of the two reports from Ahmad – then the issue of the hairor feathers
of such creatures is subject to the same argument, whether it is
impure or not. There are two reports from Ahmad, oneof which says that
it is pure. This is also the view of the majority, such as Abu
Haneefah, ash-Shaafa'i and Maalik. The second view is that it is
impure, which is the view favoured by many of the later companions of
Ahmad. The view that it is pure is the correct view, as stated above.
End quote fromal-Ikhtiyaaraat al-Fiqhiyyah dumna al-Fataawa al-Kubra, 5/264
Based on that, there is nothing wrong with using a hairbrush made out
of boar bristles, and it does not matter if it touches wet hair, but
avoiding that is preferable, so as to avoid an area of scholarly
difference of opinion.
And Allah knows best.
