For plucking eyebrows (namṣ) to be prohibited, it must be associated with another matter that leads to its prohibition. This includes resembling immoral women, such as those red-flagged women in pre-Islamic times, or completely removing the eyebrows, which changes Allāh’s creation.

To elaborate further:

Firstly, there must be a balance between actions and the consequences in terms of punishment. The severity of a sin should match its punishment. A major sin should not have a trivial punishment, and a trivial action should not have a major punishment. In Shaī῾ah, we find a balance between sins and punishments.

Therefore, it does not make sense for the punishment for plucking eyebrows to be the same as for hypocrisy, disobedience to parents, the actions of the people of Lot (i.e., homosexuality), or sacrificing for other than Allāh. Plucking eyebrows is ultimately a minor sin and does not warrant being excluded from Allāh’s mercy. Thus, the curse mentioned must be related to something other than just plucking eyebrows, such as resembling immoral women and the associated encouragement of immorality, deceit, and corruption of society, which deserve severe punishment.

Secondly, Arabs distinguished between “namṣ” (plucking eyebrows) and “tazjīj” (shaping eyebrows). Namṣ refers to completely removing the hair, which changes Allāh’s creation, a practice associated with ancient Egyptian priests. Tazjīj refers to shaping the eyebrows, thinning them at the ends to make them arched and beautiful, as described by the poet Ar-Rā῾ī an-Numayrī:

“When the young women appear one day, and they shape (wa-zajjajna) their eyebrows and eyes.”

The ḥadīth about plucking eyebrows is thus about completely removing the hair (namṣ) and changing Allāh’s creation, not about shaping the eyebrows (tazjīj), which most women do. Calling tazjīj namṣ is an overgeneralization, although they share some aspects, they differ in their rulings.

Thirdly, rulings related to appearances are often based on specific underlaying causes (῾ilal) and wisdom (ḥikam), and the ruling should be linked to its underlaying cause and legislative wisdom.

For example, the ḥijāb is a form of appearance with the underlaying cause being femininity and its legislative wisdom being the protection of women: “so that they will not be harassed” [Al-᾽Aḥzāb 33:59], and protecting men from temptation: “That is purer for your hearts and their hearts” [Al-᾽Aḥzāb 33:53], and distinguishing from pre-Islamic customs: “and do not display yourselves as in the time of ignorance” [Al-᾽Aḥzāb 33:33]. The ruling is thus based on its underlaying cause and does not depart from its wisdom.

Similarly, in the case of lowering the garments (᾽isbāl), the underlying cause of its prohibition is arrogance and pride, and the ruling follows the presence or absence of this underlaying cause, as indicated in the ḥadīth of Abī Bakr (may Allāh be pleased with him).

In the case of the beard, the wisdom behind the command to grow it and the prohibition of shaving it is to avoid resembling the polytheists and Magians in their actions, and to maintain a distinct Muslim appearance, as mentioned in the ḥadīth of Abī ᾽Umāmah.

Since rulings on appearance have specific underlaying causes, the ruling on plucking eyebrows (namṣ) should also follow its underlaying cause. The cause of plucking eyebrows being prohibited is: resembling immoral women, changing Allāh’s creation, or deceit and fraud. All these deserve punishment, but if these underlaying causes are absent, the default principle is permissibility due to the absence of the underlaying cause for prohibition.

This principle does not apply only to prohibitions; someone who engages in a permissible act out of imitation of disbelievers or sinful people is also deserving of punishment and incurring sin, even if the act itself is permissible. For example, watching the sunrise or sunset by the sea is originally permissible, but if done in imitation of sun worshipers, it becomes sinful, even though the act itself is permissible.

Fatwa issued by Dr. Khālid Naṣr