Ruling on using hairbrushes made out of boar (pig) bristles

The fuqaha’ differed as to whether boar
bristles are najis (impure). The majority of Hanafis, Shaafa‘is and
Hanbalis are of the view that they are 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 wet or to let them touch
anything that is wet, because najaasah (impurity) is transmitted by
wetness. 

In al-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 avoid
this 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 they are cut when the pig is dead, because
the matter has nothing to do with whether the animal is 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 only ones who say
that boar bristles are taahir because they (the bristles) are taahir when
the 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 evidence for 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 by it: “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 and other 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 favoured by the majority of his companions. 

The most correct view is that all hair is
taahir (pure), whether it comes from 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 is because the
basic principle concerning substances is that they are pure, and we cannot
regard 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 you in detail what
is forbidden to you, except under 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 of the most serious sins a
Muslim may commit is to ask about something that was not forbidden, then it
becomes forbidden because of his asking.” 

In as-Sunan it is narrated from
Salmaan al-Faarisi in a marfoo‘ report that he said: “What is permissible is
that which Allah 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 any other parts of the dog, so regarding the
dog itself as impure is a conclusion that is reached only by analogy… With
regard to every animal that was said to be impure, the argument concerning
its hair 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 bird that has
talons is impure – except cats and whatever is smaller than them, as is the
view of many of the scholars, the scholars of the people of Iraq, and it is
the better known of the two reports from Ahmad – then the issue of the hair
or feathers of such creatures is subject to the same argument, whether it is
impure or not. There are two reports from Ahmad, one of 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 from al-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.