The 3 madhabs on the beard

"For this reason, al-Nawawi (in the Majmu’, above) and Ibn Hajar, immediately corrected al-Ghazali and reaffirmed the well-accepted Shafi’iyya position, that is, to remove the beard in any way, even if a little, is Makruh. That is why Ibn Hajar says in the Tuhfa: “Whereas the claim [i.e., made by al-Ghazali], then, that ‘it makes the appearance ugly’ [and therefore it is not Makruh to trim the beard for this reason] is rejected [mamnu']. On the contrary, what is ugly [mushawwah] is to abandon its maintenance by [not] washing and oiling.” [Ibn Hajar, Tuhfa, 12:303].

Given that the Shafi’i school has the most lenient fiqhi position regarding the beard (in that it is not Haram to shave it off, even completely (but like leaving the khuff, above, it becomes Haram when one does this, intending to go against the Prophetic Example or thinking that the sunna of the non-Muslims is superior to ours), unlike the Hanafis, for instance, that to trim the beard when it is less than the minimum is Haram), our Imams stress the ‘unconditional’ nature of the dislikedness in trimming the beard; and because of the absolute Makruh, our school does not strictly set a minimum limit for the beard. This explains why scholars like al-Nawawi and Ibn Hajar, consider the opinions of those setting a minimum limit for the beard (such as al-Ghazali and later on, the Mufti of Zabid, al-Ashkhar (d. 903 H/1497), who followed one of Imam al-Adhra’i’s conflicting opinions, set the minimum limit of the beard to be the throat or the ‘handful’, which basically means that what grows beyond the ‘handful’ or the ‘minimum limit’, so to speak, is no longer considered Makruh to cut off [Ba 'Alawi, Bughya al-Mustarshidin, 20]) to be even more lenient than what is already a lenient position vis-a-vis the four schools of fiqh. That is why the position of the school remains that it is unconditionally Makruh to trim or shave the beard in any way.

As from your statement, “They include taking too much or leaving too much, which is explained to mean shaving the head [? - this explanation, I'm sure, is not what was meant] and taking too much of the beard with it or leaving too much of the beard. These two scenarios can only be understood if the sideburns (’aridan) are included as part of the beard,” the explanation and the inference made that the beard includes other than that which grows on the chin, is, I am afraid, wrong (mamnu’; for reasons that will be made clear below, but most important of all is, what is found in the Ihya’ is not a hukm fiqhi or legal judgement). Al-Ghazali goes on to say (this is the point where Imam al-Ghazali begins to selectively borrow from the Qut al-Qulub of Abu Talib al-Makki):

“Al-Nakha’i (may Allah (SWT) be pleased with him!) said: “I am amazed at why a reasonable man whose beard is long does not cut it off, and make it ‘between two beards’ [i.e., a majaz or figurative expression to mean 'a beard that is not too long and not too short'], for moderation is good in everything.” For this reason, it is said: “The longer the beard, the smaller the mind.”" [Ihya', 1:168; cf. al-Makki, Qut, 3:361].

The ‘taking too much or leaving too much’ from the beard or more appropriately, the ‘avoiding its being too long and its being too short’ scenario appears only in this metaphor of al-Nakha’i, still, not, as you thought, in the Qut al-Qulub part VIA al-Ghazali’s Ihya’, which discusses the ten Makruh (note, still not Haram) practices relating to the beard. Instead, what appears in that latter part, contradicts the ‘avoiding its being too long and its being too short scenario’, since there, al-Ghazali was actually saying: to exceed (ziyada) the beard (and no mention of naqs or reduction here, in spite what was originally written by al-Makki) beyond ‘its limit’ is what is in fact Makruh (and incidentally, there is already mention of lateral hairs here):

“The seventh [practice that is Makruh concerning the beard] is: allowing it to exceed [ziyada; notice al-Ghazali kept the verb 'zada yazidu ziyadatan', and did not replace it with tawfir (to let grow) or i'fa (to keep or leave it alone), while ziyada has also the meaning of to add or make addition of something to something else]. That is to say, to exceed the lateral hairs [growing out] of the temples [in fiqh, this is technically known as the 'idhar], namely, [that it grows] from the hair of the head until it goes beyond the jawbones and reaching ultimately to halfway down the cheeks. This [to allow the 'excesses' of the 'beard'], is inconsistent with the state of the people of righteousness [i.e., the Pious Predecessors or the Salaf].” [Ihya', 1:170]. (This circumstance can be seen clearest when the head is shaved and if that person is genetically able to grow the lateral hairs and the ‘idhar; in the published version of this answer, there will be an illustration, insha’ Allah (SWT)!)

It should be mentioned here (without, I hope, making it complicated, or ’surprising’), that al-Ghazali had, in fact, edited the original words of Abu Talib al-Makki. Al-Makki, for example, originally mentions that among the disliked practices relating to the beard, is to exceed it and to be deficient of it (in other words, defining the maximum and what is less than the minimum limits of the beard, according to al-Makki (whose tariqa in fiqh was not Shafi’i, but Hanafi):

“Among this [from the 12 Makruh (not the 10 like in the Ihya') practices relating to the beard] is its deficiency [nuqsan] and excess [ziyada]. That is to say [the excess is], to exceed the lateral hairs [growing out] of the temple [bones] from the hair of the head until it goes beyond the jawbones, and that is the limit [hadd] of the beard. Or, the deficiency of the beard, is to be deficient [by omitting, not letting it grow, or trimming it] from the jawbones to halfway up the cheeks, and that is similar to (the hukm of exceeding the beard).” [al-Makki, Qut al-Qulub, 3:357].

So it should be clear to us by now that the words of al-Makki’s Qut al-Qulub have been carefully and purposely emended by al-Ghazali, and in the edited version (which we can now say, al-Ghazali’s own words), al-Ghazali does not define the lateral hairs to be a part of the beard. (In particular, the absence of al-Makki’s original words, wa-dhalika huwa haddu l-lihyati [and that is limit of the beard], is telling.) That is why al-Ghazali does not mention his source here (that it is from the Qut al-Qulub), and specialists on Ghazalian studies will be able to confirm that this is the usual practice in almost all of al-Ghazali’s works: not to mention the source when the carefully edited portions of the source text makes subtle but crucial departures from the original author. The fact that al-Ghazali’s emended discussion is now about the dislikedness of letting the ‘beard’ grow (not to mention the conspicuous omission of al-Makki’s ‘nuqsan’), should, for Shafi’is, be a clear indication that he is not talking about the ‘conventional’ beard (i.e., that which grows on the chin); because the alternative would mean that it will not be Makruh to trim off the beard. This is the removal of your obstacle [zawal al-mani', Amin]! Moreover, even if one wanted to push the boundaries of Arabic majaz, of al-Nakha’i’s ‘between two beards’ to include the lateral hairs as a part of the beard, then one must remember that this still does not amount to a legal definition [hadd] of lihya, for neither the Ihya’ nor the Qut are works of fiqh. In fact, rhetorical and figurative devices (found aplenty in works like the Ihya’) are not a normal feature of fiqhi literature. Rather, fiqhi works are supposed to be ’sober’ and ‘dry’ so that it should be crystal clear in order to leave no room for confusion, since the ‘minimum’ legal rulings are what are sought for from these works, as any beginner students of Fiqh who are familiar with the Mawdu’ [subject-matter] of ‘ilm fiqh, knows that it concerns “the actions of the Mukallaf [legally responsible person] in which the [five] legal rulings are presented to them.” Failing that, we have the shuruh [commentaries] and the hawashi [super-commentaries] to shed light upon anything that seems unclear in the matn [main text]. (We can already see that the style of al-Ghazali’s works on ‘proper’ fiqh like the Wajiz and Wasit differs considerably from the style of the Ihya’ and his other popular works.)

In the fiqhi literature, we find for example, Sayyid al-Bakri confirming that al-Ghazali followed the majority [Jumhur; Shafi'i] opinion, in that it is Makruh to shave or trim the beard. [I'anat, 2:386]. (Al-Ghazali’s two surviving works on fiqh, the Wajiz and Wasit, the Short and Middle Abridgement of his teacher’s massive commentary on the Mukhtasar of Imam al-Muzani, al-Juwayni’s Nihaya al-Matlab, do not have a discussion on the beard; his Longest Abridgement, the Basit, is not extant in full and as far as we know today, only fragments of this work survives in manuscript form–and it is in the interest of Shafi’i scholars worldwide to seek out this lost treasure! His shortest work on fiqh, the Khulasa (al-Ghazali’s own abridgement on al-Muzani’s al-Mukhtasar), which fortunately survives, but unfortunately, the 100 folios of handwritten manuscript remains unedited in the Sulaymaniyya Library at Istanbul (MS Sulaimaniye 442; for which the author has a copy of it), too, does not discuss the beard. As for his earliest ‘work(s)’ on fiqh, the Ta’liqa fi Furu’ al-Fiqh al-Shafi’i – which is lost – was never published by him.)"

islamqa.org/shafii/qibla-shafii/33257
"
The Position of the Shafi`i School

The Shafi`is have differed among themselves about the ruling of shaving the beard. Some scholars such as the Shaykhs Ibn al-Rif`ah, Halimi, and Adhra`i have held shaving the beard to be unlawful,

Others, such as the Imams Ghazali, Nawawi, and Rafi`i have held it to be offensive.

The two foremost figures in the late Shafi`i school, Shaykh Ibn Hajar al-Haytami and Shaykh Muhammad al-Ramli–along with Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya al-Ansari–have confirmed the latter position (Sayyid al-Bakri, I`anat al-Talibin, 2.340). This latter position is, in fact, the official position of the Shafi`i school.

The School and the Imam

One of the arguments for the unlawfulness of shaving the beard is that Imam Shafi`i himself said in al-Umm that it is unlawful. Shaykh Ibn Hajar explains that this is insufficient proof to establish this position as the official position of the Shafi`i school, saying,

“The scholars of exacting verification have reached consensus that the official position of the Shafi`i school (al-mufta bihi) is what [h: Nawawi and Rafi`i] have mentioned, followed by what Nawawi [h: alone] has mentioned. They have also reached consensus that if someone objects to [h: Nawawi and Rafi`i] by citing an explicit statement from al-Umm, or by claiming that the majority [h: of Shafi`i’s] have held a contrary position, or the like, then this does not change the official position of the Shafi`i school [h: that Nawawi and Rafi`i have agreed on]. This is because [h: Nawawi and Rafi`i] have more knowledge of what Imam Shafi`i has said, and of what the early Shafi`is have said than the one who objects to them. They therefore only went against [h: the text of Imam Shafi`i or the positions of the early Shafi`is] because of a reason that is known by those who know it and not known by those who are ignorant of it.” (Muhammad b. Sulayman al-Kurdi, al-Fawa’id al-Madaniyya, p. 19)

Imam Shafi`i is known to have held multiple positions (at different times) on the same issue, and the early scholars of the Shafi`i school differed greatly among themselves. Determining the official position of the school is not as easy as citing a single reference; rather, one needs to have complete knowledge and mastery of all of the statements and positions of the Imam and the early scholars. Imam Nawawi and Imam Rafi`i both had this knowledge; most of those who objected to them did not.

Scholars who came after Nawawi and Rafi`i held that the only way to understand the works of the Shafi`is who came before these two scholars (including the words of Imam Shafi`i himself) is through the books of these two scholars themselves, who had read and understood what all the Shafi`is before them had said, and then worked with this knowledge to determine the official position of the school. If we find a solitary quote from one of Imam Shafi`i’s books that goes against what Nawawi and Rafi`i said, then, in all likelihood, they were aware of the quote and held a contrary position because of other quotes and other positions that have not reached us.

This is why when Shaykh Ibn Hajar discusses the positions of those who held shaving the beard to be unlawful, he doesn’t even deem it necessary to verify what al-Umm says. Rather, he simply says that the alleged quote from al-Umm should either be interpreted in other than its immediately obvious sense, or, if that’s not possible, then it is simply contrary to the official position of the Shafi`i school (Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 9.376). The position of the school, in other words, remains what Imam Nawawi and Imam Rafi`i have determined.

Shaykh Nuh Keller has written a short, yet beautiful and inspiring biography of Imam Shafi`i (Allah have mercy on him) at the end of The Reliance of the Traveller. He says of the great Imam,

“The author of some 113 works, it was nonetheless Shafi`i’s hope that “people would learn this knowledge without ascribing a single letter of it to me,” and as Zakariyya Ansari remarked, “Allah granted his wish, for one seldom hears of any position of his, save that it is ascribed to others of his school with the words, ‘Rafi`i, or Nawawi, or Zarkashi says …’ and the like.”” (Reliance of the Traveller, x324)

May Allah be pleased with Imam Shafi`i and benefit us because of him. Ameen.

And Allah knows best.

Hamza."