Did Judge Iyad mean prohibition or mere reprehensibility by his dislike of shaving the beard?

Qadi Iyad, in "Ikmal al-Mu'lim Sharh Sahih Muslim," holds the view that the meaning of "اعفوا اللحى" (let the beards grow) and "أوفوا اللحى" (make the beards full) is to leave them until they become abundant and long, and he disliked shortening, shaving, and "tahdhif" (i.e., cutting their edges and trimming them). He leans towards the view that his dislike here implies prohibition (tahrim) rather than mere reprehensibility (tanzih), basing this on the condemnation of the one who does so, and the explicit statements of many Maliki scholars regarding the prohibition of shaving the beard. This is further supported by the fact that shaving the mustache, according to the Maliki school, is considered an act of disfigurement (muthla) that necessitates disciplinary punishment (ta'zir); so how could shaving the beard be merely a reprehensible act (karaha tanzihiyya)? Reprehensibility (karaha) among early scholars often meant prohibition (tahrim), as clarified by Al-Zarkashi and Ibn al-Qayyim. Some scholars, like Ibn Jibreen, understood Iyad's "karaha" here as a prohibitive reprehensibility (karahat tahrim). And even if his "karaha" were interpreted as a reprehensibility of tanzih, the intended meaning might be taking from the beard, not its complete eradication, especially since Al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, and Al-Iraqi transmitted from him a preference for leaving the beard as it is without shortening it. Furthermore, Al-Qurtubi prohibited shaving, plucking, or greatly shortening it.