Category Archives: Basic Islamic Laws

ISLAMIC RULING ON IRTIDAAD (APOSTASY)

By Mujlisul Ulama

“This  Day  have  I  (Allah)  perfected  for  you  your  Deen,  and  (on  this  Day)  have  I  completed  for  you  My  Favour  (Islam),  And  chosen  for  you  Islam  as  your  Deen. [Al-Maaidah, Aayat 3]

“Then,  We  have  established  you  on  a  Shariah  regarding  (all  your affairs).  Therefore,  follow  it  (this  Divine  Shariah),  and  do  not  follow  the  vain  desires  of  those  who  know  not  (who  are  morons).” [Al-Jaathiyah, Aayat 18]

“What!  Do  you  search  for  the  law  of  jaahiliyyah?  And,  whose   law  is  more  beautiful  than  the  Law  of  Allah  for  a  people who has  yaqeen (resolute  faith  in  Allah)?”   [Al-Maaidah, Aayat 50]

Islam  was  completed  and  perfected  more  than  14  centuries  ago,  hence  Nubuwwat  terminated  with  Muhammad  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  more than  14  hundred  years  ago.  The  Qur’aan  explicitly  and  emphatically  declares the  perfection  of  Islam  –  Allah’s  Law  –  His  Shariah  –  which  Allah  Ta’ala  depicts  as  His  Favour  for  the  Ummah.

The  very  finality  of  Nubuwwat,  perfection  and  completion  of  the  Divine  Shariah  are  the  absolute  evidence  for  this  Shariah  ever  remaining  in  the same  state  as  it  was  during  the  era  of  Khairul  Quroon.  It  does  not  tolerate the  slightest  interpolation,  change,  and  re-interpretation  as  the  modernist juhhaal  with  western  colonized  brains  advocate  at  the  behest  of  their  western  kuffaar  masters  whom  they  obsequiously  bootlick.

Should  there  have  been  any  need  for  a  new  Shariah,  Allah  Ta’ala  would  not  have  terminated  the  Chain  of  Nubuwwat  which  had  initiated  with  Hadhrat  Aadam  (alayhis  salaam).  The  Chain  would  have  continued  until  the  Last  Day.  But  Divine  Wisdom  dictated  that  in  view  of  the  perfection, completion  and  finalization  of  Allah’s  Law  for  His  creation,  Nubuwwat  after  Muhammad (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  would  be  a  redundant  institution.

Re-interpretation  is  effectively  man-made,  nafsaani  fiction  presented  as  ‘law’  which  in  reality  is  satanically  spawned  and  presented  under  ‘islamic’ hues  to  beguile  the  ignorant masses. 

Juhhaal  posing  as  ‘scholars’  and  ‘mujtahids’  are  disgorging  considerable   kufr  drivel  and  flotsam  in  their  comments  on  the  recent  Sudanese  case pertaining  to  adultery  and  apostasy  (irtidaad).  It  is  not  our  intention  in  this dissertation  to  comment  on  the  merits  and  demerits  of  the  Sudanese  case  since  the  true  facts  of  the  saga  are  ambiguous  or  unknown.  The  only  source  of  information  hitherto  available  on  this  issue  is  what  the  rotten,  rabidly  antiIslam,  anti-Muslim  western  media  feed  to  the  masses.  It  is  therefore  unintelligent  to  comment  on  the  case  on  the  basis  of  what  the  stercoraceous western  media  reports.

The  purpose  of  this  discussion  is  twofold: 

(1)  To  state  Allah’s  Law  on  the  issue  of  Irtidaad  (apostasy  –  renouncing  Islam  by  a  professed  Muslim),  and

(2)  To  debunk  the  copro-rubbish  which  the  paper  ‘mujtahids’–  the  juhhaal  who  dwell  in  the  limbo  of  Jahl-e-Muraqqab  —  peddle  in  compliance  with  the command of  their  western  masters  who  have  colonized  their  brains.

IRTIDAAD
Irtidaad  (apostasy)  according  to  the  Shariah,  is  to  renege  from  the  Deen  of  Islam  and  to  embrace  kufr  whether  by  intention  or  an  act  of  kufr  or  a  statement of  kufr,  even  if  the commission  of  kufr  is  in  jest.

Spelling  out  the  effect  and  consequences  of  irtidaad,  the  Qur’aan  Hakeem  declares:

“Whoever  apostatizes  (commits  irtidaad)  from  his  Deen,  and  dies  (in  the  state  of  irtidaad),  verily,  he  is  a  kaafir.  Their  deeds  are   eliminated  in  this  world  and    the  Aakhirat.  Indeed,  they  (the  murtads)  are  the  companions  of  the  Fire.  They  will  dwell  therein  forever.” [Al-Baqarah, Aayat 217]

The  Qur’aan  condemns  the  murtad  to  eternal  damnation.  He/she  will  remain in  Jahannam forever.  Their  punishment  in  the  Fire  will  be  never-ending.

Irtidaad  is  the  vilest  of  all  acts  and  words  of  kufr.  All  deeds  of  virtue  rendered  prior  to  irtidaad  are  destroyed.  The  murtad’s  nikah  is  automatically  nullified, and  he  is  deprived  of inheritance. 

The  murtad  will  be  apprehended  and  detained  for  three  days.  He/she  will  be  counselled.  If  the  male  murtad  is  adamant  on  his  irtidaad  after  three  days,  he  will  be  forthwith  executed  with  the  sword.  If  the  murtad  is  a  female,  she  will  be  detained  in  prison  indefinitely,  even  for  life.  She  will  be  released  only  after  embracing  Islam.

There  exists  Ijma’  of  the  Ummah  on  the  execution  of  the  murtad.  There  is  no  difference  of  opinion  among  Fuqaha  of  Islam  on  this  issue.  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  had  commanded:

“He  who  changes  his  Deen,  kill  him.”  

“The  blood  of  a  Muslim  is  not  lawful  except  three: Adultery, murder  and  one  who  renounces  his  Deen.”

On  the  occasion  when  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  dispatched  Hadhrat  Mu’adh  Bin  Jabal  to  be  the  governor  of  Yemen,  he  instructed  him:  “Any  man  who commits  apostasy  from  Islam,  then  (first)  call  him  (to  Islam). If  he  refuses,  then  smite  his  neck.”

There  is  consensus  of  all  authorities  that  the  murtad  shall  be  put  to  death.  However,  if  the  murtad  is  a  female,  she  shall  be  imprisoned  according  to  Imaam  Abu  Hanifah.  But  according  to  all  other  authorities  of  all  Math-habs,  she  too  shall  be  executed.

Although  the  consequence  of  irtidaad  is  execution,  this  is  the  right  of  only  in  the  Islamic   State.  It  is  not  permissible  for  an  individual  or  a  group  of  individuals  to  execute  a  murtad.  He  may  be  executed  only  in  an  Islam  Governed  State  after  the  due  process  of  the  Shariah  has been  followed.

In  an  article  in  defence  of  murtads,  one  murtad/munaafiq,  Rashied  Omar  states:

“No  state  or  government  should  intervene  in  or  criminalise  someone’s  personal  choice  of  religion.  Choosing  or  changing  one’s  religion  is  not  a  crime –  it’s  a  basic  human  right.”  

This  baatil  view  of  kufr  is  attributed  to  the  zindeeq  by  the  Daily  News.  There  is  complete  unanimity  of  the  Fuqaha  of  all  Math-habs  that  a murtad  must  be  executed.  In  Islam,  it  is  the  obligation  of  the  Islamic  Governed  State  to intervene,  criminalise  and  execute  the  scum  who  changes  his  religion.  While  in  an  Islamic  Nation  non-Muslims  are  free  to  switch  from  religion  to  religion, this  exercise  is  not  tolerated  in  so  far  as  Muslims  are  concerned.  Rashied  Omar  has  simply  disgorged  kufr  lurking  in  the  heart  by  advocating  a  view  which  has  absolutely  no  validity  in  Islam. 

The  Qur’aan  and  the  Sunnah  are  explicit  and  emphatic  in  the  decree  to  eliminate  murtaddeen.  Islam  is  the  Qur’aan  and  Sunnah.  It  is  not  the  flotsam  which  self-styled  ‘scholars’  disgorge.

MA  and  PHD  degrees  conferred  by  the  University  of  Cape  Town  or  any  other  secular  university,  whether  ‘Muslim’  operated  or  kuffaar,  do  not  elevate  a  man  to  the  pedestal  which  is  occupied  by  an  Islamic  Scholar  or  Aalim  of  the  Deen.  Chaps  sporting  such  degrees  are  basically  juhhaal  in  terms  of  the  Shariah.  Their  opinions  of  kufr  are  the  type  of  ghutha  (rubbish)  which  confirms  the  abode  of  Jahannam  for  its  proponents.

Contrary  to  the  claim  made  by  the  Daily  News,  there  is  no  ‘growing  community  of  Islamic  scholars  worldwide”  who  align  themselves  with  the  kufr  view  which  the  modernist  juhhaal  promote.  Those  who  deny  the Shariah’s  law  pertaining  to  the  execution  of  murtads  are  modernist  munaafiqeen  and  juhhaal.  They  are  not  Ulama  of  the  Deen.  The  ‘religious’ products  produced  by  secular  universities  are  all  bootlickers  of  their  kuffaar  western  masters.  Their  views  and  opinions  are  flotsam  and  jetsam  which  eliminate  Imaan.  Despite  them  professing  to  be  Muslims,  they  themselves  are murtads.

The  Daily  News  states: “Omar  argues  that  among  the  core  principles  of  Islam,  as  enunciated  in  the  Qur’aan,  is  the  verse  that  reads  “Let  there  be  no  compulsion  in  religion”.  This  verse  establishes  the  importance  of  one’s  own personal  religious  convictions  and  as  such  matters  of  conscience  cannot  be  forced  on anyone.”

This  view  further  illustrates  and  confirms  the  jahaalat  and  kufr  of  its  proponent.  The  relevant  Qur’aanic  verse  cited  here  refers  to  non-Muslims.  Non-Muslims  may  not  be  compelled  to  convert  to  Islam.  The  issue  which  constitutes  our  subject  is  irtidaad  (apostasy),  not  conversion  to  Islam.  The Qur’aanic  verse  stupidly  cited  refers  to  the  prohibition  of  forcefully  converting  non-Muslims.  It  does  not  relate  to  irtidaad.  When  the  miscreant ‘scholar’  lacks  this  awareness,  it  speaks  volumes  for  his  jahaalat  in  the  field  of  the  Uloom  of  the  Deen.

The  Qur’aan  commands  the  utilization  of  force  on  those  who  violate  the  teachings  of  the  Shariah.  Thus,  the  Qur’aan  provides  for  hand-amputation  for  theft,  flogging  for  fornication,  execution,  impalement  and  public  display  of  the  dead  bodies  of  highway  robbers,  execution  for  murtads,  etc.  The  force  used  in  Islam’s  penal  code  is  not  a  secret.  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam),  himself  had  ordered  the  execution  of  murtads.  Mr. Omar  cannot  impart  any  lesson  in  Qur’aan-Understanding  to  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam),  the  Sahaabah  and  the  illustrious  Fuqaha  of  Islam.  There  is  absolutely  no  scope  in  the  Shariah  for  accommodating  the  kufr  views  of  reinterpreting  the  ahkaam  of  the  Shariah  –  a  kufr  exercise  which  the  modernist  juhhaal  ‘scholars’  have  lapped  up  from  the  vomit  of  the  orientalist  enemies  of  Islam  staffing  the  so-called  ‘Islamic  Study’  faculties  in  shaitaan’s  universities.

The  Daily  News  further  says:  “Omar  expresses  relief  that  in  recent  decades  there  has  emerged  a  growing  community  of  scholars  who  argue  for  more lenient  and  humane  positions  on  apostasy.”

This  view  is  clear-cut  kufr.  What  the  murtad  avers  here  is  that  the  laws  which  Allah  Ta’ala  had  revealed  to  Muhammadur  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  are  ‘inhumane’.  The  kufr  and  irtidaad  are  thus  confirmed.  As  mentioned  earlier  the  ‘growing  community  of  scholars’  is  a  figment  of  the  hallucination  of  the  juhhaal.  In  Islam  these  aberrations  are  not  scholars.  They  are  juhhaal  who  dwell  in  the  domain  of  Jahl-e-Muraqqab

Furthermore,  in  stating  this    kufr  view  there  is  an  acknowledgement  of  the  fact  that  for  fourteen  centuries,  Islam’s  command  pertaining  to  irtidaad  was  something  at  variance  with  the  “more  lenient”  position  which  the  modernist  munaafiqs  have  propagated  so  belatedly  as  a  couple  of  decades  ago.  The  Shariah  is  not  a  couple  of  decades  old.  The  Shariah  is  Allah’s  Law  which  He  Himself  had  perfected  and  finalized  more  than  fourteen  centuries ago.  Thus  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  declares:

“This  Day  have  I  (Allah)  perfected  for  you  your  Deen,  and  I  have  completed for you My Bounty, and chosen for you Islam as your Deen.”

Islam  is  not  what  murtads  and  munafiqs  have  introduced  a  couple  of  decades  ago.  Islam  is  the  Divine  Code  of  Life  embedded  in  the  Qur’aan  and Sunnah.  Islam  is  not  at  the  mercy  of  these  modernist  zindeeq  murtads  for interpretation  and  exposition.  It  is  what  the  Fuqaha  of  this  Deen  had  formulated  and  codified  fourteen  centuries  ago.  There  is  absolutely  no  scope  for  shoving  into  its  framework  the  slightest  element  of  modernist  kufr.

Refuting  the  laughable  stupidity  of  the  denial  of  the  utilization  of  force  for  asserting  the  domination  of  Islam,  the  Qur’aan  Hakeem  commands  the  Islamic  Rulers:

“Fight  (Qitaal/Jihaad)  those    from  the  People  of  the  Book  (Yahood  and  Nasaara)  who  do  not  believe  in  Allah  and  the  Last  Day  nor  do  they  accept  as haraam  what  Allah  and  His  Rasool  have  made  haraam  nor  do  they  follow  the  Deen  of  Haqq  (Islam)—  fight  them  –    until  they  subserviently  pay  the  Jizyah  whilst  they  are  in humiliation.”   [Aayat 29, At-Taubah]

With  regard  to  Jizyah,  its  imposition  is  for  non-Arab  kuffaar.  As  far  as  Arab  kuffaar  are  concerned,  there  is  no  Jizyah  for  them.  There  are  only  two  options  for  them:  Islam  or  the  Sword.  If  a  kaafir  Arab  refuses  to  embrace  Islam,  the  Shariah  orders  his  execution.

There  are  numerous  laws  of  Islam  which  explicitly  impose  the  use  of  force  to  compel  acceptance  of  the  ahkaam  of  the  Deen.  The  contention  of  there  being  ‘no  force  in  the  Deen’,  is  the  effect  of  orientalist  indoctrination  which has  convoluted  the  brains  of  the  modernist  bootlickers  of  the  west.  The  Qur’aanic  verse  which  prohibits  force,  pertains  exclusively  to  compelling  non-Muslims  to  embrace  Islam.

The  Daily  News  stating  another  moronic  view  of  the  westernized  murtad  bootlickers and  bootleggers,  writes:

“They  (i.e.  the  modernist  murtads)  furthermore  argue  that  the  hegemonic  classical  Muslim  position  failed  to  separate  the  issue  of  simple  apostasy  to  treason.”

This  averment  is  another  veiled  contention  of  kufr.  The  “hegemonic  classical  Muslim  position”  is  the  position  of  the  Qur’aan  and  of  the  Sunnah.  It is  the  position  of  the  Sahaabah,  and  it  is  precisely  this  Qur’aanic  position  which  the  Fuqaha  transmitted  to  the  Ummah,  and  the  first  wrung  in  the  Ladder  of  the  Fuqaha  are  the  Students  of  the  Sahaabah.  There  has  never  been  two  positions  in  Islam  on  the  issue  of  apostasy.  Apostasy  (Irtidaad)  is  the  worst  act  of  treason.  There  is  no  greater  and  viler  act  of  treason  in  Islam  than  irtidaad

The  modernist  juhala  zindeeqs,  munaafiqs  and  murtads  have  exhibited  their  stupidity  with  their  kufr  attempt  at  differentiating  between  apostasy  and  treason.  While  there  is  a  difference  in  kuffaar  law  which  accepts  apostasy  as  a  ‘right’  of  the  individual,  in  Islam  there  is  absolutely  no difference.  On  the  contrary,  irtidaad  is  the  highest  category  of  treason.  Whilst  lesser  categories  of  treason  are  tolerable,  acquitable  and  forgivable,  and  for  which  execution  is  not  mandatory,  there  is  only  the  death  sentence  for  apostasy  (irtidaad),  if  the  murtad  (apostate)  intransigently  and  satanically  opts  for  his  apostasy.  The  Islamic  concept  of  treason  does  not  exclude  apostasy.  The  attempt  by  these  modernist  murtads  to  portray  a  difference between  apostasy  and  treason,  is  due  to  their  stupidity,  indoctrination  and  bootlicking  of  their  orientalist  masters.  It  must  be  reiterated  and  emphasized  that  in  Islam  irtidaad  is  the  worst  act  of  treason  for  which  the  sentence  is  execution  after  a  respite  of  three  days.

Quoting  the  murtad  so-called ‘scholar,  the  Daily  News  says:

“This  recent  and  widely  publicized  incident  of  apostasy  once  again  highlights  the  urgent  need  for  Muslim  scholars  to  seriously  re-examine traditional FIQH (jurisprudence) rulings on leaving the fold of Islam.”

This  is  a  laughable,  stupid  plot  which  is  doomed  to  fail.  In  fact,  it  has  already  been  put  into  action  more  than  a  century  ago  by  the  orientalist enemies  of  Islam  who  have  lined  up  these  modernist  zindeeqs  to  peddle  the pernicious  plot  under  ‘Islamic’  guise.  These  modernist  munaafiqs  who  are  the  real  enemies  from  within  the  folds  of  the  Muslim  community,  have  for  decades  laboured  tediously  and  abortively  to  scuttle  the  whole  of  Islam  with  their  kufr  interpretations  shoved  into  their  kufrized  brains  by  the  orientalists  at  the  so-called  ‘Islamic  Studies’  faculties  at  the  kuffaar  universities  where  all these  zindeeq  bootlickers  and  bootleggers  scavenged  their  scrap  ‘knowledge’.

These  western  bootlicking  ‘intelligentsia’  who  are  notorious  for  licking  up the  spittle  and  vomit  of  their  masters  are  in  for  terrible  surprises.  Their  nefarious,  satanic  goal  of  scuttling  the  Classical  Shariah  with  its  Classing  Fiqh  will  ever  remain  an  empty  pipedream  for  them.  While  they  may  hallucinate  a  ‘re-examination’  of  Allah’s  Shariah,  it  will  never  take  place.  Such  a  shaitaani  process  will  remain  a  theme  of  futile  discussion  in  the  venues  of  kufr  where  they  brainwash  morons  with  Muslim  names,  but  with  kufr  hearts. Conforming  the  veracity  of  our  claim,  Allah  Ta’ala  declares  in  the  Qur’aan Hakeem:

“They  (these  zindeeqs  together  with  their  kuffaar  masters)  plot  to  extinguish  the  NOOR  (Shariah)  of  Allah  whilst  Allah  intends  to  complete  His NOOR even though the (bootlicking munaafiqs) abhor it.”

Furthermore, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) assured us:

“There  will  ever  remain  a  group  (of  Ulama-e-Haqq)  of  my  Ummah  who  will  fight  on  the  Haqq  until  the  Day  of  Qiyaamah………”

These  modernist  zindeeqs,  munaafiqs  and  murtad  may  continue  with  blowing  hot  air.  They  will  never  succeed  to  destroy  Islam  with  its  Classical Shariah  whose  edifice  is  firmly  raised  on  the  foundations  of  the  Classical  Fiqh  of  the  Sahaabah  and  Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen.  Sounding  the  coup  de  grace  for  the  plot  of  these  zindeeqs,  munaafiqs  and  murtads,  the  Qur’aan  majeed states:

“In  fact,  We  hurl  the  Haqq onto baatil.  Then  it  (the  Haqq) crushes  out  its  (baatil’s)  brains, then  suddenly  it  (baatil)  vanishes).”

Advertisements

Islam & Building Splendid Mansions

By Mujlisul Ulama

Question:  What  is  Islam’s  view  on  constructing  elaborate  mansions  which  is  the  norm  with  affluent  people?

Answer:   Regarding  palatial  mansions,  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  states:

“What!  Do  you  construct  palatial  mansions  as  if  you  are  going  to  live  forever  (in  this  world)?” [Qur’an]  

Casting  aside  fiqhi  technicalities,  this  Aayat  should be  an  adequate  response  for  the  people  of  intelligence.  The  healthy  heart  of  a  Muslim  is  a sufficiently  qualified  Mufti  to  answer  your  question. Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  said:  “Seek  a  fatwa  from  your  heart.” Life  on  earth  is  a  practical  affair  which  requires  practical  implementation  of  the  Sunnah  with  its  culture,  norms,  attitude and  ethos. 

Since  we  lack  understanding  of  the  shortness  of  earthly  life  and  the  reality  of  the  Aakhirat, we  conduct  ourselves  as  if  we shall  be  living  in  this  dunya  perpetually.  When  Maut  will  stare  man  in  his  face,  only  then  will  his  eyes  of  the  heart  open  up  to  understand  the  reality.  But,  alas!  It  will  then  be  too  late.  The  money  and  the  mansions  will  be  left  behind. 

The  Mu’min  is  required  to  build  palatial  mansions  in  Jannat  by  means  of  his  Ibaadat  and Taa-at  (Obedience).  The  Mu’min  is  required  to  reflect  on  the  misery  and  hardship  of  millions  of  Muslims  who  are  living  in squalor  and  poverty  in  shacks,  hovels  and  under  plastic sheeting  in  extreme  weather conditions.  He  will  then  also  understand  the  waste,  futility,  his  insensitivity  and  destructiveness  of  his  palatial  mansion.

“Take  lesson!  O  People  of  Intelligence!” [Qur’aan]

Four different degrees in constructing a Residence
Something comes to mind.  In constructing a home, there are different  degrees. The  first  level  is  that  of  “rihá’ish”.  The  second level  is  that  of  “árá’ish”.  The  third  level  is  that  of  “zíbá’ish”. And  the  fourth  level  if  that  of  “numá’ish”.  To  repeat:  the  levels are  rihá’ish,  árá’ish,  zíbá’ish  and  numá’ish.  These  will  now  be explained.

Rihá’ish (abode/residence)
This is to have the basic necessity, according to one’s need, of a  place  in  which  to  stay  that  one  may  shelter  the  head,  which will allow one to sit in the shade, to shelter against the wind, to protect from the sun, and to be safe from the rain.  This is wájib. It is wájib to arrange for such a place for oneself.  This is at the level of wujúb.

Árá’ish (comfort)
This  comes at the next  level.  Árá’ish  –  to derive  comfort.  One desires to have a place, a residence, where one can live in comfort, where one can live in ease.  This is mustahab.  Take note of the mas’alah.  It  is  of  specific  significance.  This  is  at  the  level  of  being mustahab.

Zibá’ish (adornment)
At  the  third  level  is  zíbá’ish  ‒  beautification,  adorning,  goodlooking, attractive.  This is at the level of mubáh.

Numá’ish (show/exhibit)
This  is  at  the  next  level.  The  basis  for  this  is  takabbur  (arrogance) ‒  to  appear  exalted  in  the  eyes  of  people,  to  appear  important,  to be acclaimed and be famous, to have a name and be a celebrity. This is haraám.

So, numá’ish  is  haráamzíbá’ish  is  mubáh;  árá’ish  is  mustahab;  and  rihá’ish  is  wájibfardh.

WHAT ACTIONS CAN BE DONE WHEN MOVING INTO A NEW HOUSE?

What kind of dhikr and adhkaar should one perfom when moving into a new house? How should one celebrate move into a new house? What should be recited so that the place my be blessed?

As Salaamu Alaikum wa rahmatullah,

Moving into a new house is a favor from Allah for which a person should be thankful. As such, it will be good for you to perform two rakaat of salah of shukr, and express your gratitude to Allah, and beseech Him to protect you and your family from all evils and harms.

Scholars have also mentioned that it is commendable on this occasion to invite family members, relatives etc for a meal, to dine with you, as an expression of your happiness and gratitude to Allah. [Al Mawsoo’ah Al Fiqhiyah].

They have also stated that one should recite Surah Baqarah in the new house since the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is reported to have said, ‘Satan runs away from the house in which Surah Baqarah is recited ‘.  [Sahih Muslim].

As such, in order to remove all evil jinns and satans from the house which had been empty for a while, and to protect  it from the harms of such jinns and devils, you should recite Surah Baqarah in the house. If you are unable to do this, you can get others to do it, at least before entering the new house.

The Fitnah of Taking Pictures with a Camera and Cell Phone

By:  Shaikh  Abdur-Rahmaan  bin  Naasir  bin  Barraak  bin  Ibrahim  Al-Barraak

All  praises  to  Allah  Ta’ala,  Who  sent  His  Rasool  with  guidance  and  the  Deen  (religion) of  Haq  (truth)  to  make  it  triumph  over  all  religions,  although  those  who  associate  others with  Allah  dislike  it.  May  Allah  shower  His  Peace  and  Blessings  upon  him  (the  Rasool)  and  upon  his  family,  companions  and  followers. 

Among  the  things  in  which  all  and  sundry  have  fallen  prey  to  and  have  become  crazy  about,  is  taking  pictures  with  the  cell  phone,  which  is  in  the  hand  or  pocket  of  men  and  women,  young  and  old.  

Thus,  it  is  possible  for  them  to  take  pictures  of  everyone,  every  scene  and  situation,  whether  a  public  scene  or  private,  beneficial  or  non-beneficial.

Sometimes  a  picture  is  taken  of  some  people’s  personal  and  private  things.  Sometimes, it  is  not  permissible  to  take  pictures  on  account  of  the  harm  that  ensues  in  the  wake  of taking  the  picture,  leaving  aside  the  ruling  of  picture  taking  (pictography).  

There  are  a  host  of  evils  and  wrongs  which  ensue  in  the  wake  of  pictography  with  the cell  phone.  From  among  them  are  the  following:

1.  Opposing  the  Nusoos  (clear-cut  verdicts)  of  the  Hadith  which  show  the  prohibition  of  picture-taking,  and  which  sounds  a  severe  warning  (against  it)  and  cursing  the picture  takers.  The  justification  of  the  (erroneous)  interpreters  and  the  following  of  vain  desires  are  the  origin  of  every  evil  which  has  befallen  the  Ummah,  from ancient  to  modern  times.  If  the  justifier  is  a  Mujtahid  in  Ilm  (knowledge),  he  is ma’zoor  (excused),  but  the  one  who  follows  his  vain  desires  is  sinful  and  unexcused.  The  minimum  (ruling)  in  regard  to  this  pictography  which  many  people have  fallen  prey  to  and  which  has  been  halaalized  on  the  basis  of  some  vagaries  is that  it  is  Mushtabah  (doubtful).  But,  Rasulullah  Sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam  has stated:

“Whoever  abstains  from  doubtful  matters  has  verily  exonerated  himself  in  his Deen  and  his  honour.  And  those  involved  in  doubtful  things  will  fall  into  Haraam.” 

2.  The  taking  of  a  picture  of  the  one  who  is  displeased  (of  his  picture  being  taken). This  is  violating  his  Haq  (right).  The  evil  increases  by  spreading  (circulating /posting)  it  (the  picture  taken  of  a  person  who  was  unhappy  of  it).  Sometimes  the  picture  of  a  female  is  taken.  Taking  and  spreading  (posting/broadcasting)  her picture  is  not  permissible  even  if  she  approves  of  it.  Many  a  time  it  brings  about  Talaaq  on  her  in  the  case  of  her  being  married.  It  causes  disinclination  to  her  (in  the hearts  of  respectable  people)  in  the  case  of  her  being  unmarried.  Together  with  that is  the  evil  of  looking  at  her  form/shape  for  those  upon  whom  this  is  not  lawful  among  strange  men.  Among  it  (the  evils  of  pictography)  is  taking  the  pictures  of  people’s  private  life  without  their  consent.  For  example:  their  meetings,  house, furniture, pictures of their children, etc. 

3.  Taking  pictures  of  female  gatherings,  for  example:  weddings  etc.  and  circulating these  pictures.  This  enables  the  prying  and  Faasiqeen  to  view  what  is  not  lawful and to become aware of it.

4.  The  pictures  of  some  evil  scenes,  for  example:  mixed  gatherings  and  parties compounded  by  immorality  and  dancing  by  mixed  crowds  of  men  and  women,  and  then  to  circulate  them  and  exposing  the  people  of  Baatil  under  the  pretext  of  condemning  the  wrong  act.  This  enables  the  heart  to  become  pleased  by  seeing  those  evil  scenes  and  enjoying  it.  If  it  has  to  be  condemned,  and  this  it  is  necessary, then  it  is  Waajib  to  safe  keep  those  pictures  as  evidence  against  the  accused  when  he  rejects  the  words  of  the  truthful  witness.  Or  when  he  intends  to  deceive.  As  far as a public  condemnation  is  concerned,  it  should  be  by  word.

5.  Futile  pictures.  That  is,  pictures  in  which  there  is  no  benefit  in  Deen  and  dunya.  The sole  motive  is  hawa  (vain  desire);  love  for  picture  taking  and  idleness.  Also  included  are  taking  pictures  of  men  at  wedding  functions,  etc.  Taking  pictures  of  the  bridegroom  and  those  with  him  when  they  enter  and  exit.  Among  futile  pictures  are  the  pictures  of  bayaans  in  the  Musaajid  and  of  Hifz  classes  and  hallucinating  that  this  serves  as  endorsement.  The  statement  of  an  honest  or  trustable  person  is  more  reliable  than  a  picture.

6.  Keeping  pictures  for  remembrance,  as  they  (those  involved  in  this)  claim.  The worst  is  the  picture  taking  of  husband  and  wife,  and  keeping  their  pictures  for  this  purpose.  Verily,  keeping  pictures  prevents  the  Angels  from  entering  the  home. Thus,  Nabi  Sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam:

“The Malaa’ikah do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.”

Excluded  from  this  are  pictures  which  cannot  be  effaced,  such  as  the  pictures  on money. We  present  to  you,  O  Muslim,  some  Ahaadith  regarding  the  Tahreem  (prohibition)  of taking  pictures:

•  It  is  reported  from  Hazrat  Abu  Hurairah  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  that  Nabi (Sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  said:  “Allah  Ta’ala  said:  ‘Who  can  be  a  greater oppressor  than  the  one  goes  and  creates  like  Me?  Let  them  create  an  atom  or  a grain of wheat or a grain of barely.” (Bukhaari and Muslim)

•  In  Saheehain  (Bukhaari  and  Muslim)  it  is  reported  from  Hadhrat  Aisha (Radhiyallahu  anha)  that  Nabi  (Sallallahu  alaihi  wasallam)  said,  “The  severest punishment  on  the  Day  of  Qiyaamah  will  be  meted  out  to  those  who  imitate  the Creation of Allah Ta’ala (i.e. making and taking pictures etc.)”

•  Hadhrat  Ibn  Abbas  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  reports:  “I  heard  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alaihi  wasallam)  saying:  ‘Every  picture-maker  (photographer  etc.)  will  be  in Jahannam.  A  body  will  be  created  for  every  picture  he  made  (drew,  snapped, captured,  posted  etc.)  which  will  torment  him  in  Jahannam.”  (Bukhaari  and Muslim)

•  Hadhrat  Ibn  Abbas  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  reports  that  Nabi  (Sallallahu  alaihi wasallam)  said:  “The  one  who  draws  (snaps,  captures,  posts,  etc.)  a  picture  in this  world  will  be  made  to  give  life  to  it  (the  picture)  on  the  Day  of  Qiyaamah, whereas  he  will  not  be  able  to  blow  life  (in  it).”  (Bukhaari  and  Muslim)

Hence,  it  devolves  upon  the  Muslim  to  fear  Allah  Ta’ala,  take  precaution  for  the  safety of  his/her  Deen  and  that  he/she  warn  the  people  who  follow  (their)  vain  desires  not  to be  deceived  (of  what  is  right  from  wrong)  on  the  basis  of  what  the  majority  of  people do.  The  abundance  of  baatil  (wrong)  does  not  mitigate  it.

“Say,  ‘Evil  and  good  are  not  even,  although  the  abundance  of  evil  might  impress you.’  So  fear  Allah,  O  intelligent  ones,  so  that  you  may  be  successful.”  (Qur’aan)

We  ask  Allah  Ta’ala  for  Baseerat  (foresight)  in  Deen  and  a  good  intention  in  the  quest for  the  Haq  (truth).

May  Allah  Ta’ala  shower  His  Peace  and  Blessings  upon  Muhammad,  his  family  and  all of  his  companions.  

Isbaal — The Ruling of Wearing One’s Garment Below the Ankles

[By Muhammad ibn Suleman Chothia]

Our discussion will entail the following:

1. Introduction
2. Ahadith with prohibition due to pride
3. Ahadith with general prohibition (without mention of pride)
4. Aathaar (Narrations) of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum)
5. The Grace of our Role Model’s garment ﷺ
6. Misconceptions and their clarifications

Introduction

Allah Ta’ala in enumerating His gifts upon us said, “O children of Adam, We have bestowed upon you clothing to conceal your private parts and as (a means of) adornment. However, the clothing of righteousness – that is best. That is from the signs of Allah that perhaps they will remember.” [Surah Al-A’raaf: 26]

One of the interpretations of “clothing of righteousness” is clothing which shows humility. (Qurtubi Vol.9 Pg.186, Ruhul Ma’aani Vol.9 Pg.72)

Abdullah bin ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Whoever wears a garment of pride and vanity in this world, Allah will clothe him in a garment of humiliation on the Day of Resurrection, then set it ablaze.” (Sunan Ibn Majah #3607)

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Eat, give charity and clothe yourselves, without being extravagant, and without pride.” (Sunan Nasai #2559)

Therefore, in dressing, one should opt for clothing that expresses humility and refrain from clothing which has the hint of arrogance and pride in it. 

In doing so, it is also necessary to exercise caution. One should not hastily ascribe piety (humility) to himself and his choices (of clothing) and absolve himself of conceit and pride. Allah Ta’ala, who is fully aware of the hearts and their conditions, has prohibited us from claiming purity and piety. He says, “So do not claim purity for yourselves. He (Allah) knows best who are the (truly) pious.” [Surah Najam:32] 

One manner of dress which denotes pride and arrogance is the garment which hangs below the ankles of males. Below we will discuss this issue in light of the Quran, Hadith and opinions of the pious predecessors. I ask Allah to open the truth for us, help us to accept it and grant us the ability to follow it.

Before we start, we will like to point out the rulings which the scholars of the Ummah agree upon:

1. The scholars agree that wearing one’s garment up to mid-calf is a Sunnah of the Messenger ﷺ, which many Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) practiced.

2. They also agree that it is permissible for a male to wear his garment up to the ankles.

3. They also agree that it is Haraam and a major sin for a male to intentionally let his garments hang below his ankles out of pride.

4. They also agree that a woman is permitted to let her clothing hang below her ankles. (If she is in sight of a non-mahram, then they agree that she must cover her ankles.)

The one case, on which the scholars disagree, is when the male’s garment is extended below his ankles without pride. Many scholars are of the opinion that it is makrooh (reprehensible) while a large group still maintain that this is also haraam and totally prohibited.

N.B. This ruling of isbaal applies when a person is standing. If a person bends, for instance, into ruku, or a person sits and his garment goes below his ankles, then this is permissible and the ruling of isbaal does not apply.

The evidences for the above will be mentioned below along with a detailed discussion on the point upon which the scholars disagree.
The many authentic ahadith which have been narrated concerning ‘Isbaal’ or lowering the garments below the ankles, are of two types.

1. Those ahadith which prohibit lowering the garments due to arrogance and pride.

2. Those ahadith with general prohibition (without mention of pride).

Ahadith with the Prohibition Due to ‘Pride’

All the scholars agree that it is prohibited for a male to lower his garments below his ankles if he does such out of arrogance. It is counted as a major sin. (See ‘Zawajir’ of Ibn Hajr Makki Vol.1 Pg.164-165 #109, ‘Fathul Bari’ of Ibn Hajr Asqalani Vol.13 Pg.266)

This is due to the many ahadith which clearly prohibit it in the sternest manner.

Hadith 1:  
Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Allah will not look, on the Day of Resurrection, at a person who drags his izãr [below his ankles] out of pride and arrogance.” (Bukhari #5788 and Muslim #2087).

• Imam Nawawi states, “The meaning of ‘not looking at him’ is not having mercy on him and not looking at him with mercy.” (Sharh Sahih Muslim Vol.14 Pg.61) 

Hadith 2: 
Abdullah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates from the Prophet ﷺ that he said, “Isbaal applies to the izãr (lower garment), the qamis (upper garment) and the a’mamah (turban). Whoever lets any of them drag out of pride, Allah will not look at him on the Day of Resurrection.”   (Abu Dawud #4094 and Nasa’i Vol. 8 Pg.208).

• Imam Nawawi (rahimahullah) states that its chain is sound. (Sharh Sahih Muslim Vol.2 Pg.116)
• From this hadith we learn that isbaal is not only restricted to the lower garment but it applies to any garment which is worn from above the ankle. (Socks and overall garments worn for protective purposes would not come under this ruling. See ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.3 Pg.257)

Imam Tabari (rahimahullah) said that most narrations used the word ‘izãr’ or ‘lower garment’ because in that era most people used to wear izaars and ridaas.  (See ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.264) However, it also applies to thawb, qamis, jubbah and jackets etc. 

Hadith 3:
“Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “While a man was walking, dragging his garment with pride, he was caused to be swallowed by the earth and will go on sinking in it till the Day of Resurrection.”  (Bukhari #3485 and Muslim #2088).

• The muhaddith Qurtubi (رهمح الله) writes in his commentary on ‘Sahih Muslim’, ‘Al-Mufhim’, “This hadith shows that a person should abandon feeling safe from an immediate punishment on sins and that it is haraam and a major sin for a person to feel proud of himself, his clothing and style.” (Vol.5 Pg.406)
 
Hadith 4 
Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “He who drags his clothing out of pride, Allah will not look at him on the Day of Resurrection.” I (Shu’bah) asked Muharib (رهمحام الله), “Did he mention the lower garment?” He replied, “He did not specify any lower or upper garment.” (Bukhari #5791 and Muslim #2085e).

• Shu’bah and Muharib (رهمحام الله) are both narrators of this hadith. Muharib (رهمح الله), the teacher, explicitly states that the word used was thawb (clothing or garment) and that there was no specification of any lower and upper garment. Therefore, the rule will apply to any type of clothing that is dragged below the ankles. 

Hadith 5
Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) said that I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) saying, “Whoever drags his izãr during the prayer out of pride, then he is not in any halaal with Allah or haraam.”  (Abu Dawud #6371.

• The narrators are all reliable, said Shaikh Shuaib Arnawut.

• The muhaddithun have differed whether it has been narrated as a hadith of the Prophet (ﷺ) or statement of Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu). Imam Tabarani (رهمح الله) narrates it as a statement of Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) with a sound chain. Since it is a statement which cannot be said based on one’s rational, it will still be in the ruling of a Prophetic hadith. (See ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.256)

• This hadith has been explained in several ways:

i. ‘Any halaal’ means, ‘He (Allah) will not make it permissible for him to commit sin’, which is interpreted to mean ‘He (Allah) will not forgive him of the sins he commits’. ‘Any haraam’ means, ‘He (Allah) will not prevent him’, which is interpreted to mean, ‘He (Allah) will not protect him from committing sins’.

ii. Allah will not permit him into Jannah and He will not prohibit the Hell Fire on him.

iii. He is not doing a permitted action and Allah does not have any respect (ihtiraam) for him.

iv. He has left the halaal and haraam of Allah, meaning he has left the laws of Allah. (See ‘Bazlul Majhood’ Vol.3 Pg.573 and ‘Awnul Mabood’ for the first three Pg.313)

v. Allah does not care about him or his salah. (See ‘Sharh Aiyni’ Vol.3 Pg.170)

vi. He does not believe in the halaal and haraam of Allah.

vii. Allah has freed Himself from him and he has left the Deen. (See ‘Manhal Azb’ Vol.5 Pg.24)

• Regardless of whichever interpretation is taken, it denotes a very severe warning. 

Hadith 6
“Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Whoever arrogantly drags his garment, Allah will not look at him on the Day of Judgement.” So, Umm Salamah said: “What should the women do with their hems?” He said: “Lower them a hand-span.” So, she said:  “Then their feet will be uncovered.” He said: “Then lower them a forearm’s length, and do not add to that.” (Tirmithi #1731 and Nasai #5338) .

• Imam Tirmithi (رهمح الله) said, “It is sound (and) authentic.”

• The lowering started from the mid-calf.

• After narrating this hadith, Tirmithi (رهمح الله) commented, “In this hadith, there is a concession for women to drag their izãr because it covers them better.”

• All the scholars agree on this concession for the women. (Sharh Nawawi on Muslim Vol.14 Pg.62)

• If she is in front of a non-mahram, then they agree she must cover her ankles. 

Ahadith with General Prohibition (without mention of pride) 

As for the one who lowers his garment below his ankle, without pride, then this is also haraam and is considered a severe sin according to the most correct scholarly opinion. (See ‘Faidhul Bari’ Vol.6 Pg.72-3, ‘Kitabul Nawazil’ Vol.16 Pg.344, ‘Fatawa Qasmiyah’ Vol.23 Pg.479, ‘Aap ke Masaail aur unka Hal’ Vol.8 Pg.361, ‘Fatawa Haqqaniyah’ Vol.2 Pg.416, ‘Hadith ke Islahi Madhameen’ Vol.10 Pg.77, ‘Tuhfatul Alma’i’ Vol.5 Pg.65 & 106, ‘Kifayatul Mufti’ Vol.9 Pg.156)

This is due to the many ahadith which prohibit this, in the harshest words, without any restrictions. Rather, many ahadith state that lowering the garments below the ankles is an act of pride and arrogance, in itself. And arrogance is a major sin. May Allah purify us from it. 

Hadith 1 
Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “The part of an izãr which hangs below the ankles is in the Fire.”  (Bukhari #5787). 

• The literal meaning is that the person’s foot below the ankles or his clothing will enter the Fire. The scholars have explained this in a few ways:

i. What is meant is the foot beneath the clothing will enter the Fire. Once a part of the person enters the Fire, obviously, his whole body will follow.

ii. Along with the person, even that part of his clothing will enter the Fire. This is like the statement of Allah, “Indeed, you [disbelievers] and what you worship other than Allah are the fuel of Hell…” [Surah Anbiyaa: 98]

So Allah will also throw the idols, which the kuffar worshipped into the Fire, along with them, as a means of intensifying their remorse and highlighting their stupidity, that those from whom they sought prosperity and honour cannot even save themselves from the Fire. (Tafsir Uthmani Vol.5 Pg.262)

Similarly is the case of the garments from which they hoped honour, it will be of no avail to them. (Fathul Bari Vol.13 Pg.256, ‘Hadith ke Islaahi Madhameen’ Vol.10 Pg.80)

• Therefore, this hadith clearly states that the one who hangs his lower garment below his ankle will enter the Fire of Hell.

• There is no restriction here of pride. Any act in which the Messenger (ﷺ) warns of entering Hell by committing it is considered a major sin. (Tafsir Ibn Jarir Vol.6 Pg.652-3 {Surah Nisaa: 31}, ‘Zawajir’ Vol.1 Pg.5-6)

Even if one was to consider it a minor sin, it would become a major one in either of the following two situations:

i. If it is accompanied with pride
ii. If one persist in doing it.

• Below, we will learn that dragging one’s garments below the ankles is almost synonymous with pride, if not pride itself.

• Sa’eed ibn Jubair (رهمح الله) reported that a man asked Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), “How many major sins are there? Are there seven?” Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “They are closer to seven hundred than seven, but no sin is major if forgiveness is sought and no sin is minor if it is constantly repeated. (Tafsir Ibn Jarir Tabari Vol.6 Pg.651 {Surah Nisaa: 31}, ‘Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim’ Vol.3 Pg.934 #5217, Hafiz Ibn Muflih authenticated its chain in ‘Aadaab Shar’iyah’ Vol.1 Pg.153)

• The muhaddith and faqeeh, Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanvi As-Shaheed (رهمح الله) considered lowering the garment below the ankles a major sin, especially in our times. (See his Fatawa collection ‘Aap ke Masail aur unka Hall’ Vol.8 Pg.361)

This will be explained later on, Allah willing. (See ‘Clarification of Misconception’ #5)

Hadith 2 
Abu Dharr (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Three are those with whom Allah would neither speak to on the Day of Resurrection, nor would look at them nor would He purify them and there is a painful chastisement for them.” The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) repeated it three times. Abu Dharr (radhiyallahu anhu) remarked: “They failed and they lost; who are these persons, O Messenger of Allah?” He replied: “The one who wears his lower garment below his ankles, the one who reproaches (on the favours he did to someone) and the seller of goods by false oath.”  (Muslim #106).

• This hadith mentions many extremely severe punishments for those who drag their garments below the ankles:

i. Allah will not speak to them. This means He will not speak to them in the manner that He will speak to the righteous people whom He will be pleased with. Rather, He will speak to them in anger. It can also mean that He will ignore them. Most commentators say it means He will not speak to them in a manner that will benefit them and please them. It can also mean He will not send the angels to them with greetings. It can also mean that Allah will not speak to them directly, which is an honour, in itself.

ii. He will not look at them. This means He will not look at them with mercy. Rather, He will look at them with anger.

iii. He will not purify them. This means Allah will not purify them from the filth of their sins. It also can mean He will not praise them. And whomsoever Allah does not praise, He punishes. (See ‘Sharh Nawawi’ on ‘Muslim’ Vol.2 Pg.116 and ‘Al-Mufhim’ Vol.1 Pg.302-3 for the explanations given)

iv. They will be given a painful punishment other than the above. 

• This person has been placed in the same row as a liar.

• He has been placed in the same row as the one, who is so evil in character, that he reminds people of the favours he did to them. 

Hadith 3 
Abdur-Rahman (رهمح  الله) said: “I asked Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri (radhiyallahu anhu) about the izãr, and he said: You have come to the one who knows about it. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘The izãr of the Muslim is to mid-calf, and there is no sin if it comes between that and the ankle, but whatever is below the ankle is in the Fire. The one who lets his izãr drag out of pride, Allah will not look at him.”  (Abu Dawud #4093, Ibn Majah #3573, and Ahmed #11010). 

• The muhaddith, Shaikh Shuaib (رهمح الله) said, “Its chain is authentic on the condition of Muslim.”

• This hadith is the clearest in mentioning the distinction between two different sins: 

Sin 1; The one who lets his lower garment drag below his ankle without pride➡He will enter the Fire.

Sin 2: The one who intentionally drags his lower garment below his ankle out of pride➡Allah will not even look at him with mercy on the Day of Judgement.

Hadith 4
Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) reported: “I happened to pass before Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) with my lower garment trailing. He said: ‘Abdullah, tug up your lower garment,’ I tugged it up, and he again said: ‘Some more,’ and I tugged it further. Afterwards, I was cautious in practicing that. Some of the people said: To what extent? Thereupon he said: ‘To the middle of the shanks.’”  (Muslim #2086). 

• Again, this hadith has no restriction of pride. The Messenger (ﷺ) commanded Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) to raise it without accusing him of pride.

• Allamah Qurtubi (رهمح الله) writes, “This shows that it is such a sin that should not be allowed, rather, one should prohibit it, even if the person may have done it by mistake.” (Al-Mufhim Vol.5 Pg.406) 

Hadith 5
Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates, “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) clothed him with two garments of the garments of siyaraa, which Ferooz had gifted him. So, I wore the izãr and it drowned me in length and width. So, I dragged it on the ground. I then wore the upper garment and covered my head with it. So the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) held my shoulders and said, “O Abdullah lift your izãr, because whatever touches the ground of the izãr until below the ankles is in Hell.” Abdullah ibn Muhammad said, “So I never saw a person who was stricter in lifting his clothes than Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu).”  (Musnad Ahmed #5713)

• Shaikh Arnawut (رهمح الله) said, “It is Sound.” 

• This hadith mentions more details. Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) heeded to the Messenger’s ﷺ command right away until his death. There is no mention of pride in any of these two narrations. 

Hadith 6
Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated: “Once, a person was praying, letting his lower garment trail. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to him: ‘Go and perform wudhu.’ He went, performed wudhu and then returned. He (ﷺ) again said: ‘Go and perform wudhu.’ He again went, performed wudhu and returned. (On witnessing this) someone asked, ‘O Messenger of Allah, why did you order him to perform wudhu?’ He (ﷺ) replied: ‘He was praying with the lower garment trailing, and Allah Ta’ala does not accept the prayer of a man who lets his lower garment trail.’”  (Abu Dawud #638 and ‘Musnad’ Ahmed #16628).

• Imam Nawawi (رهمح الله) said that its chain is authentic on the condition of Muslim. Hafiz Haithami (رهمح الله) said that Ahmed (رهمح الله) narrates it and the transmitters are those of the Sahih. (Riyadhus Saliheen Pg.373 #797, ‘Majmauz Zawaid’ Vol.5 Pg.126 Conversely, others have held that Abu Ja’far in the chain is unknown. Based on this, the chain would be slightly weak. See: ‘Sharh Aiyni’ Vol.3 Pg.169, ‘Kifayatul Mufti’ Vol.9 Pg.156 and Arnawut on ‘Musnad’. However, Tirmithi has graded one of Abu Ja’far’s hadith as ‘sound’ [#3442]. Hafiz Ibn Hajr graded him ‘maqbool’ (accepted) in ‘Taqreeb’. This means that his hadith is accepted if supported with a mutaabe’. Well, it is supported by the shaahid of Ibn Masud quoted above. Azim-Aabaadi also considered the hadith sound in ‘Awnul Mabood’ Pg.313. Allah knows best.)

• This hadith indicates to the prohibition of lowering the garments without any restriction of pride to the extent that the man was commanded to re-do his wudhu.

• The command to re-do the wudhu may have been to expiate for the sin committed, as wudhu washes away sins. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Whoever performs ablution as I have done, his previous sins will be forgiven.” (Ibn Majah #285 Busiri authenticated it in ‘Misbahuz Zujajah’ Pg.260)

• The salah did remain valid. This is why he wasn’t told to repeat it.

• However, a person will be deprived of the benefits of salah such as forgiveness of sins, purification of the heart, divine reward in the Hereafter, etc. This is what is meant by the salah not being accepted by Allah Ta’ala. (Dalilul Faliheen Vol.5 Pg.342, Shaikh Afzal Ismail, Commentary of Riyadhus Saliheen Vol.2 Pg.175) 

Hadith 7 
Abu Jurayy Jabir ibn Sulaim (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Lift your lower garment halfway up your shin; if you cannot do it, have it up to the ankles. However, beware of trailing the lower garment, for it is from pride and Allah does not like pride.”  (Abu Dawud #4084 and Tirmizi #2722, Bukhari in ‘Adabul Mufrad’ #1182).

• Imam Tirmithi said, “Its chain is sound and authentic.”

• This hadith clearly states that lowering the garments below the ankle is an act of pride in itself.

• Hafiz Ibn Hajr Asqalani says in ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.267,

“In summary, letting down the garment (below the ankles) entails dragging it, and dragging the garment entails pride even if the person did not intend pride.” 

Hadith 8 
The Prophet (ﷺ) said to Sufyan ibn Abi Sahl (radhiyallahu anhu), “Do not trail your garments (below the ankles), because Allah does not like those who trail their garments.”  (Ibn Majah #3574 and Sahih Ibn Hibban #5442). 

• Hafiz Busiri authenticated its chain in ‘Misbahuz Zujajah’. (Pg. 467)

• This hadith again mention that Allah dislikes those who lower their garments below the ankles without any mention of pride. 

Hadith 9 
Huzaifah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated, “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) took hold of the calf of my shin – or his shin – and he said: “This is the place of the Izãr, if you must lower it, then a little below, and if you must lower it, then the lzar has no right to be on the ankles.”  (Tirmithi #1783 and Ibn Hibban #5448) . 

• Again, the Messenger (ﷺ) clearly states that the garment has no right on the ankle. Obviously, below is worst. There is no restriction of pride here either.

• Ibn Hibban (رهمح الله) said that this is the furthest limit on the male’s body which is wajib to practice on with regards to hanging the lower garment. 

Hadith 10
Abu Umamah (radhiyqllahu anhu) said, “Once we were with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and we met Amr ibn Zurarah Ansari (radhiyallahu anhu) (who was wearing) a lower and upper garment, which he had trailed below his ankles. The Messenger (ﷺ) took the corner of his garment humbly and started saying, ‘O Allah, Your bondsman, the son of your bondsman and bondswoman,’ until Amr ibn Zurarah (radhiyallahu anhu) heard him and turned to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, my shins are thin.’ He replied, ‘O Amr ibn Zurarah, surely Allah beautified the creation of everything. O Amr ibn Zurarah, surely Allah does not love the one who trails his garment below his ankles.’” Thereafter the Messenger (ﷺ) showed him that the izãr should be up to eight fingers below the knees.  (Tabarani in ‘Kabir’ #7909. Also, see ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.267).

 
• Allamah Haithami and Hafiz Ibn Hajr (رهمحام الله) both said that the narrators are all reliable. (Majmauz Zawaid Vol.5 Pg.124)

• Once again, there is no restriction of pride in this hadith. Hafiz Ibn Hajr (رهمح  الله) comments, “It is clear that Amr (radhiyallahu anhu) did not intend to be arrogant by this lowering of his garment. Yet, the Messenger (ﷺ) prohibited him because it is from the actions which are most likely committed out of arrogance.”  (Fathul Bari Vol.13 Pg.267)

Hadith 11 
Sharid (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) saw a man trailing his izãr below his ankles so he hastened towards him or he jogged [until he lifted his garment]. He (ﷺ) then said, “Lift your izãr and fear Allah.” The man [exposed his knees and] said, “I am clubfooted. My knees collide with one another when I walk.” He remarked, “All of Allah’s creations are good.” That man was never seen after that but that his izãr was in the middle of his shin [until he died].   (Tabarani in ‘Kabir’ #7238 and Musnad Ahmed  Vol.4 Pg.390. The words between the brackets [] are Ahmed’s). 

• Hafiz Haithami (رهمح الله) said, “The narrators of Ahmed are narrators of the Sahih.” (Majmauz Zawaid Vol.5 Pg.124)

Allamah Munawi (rahimahullah) states that Imam Suyuti (rahimahullah) wrote the abbreviation of authenticity on this hadith.  (See ‘Faidhul Qadeer’ Vol.1 Pg.476)

• “Fear Allah” and refrain from that which Allah has made haraam. (See ‘Faidhul Qadeer’ Vol.1 Pg.475-6)

• This Sahabi had a defect in his legs, yet the Messenger (ﷺ) instructed him to lift his garments above his ankles. May Allah grant us the ability to practice on His commands in all circumstances. There is no mention of pride in this hadith. 

Hadith 12 
Samurah ibn Jundub (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates from the Prophet (ﷺ) that he said, “Whatever is below the ankles of the izãr is in the Fire.”  (Musnad Ahmed #20098). 

• Shaikh Arnawut (رهمح  الله) said, “Its chain is authentic.”

• N.B. When a hadith is narrated by a different Sahabi (radhiyallahu anhu), it is counted as a separate hadith. 

Hadith 13
Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) said that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Surely Allah will not look at the one who lowers his garment below his ankles.”  (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #25308).

• The muhaddith, Shaikh Muhammad Awwamah (هظفح الله) graded it authentic. 

Hadith 14 
Abu Ad-Dardã (radhiyallahu anhu) said to Sahl ibn Al-Hanzaliyyah (radhiyallahu anhu), “Tell us something that will benefit us and not harm you.” He said, “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to us, ‘What a good man Khuraim Al-Asadi is, except that his hair comes down to his shoulders and his izãr hangs below his ankles.’ News of that reached Khuraim (radhiyallahu anhu) and he went and took a knife and cut his hair until it came to his ears, and he lifted up his izãr to mid-calf.”
(Abu Dawud #4089).

• Hafiz Ibn Hajr classified it sound in ‘Al-Amaali Mutlaqah’. (Pg.36 Also see Arnawut’s research on ‘Musnad Ahmed’ Vol.29 Pg.159-162)

• The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) did not mention anything about Khuraim (radhiyallahu anhu) being proud. Therefore, even if one was to hang his garment without pride, it is not allowed. 

Hadith 15
Abdullah ibn Abil Hudhail (رهمح الله) narrates that Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) asked the Messenger of Allah ﷺ concerning the izãr. So, he took hold of the middle of the calf of the shin. So, he requested, “Increase (it) for us, O Messenger of Allah.” So, he held the lowest part of the calf of the shin. So, he requested, “Increase (it) for us, O Messenger of Allah.” So, he ﷺ replied, “There is no good in anything lower than this.” (Musnad Abi Bakr’ #123)

• Shaikh Arnawut (رهمح الله) said that the narrators are reliable, however there is an uncertainty in whether Ibn Abi Hudhail heard from Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) or not. Abu Zur’ah said, “Ibn Abi Hudhail from Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) is mursal.” It is, however, supported by the narration of Huzaifah (radhiyallahu anhu) quoted above. (See Arnawut’s research on ‘Musnad Abi Bakr’ Pg.156, ‘Marasil’ of Ibn Abi Hatim #407)

Aathaar (Narrations) of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) 

The following are narrations in which the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) instructed others to lift their garments above their ankles. Pride is an action of the heart and the traits of the heart are from the unseen. Obviously, the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) did not receive any revelation so they were not aware if someone is doing it out of pride or not. Yet, they instructed them to lift their garments. This shows that the prohibition applies in all cases. 

Athar 1 
Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) saw a person trailing his lower garment, whereupon he said: “From whom do you come?” He described his relationship (with the tribe he belonged) and it was found that he belonged to the tribe of Laith. Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) recognized him and said: “I heard Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) with these two ears of mine saying: ‘He who trailed his lower garment with no other intention but pride, Allah would not look toward him on the Day of Resurrection.’”  (Muslim #2085f).

• Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhum) prohibited him from dragging his garments and used the hadith which mentions the restriction of pride. Obviously, he didn’t know what was in his heart. So, this shows that the ruling is general. There are other incidents where Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) reprimanded people for dragging their garments below their ankles. (See ‘Tamheed’ of Ibn Abdil Barr Vol.3 Pg.274-5)

One more will be mentioned below under the title of ‘Misconceptions and their Clarifications’. 

Athar 2 
Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) saw a person whose lower garment had been trailing and this person started to strike the ground with his foot. He [Abu Hurairah] was the governor of Bahrain and the person was saying: “Here comes the Amir, here comes the Amir.” He (Abu Huraira) reported that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said: “Allah will not look toward him who trails his lower garment out of pride.” 
(Muslim #2087).

• Stamping one’s feet is not necessarily an act of arrogance. Rather in certain cases it is even praise worthy. For instance, to show the kuffar that the Muslims are strong and not weak. Even the Messenger ﷺ ordered the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) to march when doing tawaf in the Umaratul Qadhaa because the Kuffar of Makkah had said the fever of Madinah has weakened the Muslims. (Sahih Bukhari #1602)

Therefore this person most likely was stamping in that manner as Bahrain still had Jews and Majusis there. 

Athar 3
Kharashah (رهمح الله) said that Umar (Ibn Khattab) (radhiyallahu anhu) called for a blade and lifted the izãr of a man above his ankles. Then he cut what was below that. He (Kharashah) said, “It is though I am looking at the ends of his garment flowing down his heels.”  (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #25326. Shaikh Shathri authenticated it in his ‘Ta’leeq’ on ‘Musannaf’ Vol.13 Pg.529)

• Some people say, why do scholars speak about such ‘minor’ issues as dragging the trousers below the ankles when the Ummah is in need of much greater advice? Subhaanallah, Allah forbid. This is the Amirul Mumineen, one of the most outstanding leaders this World has ever seen, taking out his precious time to personally cut the lower garment of one who was dragging it below his ankles. 

Athar 4
There is also another narration collected by Bukhari, which will be mentioned below, in which Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) commanded a youth to lift his garment above his ankles after Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was stabbed by the Majusi. (Bukhari #3700).

• Once again, the leader of the super power of the time, was on his death bed, instructing someone to lift his garment above his ankles. May Allah Ta’ala give us the tawfeeq to honour and practice every single one of his commands. 

THE GRACE OF OUR ROLE-MODEL’S GARMENT 

Allah Ta’ala said in the Quran Majid that the one who wishes to please Allah and succeed in the Hereafter should follow in the way, method, style and Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) “Certainly, you have in the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much.”  [Surah Ahzab: 21]

The grace and style of the garments which the Messenger (ﷺ) and his companions wore is a well-known fact.  

1. Ubaid ibn Khalid (Or Ubaidah ibn Khalaf. The difference of name is a Sahabi does not cause any weakness to the narration). said, “I was walking and upon me was a sheet which I was dragging. So, a man said to me, ‘Lift your garment because it is cleaner (or more righteous) for you and long lasting.’ So I looked and it was the Prophet (ﷺ). I said, ‘It is a burdah malhaa (a black sheet with white lines).’ The Messenger (ﷺ) retorted, ‘Don’t you have a role model in me?’ He said, ‘When I looked I saw that his garment was up to the middle of his calf.’”
(Musnad Ahmed Vol.5 Pg.364, Tirmithi in ‘Shamail’ #114,  and Nasai Sunan Kubraa #9602).

• Hafiz Ibn Hajr classified its chain good (Fathul Bari Vol.13 Pg.266-7). Imam Suyuti indicated to its authenticity in ‘Jameus Sagheer’ and Munawi and San’ani (رهمحام  الله) did not disagree with him in their respective commentaries on ‘Jameus Sagheer’. (See ‘Faidhul Qadeer’ by Munawi Vol.1 Pg.476 and ‘Tanweer’ by San’ani Vol.2 Pg.287)

2. Salamah ibn Akwa’ (radhiyallahu anhu) said that Uthman ibn Affan (radhiyallahu anhu) used to wear his izãr until his mid-calf and would say, “This is how my companion, the Nabi ﷺ, used to wear his izãr.”
(Shamail Tirmithi #115).

• Even though the Sahabi, Salamah (radhiyallahu anhu) knew the style of the Messenger’s izãr himself, he spoke of Uthman’s style to point out that this Sunnah was established and practiced by the great Sahabah including the Khulafaa Rashideen (radhiyallahu anhum). (Sharh Munawi Vol.1 Pg.173, ‘Jamul Wasail’ Vol.1 Pg.173 )

3. Abu Sulaiman (His name is Ayub ibn Dinaar) [Jarh wat Ta’deel Vol.2 Pg.246 #877] narrates from his father that he said, “I saw Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) while he was wearing a najrani izãr up till mid-calf.”  (‘Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #25329 Vol.12 Pg.503)

4. Abu Ishaq (رهمح  الله) said, “I saw people from amongst the companions of the prophet wearing their izãrs until mid-calf.” He then named, “Usamah ibn Zaid, Ibn Umar, Zaid ibn Arqam and Baraa ibnul Azib” (radhiyallahu anhuma). (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #25327 Vol.12 Pg.503) 

In Summary, the Sunnah of the Messenger (ﷺ) and many of his companions (radhiyallahu anhum) was to wear the lower garments until mid-calf. Between mid-calf and the ankles is a permissible area. On the other hand, wearing any garments below the ankles is prohibited on males. The punishment for this is entrance into the Fire of Jahannam, may Allah protect us from it. If one knowingly does it out of pride, then he will be in a worst situation, as Allah Ta’ala will not even look at him with mercy on the Day of Judgment. This is the more precautionary opinion, for the outward purport of many strongly-worded Prophetic ahadith state such. 

MISCONCEPTIONS AND THEIR CLARIFICATIONS 

Misconception 1:
Why do some ahadith place the condition of ‘if it is done out of pride’? 

• Clarification: 
This is to show that the matter is more severe for the one who intentionally does it out of pride. Allamah Sindi (رهمح  الله) says in his ‘Hashiyah’ on ‘Sunan Ibn Majah’, “What is apparent is that this limit is there even if one does not do it out of pride. Yes, if pride is also added to hanging it below the ankle, then the matter is more severe.” (Vol.4 Pg.148) And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 2:
It is a case of (Mafhoomul Mukhalafah). That is, the prohibition mentioned a restriction of pride, therefore the opposite ruling will apply when the restriction is not found. 

• Clarification:
Many mujtahidun do not consider this (Mafhoomul Mukhalafah) a valid principle of deducing laws. Even those who use it as evidence, mention a condition that the restriction should not have been mentioned based on it being the norms of such situations. For instance, in the Quran Majid, Allah Ta’ala says, Haraam on you (to marry) are …. your step-daughters, whom are in your care.” [Surah Nisaa: 23]

The restriction of “in your care” here was mentioned because this is the norms of such a case. (The step-father usually takes care of his wife’s children from her previous marriage).

Therefore, its absence will not invert the ruling. It will still remain haraam on a man to marry his step-daughter even if he never took care of her. Similarly, Allamah San’ani (رهمح  الله) states that the restriction of “pride” in some of the ahadith is to indicate that those who usually let their garments below their ankles, do so out of pride. Therefore, if this restriction is not there, then it will not cause the ruling to turn around. (See ‘Istifaaul Aqwaal’ by San’ani Pg.42)

This is also supported by the hadith which called dragging the garments below the ankle, an act of pride in itself. And Allah Ta’ala knows best.

Misconception 3:
Applying the restriction to the general ahadith will apply in this case. That is, when certain ahadith are general and others are restricted, then one of the principles of Fiqh is to apply the restriction to the general ahadith. Accordingly, since some ahadith have the restriction of pride, it will also apply to those which are general. 

Clarification:
i. Indeed, this is one principle of Fiqh that is applied in some instances. However, another principle of Fiqh is that the general hadith is practiced on its generality and the restricted one with its restriction. So, we will practice on the general one without any restrictions. The hadith of Abu Saeed Khudri (radhiyallahu anhu), (“Whatever is below the ankle is in the Fire. The one who lets his izãr drag out of pride, Allah will not look at him.”), collected by Abu Dawud (رهمح الله) and others, strengthens the use of this principle here, as it mentions both the scenarios in one hadith, the general and the restricted, and they both were prohibited by mentioning different punishments. Allamah San’ani (رهمح الله) says, “The ahadith indicate that whatever is below the ankles is in the Fire, and this entails prohibition. Other ahadith indicate that whoever drags it out of pride, Allah will not look at him. This also entails prohibition. They also point out that the punishment for the arrogant is a specific punishment, which is Allah not looking at him. This is one of the things that falsifies the claim that it is only prohibited on the proud.” (Istifaaul Aqwaal Pg.26)

ii. One of the conditions for applying the restriction to a general text, for those who use this principle, is that it should not be concerning a prohibition. If the issue is one of prohibition, as is the case with the issue of isbaal, then it is not valid to apply the restriction of one text to the generality of the other. This is explained by Hafiz Ibn Daqeequl Eid in ‘Ihkamul Ahkaam’. (Vol.1 Pg.60 Also see: ‘Al-Bahrul Muheet’ by Zarkashi Vol.3 Pg.430-1). And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 4:
The Messenger (ﷺ) told Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) that since he is not letting his garment hang “out of pride”, there is no punishment for him. Therefore, this should also apply to us.  

• Clarification:
Below we will reproduce the complete hadith and then explain it:

Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Allah will not look, on the Day of Resurrection at the person who drags his garment (below his ankles) out of pride.” On that Abu Bakr (هنع الله يضر) said, “O Allah’s Messenger, one side of my izãr hangs low unless I meticulously take care of it.” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “You are not one of those who do that out of pride.”   (Bukhari #5784). 

• This narration is usually considered the strongest evidence put forward by those who wish to wear their garments below their ankles. From the following analysis, Allah willing, it will become crystal clear that this narration is actually evidence against their position.

From this hadith, the following points become clear:

i. Only one side was going below Abu Bakr’s (radhiyallahu anhu) ankle. So how can one use this to intentionally hang both sides down his ankles? (See ‘Tamheed’ of Ibn Abdil Barr Vol.3 Pg.247)

ii. Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) was not doing it intentionally. How can this be evidence for those who purposely and intentionally wear their trousers below their ankles? (Ibid)

Rather, the scholars wrote that Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) was very slim and his garments would not stay on him tightly. They would slip off of his hips. Allamah Kirmani (رهمح الله) said he had a slight hunch to his back which also caused his garment to slip off. (Kirmani Vol.21 Pg.53, ‘Umdatul Qari’ Vol.21 Pg.438, ‘Minhatul Baari’ Vol.9 Pg.76)

iii. When he realised it slipped off, he would lift it up. (Umdatul Qari Vol.21 Pg.438) These people never lift it up.

iv. Since Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) didn’t wear it below his ankles intentionally and he would ensure to lift it when he realized it slipped below, there was no question of him being arrogant. Yet, he asked the question concerning his situation. Therefore, this means that he understood it to be general and not restricted to pride. Otherwise, his question would not make sense. (Faidhul Bari Vol.6 Pg.72)

v. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) received revelation from Allah and by it he would know the state of the heart of a person. So, he had the right to testify of the purity of Abu Bakr’s (radhiyallahu anhu heart.

vi. Since the Messenger (ﷺ) is no longer amongst us, we are not able to claim purity for anyone. Allah alone knows who is pure at heart.

vii. Some scholars say that, out of all the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum), only Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) was given the reassurance that he is not doing it out of pride. Therefore, this was a specific permission for him. There is no other Sahabi who was afforded this, not even Umar, Uthman or Ali (radhiyallahu anhum). So how can we, who are drowned in sin, claim purity? (Tawdhehaat Sharh Mishkaat Vol.6 Pg.467)

viii. The scholars say that this hadith shows that if one’s garment was to unintentionally fall below one’s ankles, then he would not be taken to task for it. However, this in no way means that one should be careless about it.

ix. Even though this narration clearly negates pride from Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu), Imam Bukhari (رهمح الله) still mentioned it under the ‘Book of Clothing’, this is to point out that this hadith is a general guideline of wearing garments, without paying attention to the issue of arrogance. (Faidhul Bari Vol.6 Pg.72   

x. Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), the narrator of this hadith, used to always keep his garments at mid-calf. It is not narrated that he allowed letting the garments go below the ankles for anyone. 

xi. Rather, Hafiz Ibn Abdil Barr (رهمح الله) mentions a narration in ‘Tamheed’ in which Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) instructed Abdullah ibn Waqid to lift his garment above his ankles. Ibn Waqid said, “There are some sores on my legs.” Ibn Umar replied, “Even if.” Ibn Abdil Barr (رهمح الله) comments, “This is clear that Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) held it reprehensible for a person to drag his garments in all conditions.” (See ‘Tamheed’ of Ibn Abdil Barr Vol.3 Pg.247) And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 5:
All those who wear their trousers below their ankles claim that “We don’t do it out of pride.” 

• Clarification:
i. Allah Ta’ala says, “So do not claim purity for yourselves. He is most knowing of who fears him.” [Surah Najam: 32]

ii. Hafiz Ibn Hajr Asqalani (رهمح الله) writes in ‘Fathul Bari’, “[The faqeeh and muhaddith, Qadhi Abu Bakr] Ibnul Arabi (رهمح الله) said, ‘It is not permissible for a man to let his garment cover his ankles and say, ‘I am not dragging it out of pride’, because the prohibition includes this in its wordings. It is not permissible for he whom the text includes in ruling to say, ‘I am not following it because the primary reason is not in me’, because this is a claim that is not accepted. Rather his lengthening of his lower garment below the ankles is a sign of his pride.’” Then Hafiz Ibn Hajr (رهمح الله) states that this is supported by the hadith, “Beware of trailing the lower garment, for it is from pride.” (Fathul Bari Vol.13 Pg.267)

iii. Shaikh Ibn Ataullah Iskandari (Hafiz Ibn Hajr quotes Hafiz Zahabi (الله اهمحر) saying, “Ibn Ataullah had an extraordinary grandeur, lofty status in the hearts and contribution in virtue. I saw Shaikh Tajuddeen, when he returned from Misr, holding his advices and subtleties in very high regard. He used to speak in the Jame Azhar on a chair with such a speech that revived the hearts. He had combined the statements of the People (i.e. Zuhhad) with the narrations of the Salaf and other topics. So, he had a lot of followers. He had the signs of goodness on him.” ‘Durr Kaaminah’ Vol.1 Pg.274) said, “He who attributes humility to himself is really proud.” (Kitabul Hikam, ‘The Book of Wisdom’ Pg.215, ‘Ummul Amraadh’ by Shaikh Zakariyah Kandhelvi Pg.19)

Humility is the belief that one is the most contemptible and lowest person. The consideration of greatness in oneself is pride. So, the one who puts forth the claim that he is humble is in actual fact considering himself to be elevated. Thus, he is a man of pride. (‘Ikmalus Shiyam’ by Shaikh Abdullah Gangohi Pg.215 White Thread Press)

iv. If we were to assume that it is not always an act of pride, then Ibn Hajr (رهمح الله) says that it is still an action that has a high possibility of pride. (Fathul Bari Vol.13 Pg.267)

v. Ubaid ibn Khalid (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “I was walking and upon me was a sheet which I was dragging. So, a man said to me, ‘Lift your garment because it is more righteous for you and long lasting.’ So, I looked and it was the Prophet (ﷺ). I said, ‘It is a burdah malhaa (a black sheet with white lines).’ The Messenger (ﷺ) retorted, ‘Don’t you have a role model in me?’ He said, ‘When I looked I saw that his garment was till the middle of his calf.’” [  Shamail Tirmithi #114. Its chain is good. (‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.266-7)].

a. Some scholars explain that by saying it is a black sheet with white threads, the Sahabi was indicating that it was not a garment with which one can show off and be proud of. However, the Messenger (ﷺ) informed him of two things. One, there is more piety in lifting it above, as one may feel he is not proud but in actual fact he is. Another point is that we should not feel we are above following the style of the Messenger (ﷺ). This is why the Messenger (ﷺ) rebuked him in a stern manner and said, “Don’t you have a role-model in me?”

b. Another point the scholars derived from this is that one should lift his trousers high so as to prevent any possibility of it dragging below the ankles. This is called  or “closing the doors and means of sin”. (Sharh Munawi Vol.1 Pg.172, ‘Jamul Wasail’ Vol.1 Pg.172, ‘Mawaahib Ladunniyah’ by Baajuri Pg.235)

vi. The faqeeh and muhaddith, Mufti Yusuf Ludhyanvi (رهمح الله) states that in our times (20th and 21st century. The respected Mufti was assassinated in 2000 CE. May Allah accept his martyrdom) the people who are accustomed to wearing their trousers, pants and lower garments below their ankles consider it an act of honour, rather, they feel ashamed and disgraced in lifting it above the ankles. They look with utmost disdain at the Sunnah of the beloved Prophet (ﷺ), which is wearing the garments at mid-calf. Now you tell me, “Is the cause for this anything other than arrogance and pride?” This is why the respected mufti considered it a major sin, especially in our times. Rather, he went a step further and said, “Further than a major sin, there is a fear of losing one’s Iman by looking at the Prophetic Sunnah in a condescending manner.” (Aap ke Masaail aur unka Haal Vol.8 Pg.361)

vii. In many of the narrations mentioned above, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had instructed many Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) to lift their garments above their ankles. Would we say (May Allah forbid), that those Sahabah were doing so out of pride? Obviously not.

viii. If anyone had the right to say, ‘I don’t do it out of pride,’ it was Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu), but he never made such claims of purification. So, who are we to profess such piety? And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 6:
Yazid ibn Abi Habib (رهمح الله) narrates that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to hang his izãr in front of him and lift it from the back. (‘At-Tabaqaat’ Ibn Sa’d Vol.1 Pg.395 ) 

• Imam Suyuti graded it mursal in ‘Jame’us Sagheer’. (Jame’us Sagheer with ‘Taweer’ Vol.8 Pg.563) 

• Clarification:
i. This hadith is mursal, which is one of the types of weak hadith according to the muhaddithun. A mursal hadith is when there is a break in the link of the chain of narration after the tabi’ee. Yazid ibn Abi Yahya (رهمح الله) was a tabi’ee, which means he did not meet the Messenger ﷺ. Therefore, there is a break in the link of this chain of narration. However, a mursal hadith is still used as evidence according to the majority of the mujtahidun, the likes of Abu Hanifah, Malik and Ahmed ibn Hanbal (رمهمح الله). Imam Shafi’ee (رهمح الله) also uses it as evidence when it fulfills a few conditions.

ii. When a hadith is vague, like this one, then it must be interpreted to coincide with the other explicit narrations. Many ahadith mention that the Sunnah and usual method of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was to wear his garments up to mid-calf.

iii. This is why, Allamah San’aani (رهمح الله) explains that this hanging in front was to the extent of the permission given, which is up to mid-calf. (Taweer Vol.8 Pg.563. Permission was given from between mid-calf to above the ankles). And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 7:
Ikrimah (رهمح الله) narrated that he saw Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) wearing an izãr; he let the edge of the izãr touch the top of his feet in front and he lifted it higher at the back. I said, “Why are you wearing the izãr in this manner?” He said, “I saw the Messenger of Allah wearing it like that.” (Sunan Abu Dawud #4096)

• Shaikh Muhammad Awwamah classified it as sound. (Ta’leeq ala ‘Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah’ Vol.12 Pg.503 #25328)

• Some people use this hadith to say that we can drag our garments below our ankles without any restriction of a particular style. 

• Clarification:
i. Firstly, if we were to assume this was the Messenger’s ﷺ regular style of wearing his izãr, it does not clearly state that the front part went below the ankles. The edge of the izãr can touch the top of the foot without going below the ankles, especially when the back part is clearly above the ankles. By taking all the other numerous ahadith on this issue in to consideration, we must interpret it to mean that it did not go below the ankles.

ii. Even if we were to assume it may have gone below the ankles at the front, it clearly did not go below from the back. Also, this manner would leave the ankles exposed and not covered. Therefore, if one was to prove permissibility from this hadith, the izãr would have to be worn in this exact manner. However, this is only possible if one is wearing a lungi or loincloth, which can be tied in such a manner that the front part reaches the top of the foot while the back part stays higher up. This style is impossible with a trouser and extremely difficult with a qamis or jubbah. Those who would like to use this hadith to permit wearing the trousers below their ankles, would never wear them in this manner. 

iii. This is the only hadith that mentions this method of wearing the izãr. All the other ahadith clearly state that the Messenger’s style ﷺ was to wear the garments up to mid-calf. Similarly, the other Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) who followed the Messenger’s style ﷺ, wore it up to mid-calf. Therefore, this hadith will be explained in light of what is established.

iv. The great muhaddith and faqeeh, Mulla Ali Qari explains, “Maybe this occurred once from him (the Messenger ﷺ) and Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) happened to see it. This is why he is alone in this style of wearing the izãr from amongst the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum).” (Mirqatul Mafatih Vol.8 Pg.236, The muhaddith Shaikh Idris Kandhelvi also mentioned this interpretation in ‘Ta’liqus Sabih’ Vol.4 Pg.395)

v. Some scholars state that if one was to wear the loincloth in this manner, where the front part is on the top of the foot and the back part is above the ankles and they are exposed, then it would not come under the prohibition of isbaal. (See ‘Awnul Ma’bood’ Pg.1758, ‘Mazahir Haqq Jadid’ Vol.4 Pg.197 Maktabatul Ilm, ‘Khairul Mafatih’ Vol.5 Pg.154)

Refer to point ii of this clarification. And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 8:
It is narrated that Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) used to let down his izaar. He was asked concerning it, to which he replied, “I am a man whose shins are thin.” (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #25313)

• Clarification:
i. If a person’s shins are slim then he will simply conceal them by letting the garment below the midway of his calves. There is no need to hang it below the ankles.

ii. Hafiz Ibn Hajr (رهمح الله) said, “This hanging narrated from Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) means below the preferable place (of half the calf). It should never be imagined that it went below his ankles.” (Alqamah said, “Ibn Masud was the most similar to the Prophet in his ways, style and mannerism.” [Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah #32906])

How could one ever accuse such a great Sahabi, who was known to follow the Messenger (ﷺ) in all his ways, styles and mannerism, of defying the Messenger’s command? Ibn Masud (هنع الله يضر), himself, has narrated that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ prohibited from dragging the izãr below the ankles. (Ibn Abi Shaibah #25303, Abu Dawud #4222, Sahih Ibn Hibban #5682-3 and Hakim in ‘Mustadrak’, who classified it authentic. As for the student of Ibn Masud, Abur Rahman ibn Harmalah, then he is truthful. See ‘Jarh wa Ta’dil’ Vol.5 Pg.222-3, ‘Thiqat’ Ibn Hibban Vol.5 Pg.95 and ‘Ta’leequl Awwamah’ on ‘Kashif’.) And Allah knows best.

iii. Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) also narrated that on the day Umar ibn Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu) was stabbed by Abu Luluah, the Majusi, with such a wound that subsequently took his life, a youth entered upon Umar (radhiyallahu anhu). The youth started to praise him. Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) saw that he was dragging his izãr. So he said, “O my nephew, lift your izãr because, in it, is more fear for your Rabb and cleaner for your garment.” Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) used to always remark, “Amazing! Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) saw the right of Allah upon him. So, the situation he was in did not prevent him from speaking about the right of Allah.”  (Ibn Abi Shaibah #25312 Ibrahim Nakhai’s Marasil from Ibn Masud are authentic. See ‘Tabribur Rawi’ Vol.3 Pg.166 and Shaikh Muhammad Awwamah’s Ta’lee).

Bukhari also collected it in his ‘Sahih’ but from a different Sahabi, Amr ibn Maimun (radhiyallahu anhu) #3700.

iv. Once Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) saw a man who was hanging his lower garment. So, he told him to lift it up. The man retorted, “And you, O Ibn Masud, lift your lower garment.” Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “My feet are slim and I lead people in Salah.” Umar ibn Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu) learnt about this and flogged the man saying, “You were rebuking Ibn Masud?” 
(‘Siyar A’laam Nubalaa’ Vol.1 Pg.491-2 Shaik Shuaib said, “Its narrators are reliable.”)

Above, two narrations of Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) were mentioned, which showed how strict he was on the issue of the garment hanging below the ankles. Therefore, this clearly shows that Ibn Masud’s garments were simply below the preferable limit and not below the ankles.

v. Rather, the following narration proves that he would never drag it below his ankles. Ibn Masud (radhiyallahu anhu) saw two men performing Salah, one had his izãr below his ankles and the other was not completing his ruku and sujood. So, he smiled. They asked, “What makes you smile, O Aba Abdir Rahman?” He replied, “I am surprised at these two men that one has his izãr below his ankles, so Allah will not look at him and as for the second, then Allah will not accept his salah.”  (Musannaf Abdur Razzaq #3735 and Tabarani in ‘Kabir’ #9366 Vol.9 Pg.314-5) And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

Misconception 9:
Many scholars say the prohibition is based on pride, and if there is no pride then it is not haraam

• Clarification:
i. The truth is not measured by people, rather people are measured by the truth. The overwhelming evidences as explained above does not support this opinion of theirs. 

ii. Even though these scholars didn’t consider it haram when it is without pride, they still say it is reprehensible (makrooh) and blameworthy.  (See: ‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.266, ‘Fatawa Hindiyyah’ Vol.5 Pg.333, ‘Tamheed’ Vol.3 Pg.244, ‘Al-Muntaqa Sharh Muatta’ Vol.7 Pg.226, ‘Al-Majmoo’ Vol.4 Pg.338, ‘Al-Mughni’ Vol.2 Pg.298)

iii. Hafiz Ibn Hajr said that even if one was to consider it makrooh to drag the garment below the ankles then that would be in the case where the garment is not unnecessarily long. In other words, it would apply to the one whose garment is actually above his ankles but slips down, like in the case of Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu). If it is too long, then it would be considered prohibited from many aspects.

a. It would be considered extravagance, (Allah says, “…do not spend wastefully. Indeed, the wasteful are brothers of the devils…”) [Surah Israa: 26-27].

b. It would be considered imitating women. (All the scholars agree that women must hang their garments below their ankles. Kawkab Wahhaj Sharh Muslim Vol.21 Pg.376)

The Messenger (ﷺ) has cursed those men who imitate women and vice versa. [Bukhari #5885 ] He has also specifically cursed those men who wear the garments of women. [Hakim in ‘Mustadrak’ Vol.4 Pg.194, ‘Sahih’ Ibn Hibban #5751. Its chain is authentic on the conditions of Muslim.]

c. If the garments are dragging, then they can collect impurities from the ground. Ubaid ibn Khalid (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “I was walking and upon me was a sheet which I was dragging. So, a man said to me, ‘Lift your garment because it is cleaner for you and long lasting.’ So, I looked and it was the Prophet (ﷺ).” [‘Shamail’ Tirmithi in  #114. Its chain is good. [‘Fathul Bari’ Vol.13 Pg.266-7] 

d. Faqeehul Ummah Mufti Mahmud Hasan (رهمح الله) adds a fourth reason where it would become haraam. He says that nowadays those who wear their trousers below the ankles are doing so in following the style of the West. Therefore, they will come under the prohibition of emulating the kuffar and fussaq. (Fatawa Mahmoodiyah Vol.27 Pg.413-4)

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Whoever imitates a people, he is one of them.” [Abu Dawud collected this hadith in the chapter entitled, “Garment of Fame and Vanity”. #4031 Ibn Hajr states in ‘Bulooghul Maraam’ #1416, “Authenticated by Ibn Hibban.”]

iv. One should also note that everyone agrees that the Messenger (ﷺ) used to wear his garments above his ankles at half calf. Therefore, this is the Sunnah. The Sahabah, the likes of Uthman, Ali, Ibn Umar, Anas, Jabir and others (radhiyallahu anhu) also used to wear their garments at half calf. (See ‘Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaibah’ from narration #25327 to #25331)

So these scholars are in no way promoting wearing any garment below the ankles. Rather they all were strong in practising on the Sunnah.

v. Even though they say that it is not haram to hang the garments below the ankles, they do not claim that any person is free from pride. This is a hidden trait of the heart that is not easily discerned. Rather, Allah Ta’ala states, “So do not claim purity for yourselves. He is most knowing of who fears him.”  [Surah Najam: 32]

vi. After discussing this issue in his commentary of ‘Sahih Muslim’, Shaikhul Islam Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani (هظفح الله) concludes, “The original primary cause (illat) behind the prohibition of dragging the garments below the ankles is ‘pride’, as the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) explicitly mentioned in the hadith on the topic. However, establishing ‘pride’ is a hidden matter and the one who is afflicted by it does not realise it. Therefore, the cause (sabab) was placed in the position of the primary cause (illat). The cause (sabab) is hanging the garments below the ankles. This is like qasr (shortening the prayers) in travel. The primary cause (illat) is ‘difficulty’. However, ‘difficulty’ is an ambiguous matter which does not come under any rule. Therefore, the cause (sabab) was placed in the position of the primary cause (illat). The cause (sabab) is travel. (So, whenever anyone travels, he will shorten his prayers whether he is in any ‘difficulty’ or not.) Based on this, whenever the garments go below the ankles, the prohibition will apply unless it was unintentional, because in such a case the absence of ‘pride’ is definite. This is so because ‘pride’ is not established by an action in which the slave does not have an intention. It is from this angle that the Messenger (ﷺ) allowed Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) concerning his garment falling below his ankles. He said to him, ‘You are not one who does it out of pride.’ In this manner, all the narrations are reconciled. And Allah knows best.” (See ‘Takmilah Fathil Mulhim’ Vol.4 Pg.108) 

Misconception 10:
I am a person who likes my trousers below my ankles. I find it beautiful and the Messenger (ﷺ) had told a Sahabi, who had asked about beautiful clothing which he liked, it is not a problem as Allah loves beauty. 

• Clarification:
The hadith in question is as follows: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Whoever has a speck of pride (arrogance) in his heart, shall not be admitted into Paradise.” A man asked, “I like for my clothes to be nice, and my sandals to be nice?” So, he said: “Indeed Allah is Graceful and He loves beauty. Pride is refusing the truth and belittling the people.” [Muslim #91 ]

From this hadith, we learn that it is allowed for a person to wear permissible clothing even if it may be beautiful, expensive and valuable, once he does not belittle people by doing such. The other condition is once he does not refuse the truth. In other words, Shariah has placed some guidelines with regards to clothing which are part of the truth. Rejecting these guidelines is arrogance and pride. Below we mention a few guidelines as an example:

i. A man is not allowed to wear silk
ii. A man is not allowed to wear gold

• The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Wearing silk and gold has been made unlawful for the males of my Ummah and lawful for its females.” [Collected by Tirmithi #1720 He said it is sound and authentic. Also see Sahih Bukhari #5831].

iii. The thighs of a man are part of his awrah (private-parts) which is to be covered.

• Jarhad (radhiyallahu anhu) said that the Prophet (ﷺ) passed by him while his thigh was exposed, so the Prophet said, “Cover your thigh, for indeed it is awrah.” [Collected by Tirmithi #2798. He said it is sound]  From these guidelines, we see that the hadith concerning the permissibility of wearing beautiful clothing is not subjected to one’s whims and fancies. Rather, it is restricted to the guidelines set out by Shariah. Therefore, a man will not be allowed to wear silk, gold or expose his awrah simply because he considers them beautiful. In the same manner, Shariah has prohibited a man from dragging his clothing below his ankles and has considered this an act of arrogance itself. The evidences have been mentioned above in details. So, it will not be permissible for someone to drag his pants below his ankles, simply because he considers it beautiful. We ask Allah to beautify in our hearts and eyes the Sunnah of His Messenger (ﷺ). And Allah Ta’ala knows best.  

Misconception 11:
We are living in the twenty first century. The style and fashion of today dictates that we wear our trousers below our ankles. If we lift them above our ankles, people will laugh at us and ridicule us.

• Clarification:
The faqeeh, muhaddith and reviver of the Sunnah, Mufti Ahmed Khanpuri (rahimahullah) says in his commentary of ‘Riyadhus Saliheen’ that if you practise on the Deen, then you will be ridiculed and laughed at. Remember, the noblest humans, the Prophets of Allah (alayhimussalam), including our role model, the final Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) were all ridiculed and laughed at. Rather, if we are laughed at by the kuffar and fussaq for practising on the Sunnah, then that is a sign that we have passed the exam. It is not something that we should be grieved about. On the other hand, if we follow the fashion of the kuffar and fussaq, then they will not be able to save us from the punishment on the Day of Judgement. [Hadith ke Islaahi Madhameen Vol.10 Pg.82-83] And Allah Ta’ala knows best. 

CONCLUSION 

In summary, whether one hangs his garment below his ankles intentionally as an act of pride or without any such intention, it is still prohibited and a sin. There are severe punishments mentioned in many ahadith concerning both of these scenarios. We will list them below:
• Allah Ta’ala will not speak to him. 
• He will not look at him. 
• He will not purify him. 
• The man will be given a painful punishment. 
• He has been placed in the same row as a liar.
• He has been placed in the same row as one who reminds people of the favours he did to them.
• His salah is not accepted.
• Allah Ta’ala has lost respect for him.
• Allah Ta’ala does not care about him.
• He has left the laws of Allah.
• He does not believe in the halal and haram of Allah Ta’ala.
• Allah Ta’ala has freed Himself from him.
• He will enter the Hell Fire. 

We conclude with what Zhahabi said concerning those who fool themselves on this issue. In response to the one who lets his garment hang below the ankle and says ‘I am not doing that out of pride’ he said: 

“We see him behaving in an arrogant manner and purifying his foolish self. And you see him looking at a text (hadith) that is general in meaning, and he restricts it on the basis of another, separate hadith, in the meaning of pride. 

He allows a concession based on the words of al-Siddeeq (Abu Bakr) (radhiyallahu anhu), who said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, my izaar slips down,’ and he (ﷺ) said: “O Abu Bakr, you are not one of those who do that out of pride.’ 

We say: Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) did not tie his izaar in such a way that it hung below the ankles in the first place, rather he tied it so that it came above the ankle, but it slipped down after that. 

And the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “The izaar of the believer should come to mid-calf, but it does not matter if it comes between (that point) and the ankle.” The same prohibition applies to the one who lets his trousers cover his ankles, or makes his sleeves too long. All of that is from pride which is deeply hidden in the soul.”  [Siyar A’laam al-Nubala Vol.3 Pg.234]

Let us ponder over the following ahadith: The beloved Prophet (ﷺ) said, “One who holds an atoms weight of kibr (arrogance) within his heart will not enter paradise.” [Sahih Muslim 91c] 

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Whoever leaves (certain) garments out of humility to Allah while he is able to (wear), Allah will call him before the heads of creation on the Day of Judgement so that he can select whichever garments of faith he wishes to wear.” [Collected by Tirmithi #2481 and He graded it sound. He also said, “’Garments of faith’ is the garments of Paradise which are given to the people of faith.”] 
May Allah purify our heart from pride and may He save our limbs from actions of pride. May He guide us to practice on each and every Sunnah of his beloved Messenger of Allah ﷺ.   

28 Rabiyul Akhir 1438 = 1/26/2017

Checked and Approved by Mufti Muhammad Mahdi

Ruling on Smoking – Reply to Spurious Arguments

Question:  A  Mufti  says  that smoking  is  only  makrooh tanzihi.  It  is  not  haraam.  His  argument  is  as  follows:

He  said, “The  karaahat  only comes  about  because  of  the disturbing  smell  it  gives off.  Otherwise,  it  is  jaaiz.  Most  of  our  Akeebireen  including  Moulana  Ashraf  Ali  Thanvi  rahmatullahi  alaih  used  to  eat  paan,  which  is  also  tobacco  like in  cigarettes.  Hence  ruling  it  haraam  will  lead  to  making  tafseeq  of  many  of  our great  Akaabireen.  As  for  the  Saudi  fatwa  of  it  being  haraam  because  it  is  harmful  to  the  body,  then  this  is  incorrect.  If  one  goes  with  this  reasoning,  then  he’ll  have  to  say  chips,  sweets, chocolates,  panado,  disprin,  juices  etc.  are  all  haraam  because  all  of  it  are  very  harmful  to  the  body  too. Therefore  the  most  we  can say  is  makrooh  e  tanzeehi.”

Is  the  above  correct?

Answer [by Mujlisul Ulama]: It  is  palpably  incorrect.  Smoking cigarettes  is  haraam.  We  have  written  several  articles  in  the  past  on  this  issue.  The  Molvi Sahib  who  claims  that  this harmful,  poisonous,  wasteful    and  stinking  habit  is  makrooh  tanzihi  is  in  error. The  vile  stench  emitted  by  the  mouth  of  a  smoker  chases  away  the  Malaaikah  from  even  the  Musjid  or  at least  causes  great  distress  to them.  The  arguments  of  the  Molvi  Sahib  are  spurious.  The  facts  we  know  today  about  smoking  were  unknown  to  our  Akaabireen  and  to  the  Ulama  even  before  them.   

Cigarettes  may  not  be analogized  on  the  basis  of paan.  The  analogy  is  silly, laughable  and  fallacious.  Paan  is  not  a  valid  mustadel.  Paan  itself  is  in  need of  a  daleel  for  the  determination  of  its  status.  If  it  is  established  that  paan  too  is  as  harmful  as  cigarettes,  then  we  shall  unhesitatingly  label  it  too haraam.

The  claim  of  tafseeq  of  the  Ulama  is  not  valid.  The  Ulama  had  stated  their  views  on  the  basis  of  the  information  available  to  them,  hence  the  question  of  tafseeq  does  not  develop.  The  charge  of  tafseeq against  a  person  applies  to  the  scholars  for  dollars  –  to the  slaves  of  the  nafs  –  to those  who  halaalize  carrion –  to  those  who  betray  the  Deen.  It  does  not  apply  to the  true  Ulama  who  base their  views  on  dalaa-il.  Among  the  Fuqaha  and Aimmah  Mujtahideen  were those  who  held  diametrically  opposite  views  on  an  issue.  The  one  says  that  it  is  halaal  and  the  other  says that  it  is  haraam.  Thus  no  one  makes  tafseeq  of  Imaam  Shaafi’  for    holding  the  view  of  the  permissibility  of  hyena  meat  or  seal  meat  nor  of  Imaam  Maalik  for  saying  that  dog  meat  is halaal.  On  the  contrary,  the  scholars  for  dollars  blurt  flotsam  without  daleel.           

Their  nafs  is  their  only  daleel,  hence  tafseeq  is  applicable  to  them,  not  to  the  Akaabireen  who  had  based  their  fatwa  on  the  information  available  at  the time.

In  fact  we  do  say  that  chips, chocolates,  soft  drinks  and  the  like  are  haraam.  Thus,  this  is  not  a daleel  against  us.  We  do not  follow  the  Saudi  Fatwa. Our  view  is  based  on  our  own  Tahqeeq  (research).    

Regarding  artificial  juices,  panado,  etc.,  the  Molvi  Sahib  agrees  that  these  items  are  “very  harmful”. In  the  Shariah  Dharar  is  a  Sabab-e-Hurmat.  The  Molvi  Sahib  is  unaware  of this  fact,  hence  despite  conceding  the  existence  of the  element  of  Dharar,  he  illogically  maintains  that  the  view  of  permissibility  of  these  harmful  substances.  The  honourable  Molvi  Sahib  has  missed  the  bus.

For Detailed Ruling on Prohibition of smoking  please continue to read: Shari’ah Prohibits Cigarettes & Tobacco

Salaat with Shoes??

QUESTION

Is  it  permissible  to  perform  Salaat  with  shoes  on?  A  radio  molvi  propagates  that  it  is  permissible  since  it  is  proven  from  the  Hadith although  he  says  that  one  should  not  enter  a  Musjid  with  shoes  for  fear  of    the  carpets  becoming  dirty.  He  contends  that  outside  the Musjid  it  is  a  Sunnah  to  perform  Salaat  with  shoes.  He  mentioned  some  Ahaadith  in  support  of  performing  Salaat  with  shoes.  He  cites Ibn  Taimiyyah  as  his  Imaam  in  support  of  his  view.  Although  it  is  Sunnah,  he  says  that  because  of  the  carpets  this  Sunnah  should  not  be  observed.  Please  comment.  Something  does  not  seem  right  in this molvi’s reasoning.

ANSWER [By Mujlisul Ulama]

Everything  in  his  warped  and  spurious  argument  is  wrong.  The  brains of  radio  molvis  are  convoluted  with  fisq  and  fujoor.  In  addition  they  are  plain  morons  lacking  in  knowledge.  With  the  smattering  of  defective  knowledge  contaminated  with  their  fisq  and  fujoor  they  wander aimlessly  from  one  stupid  blunder  to  another. 

Let  us  momentarily  assume  that  it  is  permissible.  What  need  did  this  moron  molvi  see  in  embarking  on  this  futile  topic  and  making  a  stupid  contention  which  is  in  conflict  of  the  unanimous  fourteen  century  practice  of  the  entire  Ummah,  right  from  the  era  of  the  Sahaabah  to  this  day  in  all  lands  of  Islam  and  among  all  persuasions  and  sects?  While  there  are  a  hundred  important  issues  affecting  the  community,  the  jaahil  digs  up  futility  to  create  an  unnecessary  controversy  and  to  waste  time  with  his rodomontade  display  of  stupid  ‘erudition’.

The  fourteen  century  Tawaaruth  of  the  Ummah  is  more  than  sufficient  evidence  for  the  validity  of  the  practice  of  removing  shoes  when performing  Salaat.  But  stupid  molvis  who  hallucinate  that  they  are  ‘mujtahids’  ignore  the  rulings  of  the  Fuqaha  and  dig  out  Ahaadith  of which  they  lack  understanding  and  expertise.  The    function  of  the muqallid  is  to  adhere  to  the  Taqleed  of  the  Math-hab,  not  to  dig  Ahaadith  from  the  kutub  to    bolster  his  corrupt  opinion  which  conflicts  with  the  Ijma’ of  the  Ummah.

When  someone  asked  Hadhrat  Abu  Hurairah  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  whether  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  had  performed  Salaat  with  na’lain,  he  replied:  “Yes.”  Firstly,  the  na’lain  which  they  wore fourteen  centuries  ago  were  not  the  type  of  shoes  which  we  wear today.  The  shoes  of  that  era  were  soft,  open  sandals  with  the  toes exposed.  With  such  sandals  valid  Sajdah  could  be  performed,  not  so with  today’s  shoes  and  boots.

Secondly,  what  had  constrained  the  man  to  pose  this  question  to  Hadhrat  Abu  Hurairah  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)?  If  it  was  the  norm  to  perform  Salaat  with  shoes,  then  what  need  did  he  have  to  ask  what  is  already  a  known  and  established  fact?  Why  did  he  not  ask:  ‘Did Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  perform  Salaat  without  shoes?’  He  had  no  need  to  pose  this  question  because  it  was  the  normal  and permanent  practice  to  perform  Salaat  bare-footed,  not  with  shoes.  The  tenor  of  the  question  clearly  indicates  that  the  question  relates  to    an exception,  not  to  the  norm.   

Performing  Salaat  with  shoes  was  the  exception,  and  that  exception  was  constrained  by  the  need  to  oppose  the  Yahood,  hence  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam),  said  in  this  regard, ‘Oppose the Yahood.’ Performing  Salaat  with  shoes  has  no  bearing  on  the  significance  and  perfection  of  Salaat.  The  perfection  of  Salaat  and  the  attainment  of  Khushu’  and  Khudhu’  in  Salaat  are  not  reliant  on  wearing  shoes  in Salaat.  It  has  been  occasioned  by  an  external  factor.  It  was  temporarily  ordered  as  a  measure  of  opposition  to  the  Yahood.  However,  the  Fuqaha  have  ruled  that  since  the  Ahl-e-Kitaab  no  longer  enter  their  churches  and  temples  without  shoes,  this  raison  d’etre  (Illat)  no  longer  exists  to  justify    performing  Salaat  with  shoes.  On  the  contrary,  in  this  era  and  since  many  centuries  ago,  opposing  the  Ahl-e-Kitaab  is  in performing  Salaat  without  shoes,  for  their  practice  is  to  pray  with  shoes. The  Fuqaha  have  clarified  this  aspect.  

“Those  who  have  said  that  wearing  shoes  is  Mustahab  said  so  on  the  basis  of  opposing  the  Yahood.  However,  the  Ahl-e-Kitaab  now  pray  with  their  shoes.  Thus  opposition  to  them  is  by  means  of  removing  the shoes,  not  in wearing  the  shoes.”  [Bazlul  Majhood].

On  the  occasion  of  the  Conquest  of  Makkah,  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  removed  his  shoes  for  Salaat.  Thus  the  Fuqaha  say  that  this  is  the  last  of  the  two  acts,  and  it  has  precedence  over  the occasional  performance  of  Salaat  with  shoes  which  was  the  effect  of  an  external  factor.

The  contention  that  there  is  a  difference  between  performing  Salaat with  shoes  outside  the  Musjid  and  inside  the  Musjid,  is    baseless.  The  moron  says  that  the  shoes  will  dirty  the  carpets.  This  means  that  according  to  the  jaahil,  Salaat  may  be  performed  outside  the  Musjid  with  dirty  shoes  and  boots.  The  only  difference  is  that  the  Musjid  has  greater  reverence  and  demands  greater  respect  than  other  places.  But  the  rule  pertaining  for  Salaat  with  and  without  shoes  remains  the  same  for  both  the  Musjid  and  other  venues.  If  entry  into  the  Musjid  is precluded  because  of  dirty  shoes,  then  why  does  the  moron  not  contend  the  permissibility  with  clean  shoes?  So  how  does  he  accept  dirty  shoes  for  Salaat  on  the  outside,  but  not  for  the  inside of  the  Musjid? 

Performing  Salaat  with  shoes  on  is  disrespectful.  The  permission  granted  was  temporary  and  occasioned  by  a  specific  reason,  viz., opposing  the  Yahood.  But  this  is  no  longer  applicable  today.  Allaamah Anwar Kashmiri said:  

“There  is  no doubt  that  adab  (respect)  and  tawaadhu’  (humility)  are  in removing  the  shoes,  not  wearing  it  (i.e.  when  performing  Salaat).”  – [Ma-aarifus Sunan Sharh Sunan Tirmizi]

In  Umdatul  Mufti,  it  appears: “Verily  entry  (into  the  Musjid)  with  shoes  is  evil  mannerism.”

Ibn  Daqeequl  Eed  said:  “Salaat  with  shoes  is  not  Mustahab  because  it  is  not  included  in  the  objectives  of  Salaat.”

Allaamah  Shabbeer  Ahmad  Uthmaani  says  in  Sharh  Muslim,  and  similarly  is  it  in  Bazlul  Majhood:  “The  Hadith  indicates  that  Salaat  with  shoes  was  ordered  in  opposition  to  the  Yahood.  However,  in  our  age  it  is  proper  for  the  order  to  be  to  perform  Salaat  without  shoes  in  opposition  to  the  Nasaara,  for  they  pray  with shoes.”

Allaamah  Shaikh  Muhammad  Zaahid  Al-Kauthari  says  in  his Maqaalaat:

“Salaat  with  shoes  will  be  valid  if  they  are  taahir  (clean)  and  do  not prevent  placement  of  the  base  of  the  toes  on  the  ground  as  this  is  of  the  completion  of  Sajdah  as  explained  by  Al-Khataabi  and  others.  The shoes  during  the  era  of  Nabi  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  were  soft  (i.e.  sandals  with  the  toes  exposed  and  free).  On  the  contrary,  the  solid (firm/hard)  shoes  of  this  age  do  not  allow  the  Musalli  to  perfect  Sajdah in  them.  Furthermore  the  Musjid  of  Nabi  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam) was  strewn  with  pebbles…….It  was  inconceivable  for  filth  to  be attached  to  the  shoes  of  Nabi  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam),  for  he  did  not  walk  in  filthy  streets.  The  alleyways  of  Madinah  were  clean,  devoid  of  filth  as  a  result  of  the  obedience  of  the  Sahaabah  to  the  command  of Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  to  adopt  total  cleanliness  in the  homes  and  outside  the  houses,  and  to  a  greater  extent    the  Homes of  Allah  (i.e. the  Musaajid).  

Thus  it  was  simple  for  one  to  walk  without  trampling  on  filth. Furthermore,  the  ground  was  sandy  and  soft  preventing  any  splatter  (of  moisture)……….On  the  contrary,  the  roads    and  toilets  of  today  —  it  is not  possible  to  completely  avoid    trampling  on  filth  and  being    safe  from  splattering  (of  filthy  water)  on  to  shoes  because  the  floors  of  toilets  are  firm  (tiled,  cemented).  This  is  further  aggravated  when  one  stands to urinate  in  western  style  (high toilets  and  urinals). 

It  is  authentically  reported  that  on  the  occasion  of  the  Conquest  of  Makkah,  Nabi  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  had  removed  his  shoes  for  Salaat.  Thus,  this  is  the  last  of  the  two  acts  (i.e.  with  shoes  and  without shoes). 

The  one  who  avers  that  wearing  shoes  (for  Salaat)  is  Mustahab,  i.e.  when  the  conditions  for  permissibility  are  found,  regards  it  as  Mustahab  because  of  opposition  to  the  Yahood.  But  today  the  Ahl-e-Kitaab  enter  their  temples  and  pray  with  their  shoes.  Therefore,  opposing  them  is  in removing  the  shoes,  not  in wearing  them.  

The  response  of  Anas  (Radhiyallahu  anhu),  i.e.  him  saying  ‘Yes’,  to  the  question:  ‘Did  he  perform  Salaat  with  shoes?’,  does  not  imply  that this  was  always  so.  This  has  been  explained  in  Sharh  Muslim  of Nawawi………In  fact,  today  it  is  regarded  as  evil  mannerism  to  enter  the  Musaajid  with  shoes  as  mentioned  by  Nawawi  and  Al-Ubbi  in  Sharh  Muslim,  and  Ali  Qaari  in  Sharh  Mishkaat,  and  Muqri  in  Fathul Muta-aal,  and  Al-Lakhnowi  in    Ghaayatul  Maqaal,  and  Ibn  Abi  As-Sijistaani  in  Munyatul  Mufti,  and  Al-Hamawi  in  Al-Ashbaah.  In  fact  for them  there  is  a  precedent  in  the  Sahaabah  (Radhiyallahu anhum)…………..

In  fact,  one  should  not  enter  the  Musjid  with  the  shoes  taken  off  except  that  they  are  covered  (e.g.  in  a  packet,  for  it  is  disrespectful  to  walk  in  the  Musjid  with  the  shoes  exposed  in  one’s  hands)…….In  Kitaabul Umm,  Imaam  Shaafi’  said:  ‘I  prefer  that  one  should  not  make  Sajdah  with  shoes  which  prevent  contact  of  the  feet (toes)  with  the  ground.”

The  moron  radio  molvi  and  all  of  these  so-called  ‘deobandi’  facebook  juhala  molvis  being  extremely  defective  in  Knowledge,  are  affected and influenced  by  the  Salafi  morons  who  cite  some  Ahaadith  which  they  interpret  according  to  their  whimsical  and  nafsaani  fancies.  It  is  for  this reason  that  this  radio  molvi  cites  Ibn  Taimiyyah  who  had  deviated  from the  Path  of  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  by  having  abandoned  the  Taqleed  of  the Mathaahib.  The  moron  radio  molvi  had  no  one  better  to  present  as daleel  other  than  Ibn  Taimiyyah.  This  amply  illustrates  his  bankruptcy in the academic field.

Furthermore,  the  moron  radio  molvi  has  simply  lapped  up  what  Salafis  propagate  via  the  internet.  He  has  disgorged  nothing  but  the  spurious and  baseless  ‘proofs’  of  the  Salafis  in  his  bid  to  bolster  the  Salafi teaching  of  the  ‘sunnah’  of  performing  Salaat  with  shoes.  In  so  doing he has displayed stark intellectual density.

Performing  Salaat  without  shoes  which  is  the  standard  fourteen  century  practice  of  the  Ummah  right  from  the  time  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam),  is  based  on  Adab  (Respect),  Tawaadhu’  (Humility) and  cleanliness.  On  the  occasion  when  Musaa  (Alayhis  salaam)  was  appointed  the  Nabi,  Allah  Ta’ala  commanded him:

“Verily,  I  am  your  Rabb.  Remove  your  shoes,  for  verily,  you  are    in  the  holy  Valley  of  Tuwa.”  [Taahaa,  Aayat  12]

In  the  tafseer  of  this  Aayat,  Hadhrat  Mufti  Muhammad  Shafi’  says  in Ma-aariful  Qur’aan:       

“The  command  to  remove  shoes  was  either  because  the  place  was  a  venue  of  Adab  (Respect).  Removing  the  shoes  and  walking  barefoot  are  the  demands  of  Adab,  or  the  command  was  because  the    shoes  were  made  of  the  skin  of  dead  animals  as  is  mentioned  in  some  narrations. However,  Hadhrat  Ali,  Hasan  Basri  and  Ibn  Juraij  (Radhiyallahu anhum)  narrate  the  first  reason  (i.e.  to  observe  respect  for  the  place  of holiness).

Another  reason  for  removing  the  shoes  was  for  the  bared  feet  to  acquire  the  benefit/barkat  of  the  holy  ground.  According  to  some,  this command  was  for  the  purpose  of  Khushu’  and  Tawaadhu’.  And  this  was  the  practice  of  the  Salafus  Saalihen  when  they  would  make  Tawaaf  of  Baitullah.    
Once  when  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  saw  Bishr  Bin  Khasaasiyah  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  walking  in  the  graveyard  with  shoes on,  he  (Nabi  –Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said:  “When  you  are  in  a  place  of  this  kind (i.e. a holy  place),  then  remove  your  shoes.” That  is, a  place  which  has  to  be  honoured / respected / revered.

The  issue  is  not  the  validity  of  Salaat  performed  with  shoes  on.  There  is no  gainsaying  that  Salaat  performed  with  shoes  will  be  valid  on  the basis of two conditions:

(1)  The  shoes  must  be  taahir  (paak/clean).
(2)  There  must  be  contact  between  the  base  of  the  toes  and  the ground.

Generally,  in  these  times  both  these  conditions  are  lacking.  It  is  standard  practice  to  go  into  the  toilets  with  shoes.  People  walk  all  over  the  show  with  their  shoes.  There  is  overwhelming  certitude  for  the impurity  of  the  shoes.  Then,  the  type  of  shoes  which  people    generally  wear  nowadays,  prevent   contact   between  the  toes  and  the  ground.  The  toes  are  suspended  in  mid-air  inside  the  shoes/boots  rendering  the  Salaat  invalid.

Furthermore,  the  validity  of  Salaat  on  the  basis  of  the  two  conditions  does  not  render  Salaat  with  shoes  Sunnah.  Only  radio  and  facebook  molvis  and  Salafis  who  suffer  from  the  mental  malady  of  ghabaawat (density  in  the  brains)  believe  that  performing  Salaat  with  shoes  is  Sunnah.  The  Qur’aan  as  well  as  the  aforementioned  Hadith  categorically  command  the  removal  of  shoes  when  in  a  place  of  holiness.  This  applies  to even  the  Qabrustaan,  and  to  a  greater  degree  to the  Musaajid.

With  shoes  on  was  a  temporary  measure  occasioned  by  a  specific  purpose  which  was  opposition  to  the  Yahood.  This  objective  no  longer exists,  and  even  whilst  it  was  still  in  existence,  the  normal  practice  of  the  Sahaabah  was  removal  of  shoes.  And,  this  was  the  practice  of  the  Auliya  whilst  making  Tawaaf  at  the  time  when  there  were  no  carpets  and  no  tiles  in  the  Mataaf  area.  Even  whilst  the  entire  area  was  sandy  and  strewn  with  pebbles,  they  would  remove  their  shoes  because  this  is  the  demand  of  respect and  humility  (Adab  and Tawaadhu’). 

There  is  no  Adab  and  Tawaadhu’  performing  Salaat  with  the  shoes  with  which  one  enters  the  toilet  and  tramples  on  najaasat.  Commenting  on  this  issue,  Al-Ubbi  says:  

“Regarding  taking  uncovered  shoes  into  the  Musjid  (i.e.  carrying  the  shoes  in  the  hand  without  it  being  covered):  Ash-Shaikh  As-Saalih Abu  Ali  Al-Qarwi  asked  Ash-Shaikh  Al-Faqeeh  As-Saalih  Abul  Hasan Al-Muntasir  about  this.  He  (i.e.  Shaikh  Al-Muntasir)  said:  ‘O  Sayyidi, did  you  not  inform  me  that  my  Sayyid  Abu  Muhammad  Az-Zawaawi  had  seen  you  placing  your  shoes  uncovered    by  the  pillar,  then  he  said: ‘O  Rahat  (Rahat  is  a  group  of  men  not  exceeding  ten)!  People  follow  you,  therefore  do  not  do  so. (i.e.  do  not  place    uncovered  shoes  in  the  Musjid).’       
Thereafter  Shaikh  Al-Qarwi  would  narrate  (this  issue)  by  saying: ‘Al-Muntasir  narrated  to  me  from  me  that  Az-Zawaawi  disapproved  of  it  (i.e.  of  taking  shoes  uncovered  into  the  Musjid).’    

Similar  to  this  is  stated  in  Mudkhal  of  Ibnul  Haaj  Al-Maaliki.  In  this  manner  would  the  Maaliki  Ulama  observe  good  moral  character  with  their  brother  Ulama  of  the  other  Math-habs.  Opposing  all  of  these  Ulama  is  not  an  insignificant  issue  for  those  who  have  baseerat  (Deeni wisdom).

“Ibn  Hajar  Al-Makki  says  in  Sharhil  Mishkaat  in  the  commentary  of  the  Hadith:  “Oppose  the  Yahood”:  “Its  effect  (i.e.  the  effect  of  this command)  is  the  preference  of  Salaat  with  shoes.  However,  Al-Khattaabi  said:  ‘It  is  narrated  from  Imaam  Shaafi’  that  Adab  (Respect)  is  to  remove  the  shoes  for  Salaat.’  It  is  appropriate  to  reconcile  (the conflict,  i.e.  between  the  Hadith  and  Imaam  Shaafi’s  view)  by  saying  that  the  order  in  the  Khabr  (to  wear  shoes  in  Salaat)  is  when  there  is certitude  regarding  the  purity  of  the  shoes  and  the  fulfilment  of  Sajdah  by  being  able  to  make  Sajdah  on  all  the  toes    (by  means  of  the  toes touching    the  ground)  whereas  the  view  of  Imaam  Shaafi’  (i.e.  it  is  Adab  to  remove  shoes  for  Salaat)  relates  to  the  contrary  of  this  (i.e. when  any  of  the  two  essential  conditions  is  lacking).”

“However,  Mulla  Ali  Qaari  in  Sharhul  Mishkaat  refuting  this reconciliation,  says:  “This  (interpretation)  is  a  manifest  error  because  the  (logical)  conclusion  is  that  if  there  is  certitude  on  the  impurity  of the  shoes,  and  fulfilment  of  Sajdah  is  not  possible,  then  removing  the  shoes  will  not  be  Adab.  On  the  contrary,  it  will  in  fact  be  Waajib  to  remove  the  shoes.  It  is  therefore  best  to  say  that  the  view  of  Shaafi’  is  that  Adab  is  due  to  the  last  of  the  two  acts  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam)  and  that  is  the  removal  of  shoes.  Or  to  say  that  Adab  in  our  age  in  the  absence  of  the  Yahood  and  Nasaara  or  when  they  no longer  observe  the  practice  (of  removing  shoes)  is  to  remove  the shoes.”

“Among  the  evidences  that  removal  of  shoes  (for  Salaat)  is  the  last  of  the  two  acts  is  the  Hadith  of  Abdullah  Bin  Saa-ib  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  that  he  saw  during  the  year  of  the  Conquest  (of  Makkah)  Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  removing  his  shoes  for  Salaat………… There  is  unanimity  of  the  Ulama  that  today  Salaat  in  street  shoes  is  in  conflict  with  Adab,  even  if  they  are  clean.  In  fact,  it  is  soo’  adab  (evil mannerism).  See  detailed  elaboration  in    Munyatul  Mufti  of  Sijistaani, Fathul  Muta-aal  of  Allaamah  Al-Muqri,  Sharhul  Mishkaat  of  Mulla Ali  Qaari,  Ghaayatul  Maqaal  of  Allaamah  Abdul  Hayy  Lucknowi, etc.”         [Ma-aarifus Sunan] 

The  aforementioned  reconciliation  attempted  by  Al-Khattaabi  is  baseless  for  the  simple  reason  that  it  will  not  be  merely  Adab  to  remove  the  shoes  if  any  one  of  the  two  essential  conditions  is  lacking.  On  the  contrary,  it  will  be  Waajib.  Hence,  Imaam  Shaafi’s    unequivocal  contention  of      removing  the  shoes  being  Adab  relates  to  the  scenario  of  the  fulfilment  of  both  conditions,  i.e.  even  if  both  conditions  are fulfilled,  then  too  it  is  Adab  to  remove  the  shoes  for  Salaat  since  this  was  the  last  act  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  regarding  this  matter.  Furthermore,  the  former  act  of  keeping  the  shoes  on  was  a temporary  measure  occasioned  by  a  specific  reason,  viz.,  opposing  the  Yahood.  Thus  it  is  Ma’moor  bil  Illat  –  the    disappearance  of  the  Illat cancelling  the  hukm.  And,  this  has  been  practically  demonstrated  by  the  Tawaaruth  of  the  Ummah  since  the  very  age  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam).  Thus,  although  initially  there  was  Nudb  (but  not  Adab)  in  keeping  the  shoes  on,  the  temporary  abandonment  of  the  Adab  stated  by  all  the  Fuqaha  was  tolerable  on  account  of  the    need  to fulfil  the  command  of  opposing  the  Yahood.

In  denunciation  of  those  who  persist  in  contending  the  ‘sunniyat’  of  Salaat  with  shoes  despite  the  changed  circumstances  and  conditions prevalent  in  these  times  regarding  the  filth  of  roads  and  toilets,  and  the  type  of  shoes  preventing  proper  Sajdah,  Allaamah  Yusuf  Bin-Noori (Rahmatullah  alayh)  said  that  they  are  people  who  are  mareedhul  qalb (diseased  in    their    hearts),  zanikhul  aql  (rancid  in  the  brains  –  mentally deranged),  muta’aamin  anil  haqaaiq  (blind  to  the  realities),  and  arrogant.  They  do  not  deserve  any  attention.

These  epithets  and  brief  character  sketch  adequately  apply  to  the  radio  molvi  and  to  all  facebook  juhala  molvis.  Allaamah  Anwar  Kashmiri (Rahmatullah  alayh)  concluding  his  elucidation  on  this  topic,  says: “Verily,  the  views  of  the  Ahl-e-Ilm  unanimously  agree  that  in  this  age,  Salaat  with    shoes  (the  type  of  today’s  shoes)  is  in  conflict  with  Adab even  if  they  are  taahir  (clean/paak).  In  fact  it  is  soo-e-adab”   (evil / rotten manners). 

It  has  always  been  the  belief  and  practice  of  the  Ummah  that  Adab  is  in  removal  of  shoes,  not  only  when  entering  the  Musjid,  but  for  all  places of  respect  –  the  Qabrustaan,  the  Mataaf,  the  Musaajid  and  even  homes. The  practice  of  Hadhrat  Bishr  Haafi  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  is  well-known. He  is  called  haafi  (bare-footed)   because  he  perceived  the  entire  earth  to  be    a  carpet  spread  by  Allah  Ta’ala,  hence  it  was  not  befitting  to  walk  on  Allah’s  Carpet  with  shoes.  Allah  Ta’ala  ordered  the  birds  to  ensure  that  their  droppings  do  not  fall  in  the  places  where  Bishr  Haafi walked.  The  point  here  is  not    the  imposition  of  Hadhrat  Bishr  Haafi’s  perception  and  ‘sunnat’  on  anyone.  The  issue  is  that  removal  of  shoes  is  Adab.

In  Ihyaaul  Uloom,  Imaam  Ghazaali  states  that  Hadhrat  Abdullah  Ibn ‘Umar  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  used  to  remove  his  shoes  from  Zee  Tuwa  before  entering  the  Haram  Shareef.  At-Tabraani  has  narrated  this  from  Ibn  Az-Zubair.  The  pious  Hujjaaj  of  bygone  times  on  their  way  to  Makkah  would  remove  their  shoes  at  Zee  Tuwa  in  respect  of  the  Haram.  From  Zee  Tuwa  they  would  walk  all  the  way  bare-footed  to  the Haram  Shareef.  Thus,  humility,  respect  and  reverence,  are  in  removing  shoes  when  performing  Salaat.  The  temporary  measure  in  the  initial phase  of  Islam  does  not  negate  the  standard  practice  of  the  Ummah  in  vogue  since  the  age  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam).

SUMMARY

(1)  Performing  Salaat  in  shoes  was  a  temporary  measure  to  oppose  the Yahood. This cause for the order no longer exists in this age.

(2)  Before  the  order  to  don  shoes  as  well  as  thereafter,  the  standard practice was always to perform Salaat without shoes.

(3)  The  last  act  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  as  observed on  the  occasion  of  the  Conquest  of  Makkah,  was  the  removal  of  shoes at the time of Salaat.

(4)    The  shoes  which  were  permissible    to  wear  in  Salaat  were  soft, flexible  leaving  all  the  toes  open    and    allowing  the    proper performance of Sajdah. 

(5)   The  streets  in  the  desert  terrain  of  Madinah  were  sandy  and exceptionally  clean.  There  was  no  waste  and  filth  in  the  streets  as  is generally the case nowadays.

(6)    Performing  Salaat  with  the  type  of  shoes  we  wear  is  stupidly incongruous and  prevents  the proper  performance of  Sajdah.

(7)  It is highly disrespectful to perform Salaat with shoes on.

(8) The kuffaar pray with their shoes on.

(9)  According  to  Islamic  culture  (i.e.  the  Sunnah)  observance  of  respect and  humility  is  in  removing  shoes,  not  in  wearing  shoes  when performing Salaat or when in holy places. 

(10)  Just  as  it  is  haraam  to  enter  the  Musjid  with  dirty  shoes,  so  too  is  it haraam to perform Salaat outside the Musjid with dirty shoes.

(11)  Radio  and  facebook  moron  molvis  have  become  the  muqallideen of  the  Salafis  whose  arguments  they  lap  up  from  the  internet  which  is the  limit  of  their   defective   knowledge.

LITTLE CHILDREN IN THE MUSAAJID

[Majlisul Ulama]

Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Keep your children and insane people away from your Musaajid.

The Musaajid are the Houses of Allaah Ta’ala and they deserve the utmost respect and reverence. We have been created for the worship of Allah Ta`ala, and the highest form of worship is Salaat. The Musaajid are the structures built specifically to execute this highest form of Ibaadat. The sanctity of the Musaajid cannot be overemphasised.

Not only is purity and cleanliness imperative in the Musaajid, they are also abodes of peace and tranquillity.

Little children pose a grave threat to both – the purity and tranquillity – of the Musaajid. It is for this reason that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) expressly forbade their entry.

When the Shariah prohibits an Ibaadat such as thikr and even the Qur’aan Shareef to be recited loudly in the Musaajid, what then can be said of the raucous behaviour created by delinquent children!

A Hadith explains that when people speak (worldly or futile speech) in a Musjid, the angels curse such a person. Do parents who bring their little children into the Musjid desire that the curse of Allah Ta’ala and His angels fall on their children? In fact, the parent are liable for the disturbances created by their children.

It is stated in Al Ashbaah wan Nazaa`ir  that it is HARAAM to bring such children into a Musjid who have no perception of ritual cleanliness and who are themselves impure. If they are not impure and have some perception of ritual cleanliness, then too, it is Makrooh to bring them to the Musjid. [In the vocabulary of the Fuqahaa, ‘Makrooh’ denotes Tahreem. This means that to regularly bring small children (younger than the age of 7, who may even be well-behaved) to the Musjid is Makrooh Tahreemi – in other words – HARAAM).

When a child reaches the age of 7 and he is properly trained (at home) regarding cleanliness and he understands and respects the sanctity of the Musjid, he may be brought into the Musjid, otherwise not!

Children (who qualify to be brought into the Musjid) should also be taught to stand in a separate saff behind the adults. Children who stand amongst the adults, break the saff, thereby causing a deficiency in the Salaat of the adults.

Besides what has been explained above regarding small children, today there is a greater problem than the small children, and that is the unruly behaviours of  baaligh ‘children’ in the Musjid. They show no respect for the Salaat, the Musjid and the musallis. Many teenagers have absolutely no perception of the sanctity of the Musjid, and their parents display no concern for the misbehaviours of their baaligh ‘children’. Despite them being adults in terms of the Shariah, their behaviour at times is worse than the nabaaligh children. It is the incumbent obligation of parents to instil in their children the significance and importance of the House of Allah Ta’ala.

May Allah Ta`ala grant us all the proper understanding of the Deen.