Category Archives: Sunnah of the Prophet

The Sunnah of Dusting the Bed-Sheet Before Sleep

Very Valuable Information!

The wisdom behind dusting one bed sheet before sleeping.
Why should we dust our bed sheets??
                                                            This is what we’re going to reveal and here is where the scientific challenge and the conclusion by western scientists:

When someone sleeps some dead cells die and are dropped onto his bed sheet.. 
                                                            And whenever he wakes up he leaves it behind and hence it accumulates.  
                                                           This dead cells are invisible by naked eyes and can hardly be destroyed.  
                                                             When the quantity of these dead cells increases they easily penetrate back into the body causing serious sickness… May Allâh forbid.  
                                                             These western science tried to destroy the cell using various disinfectant such as dettol and the like, but all in vain… The dead cells neither moved nor disappear.    
One of scientist said, he tried the dusting as in the Hadith three times and was astonished to find that all the dead cells disappeared!!       
The Prophet ﷺ said:                                                
“Whoever goes to his bed, he should dust his bed three times, because he doesn’t know what was left behind”…. Most people think it is a way of eliminating small insects but don’t know that the issue is so much greater than that…  
                                                            It is very sad to find that most of us ignored such teachings of the Prophet ﷺ.

Please spread this message and let the whole world know that whatever ALLÂH commands is for the benefit of man kind. سُبْحَانَ اللهِ.

Qailoolah – The Sunnah Short Afternoon Nap

[Majlisul Ulama]

More  than  fourteen  centuries  ago  Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)  exhorted  observance  of  Qailoolah  –  the  short  afternoon  nap,  whether  before  or  after  Zuhr  SalaatQailoolah  is  a  Sunnah  practice.  In  addition  to  being  rewarded  for  observing  a  Sunnat,  there  are  the  health  benefits  which although  mentioned  briefly  by Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam),  are  being  discovered by  the  atheists  of  this  age.

Allah  Ta’ala  being  our  Creator, knows  what  is  best  for  our  health  –  physical  as  well  as  spiritual  health. In  the  following  report,  the  atheist  experts  also  confirm  the  benefits  of  Qailoolah.  Although  they  are hardcore  materialists,  they acknowledge  the  spiritual  effect of  Qailoolah,  hence  they  have concluded  from  their  tests  and experiments  that  Qailoolah,  in  addition  to  physical  benefits  also  produces  ‘happiness’  which  is  a  dimension  of  spirituality.  Thus  they  say:

Daytime  snooze  ‘a  key  to happiness’

Saturday  Star  1  Apr  2017
LONDON:  The  secret  of  happiness  could  be  as  simple  as  having  a  quick  snooze  in  the  daytime,  research  suggests.

A  study  found  that  taking  naps  of less  than  30  minutes  improves  our  sense  of  well-being,  as  well  as  boosting  performance.

The  researchers  have  suggested  a  new  word  to  describe  the  contented  feeling  after  a  brief  doze: nappiness.

Professor  Richard  Wiseman,  of  the  University  of  Hertfordshire,  said: “Previous  research  has  shown  that  naps  of  under  30  minutes  make  you  more  focused,  productive  and  creative,  and  these  new  findings  suggest  that  you  can  also  become  happier  by  just  taking  a  short  nap.”  However  the  study  found  that  those  who  took  longer  naps  were  less  happy  than  those  who  did  not  nap  at  all.

More  than  1,000  people  took  part  in  the  study,  conducted  for  the  Edinburgh  International  Science  Festival.

Among  the  participants,  66%  of  “short  nappers”  who  slept  for  less  than  half  an  hour  reported feeling  happy,  compared  with  56%  of  “long nappers”  and  60%  of  those  who  never  napped.  – Daily  Mail

The Waajib Fist-Length Beard

[Majlisul Ulama]


A Mufti, namely, Mufti Abdullah al Mahmudi, in an article/fatwa says  that according to many Hanafi  Ulama it is permissible to trim the beard to less than one fist-length. This is a new version of the mas’alah as it has hitherto  been known to us. Please check the fatwa and comment, especially on the following section:

“However, many Hanafi Ulama  have considered trimming the beard shorter than a fist’s  length to be permissible as there  is no explicit prohibition for  trimming the Beard under a fist’s  length in the original Hanafi texts. It was only Imam Ibnul Humam (D.861) and those who came after him like Allamah Ibn  Abideen Shami who declared it to be Haraam in the Hanafi Madhhab
Furthermore,. no mention of  prohibition has been recorded in  the original Hanafi texts from Imam Abu Hanifah himself, nor  from Imam Abu Yusuf,  Muhammed or Zufar  (Rahimahumullah). Also, the Hadith emphasizes the  lengthening of the Beard but has  not explicitly prohibited  trimming it. Infact, in Kitabul  Aathaar of Imam Abu Yusuf, the following narration is recorded:

Translation: Imam Abu Yusuf  narrates from Imam Abu Hanifah, who narrates from Hammad who narrated from Ibrahim an Nakha’i (Rahimahullah) that he said:  “There is nothing wrong for a man to trim his beard as long as he  does not imitate the people of  Shirk” (Kitabul Aathaar by Abu Yusuf, Pg:235)

Based on this, many Hanafi  Ulama are of the opinion that if  one does trim his Beard under a  fist’s length, he will not be sinful  as long as one does not shave it  off completely. All Hanafi Ulama  are unanimous that the Sunnah  and recommended length of the beard is that it should be a fist’s length all around.”

Answer (By Majlisul Ulama)

The moron, jaahil ‘mufti’ maajin does not name some of the  ‘many Hanafi Ulama’ who believe  that trimming the beard less  than a fist length is permissible.  His argument presented in  conflict with the more than 14  century unanimous Ruling of the fist-length beard is baseless. He  displays his liberal leanings and  lack of understanding of the mas’alah with his corrupt and convoluted opinion.

Who are the Hanafi Ulama who  believe that it is not sinful to cut the beard to less than a fist-length, and that such a  sinn er  will not be a flagrant faasiq?  Perhaps he has in mind moron  ‘ulama’ of this age. But their  views have no validity in the  Shariah. There is Ijmaa’ the Hanafi Math-hab on the fist of length  beard and that it is haraam to cut/trim it to a size less than  a fist-length.

His claim that trimming shorter than a fist  length is only the view of Ibnul Humaam (died 861 Hijri), is the  product of his convoluted opinion. There is not a single  Hanafi Faqeeh who had held the  view of permissibility of the  ‘shorter’ length. Since the time  of the Sahaabah, the practice  was the fist length. The practical  example of the Sahaabah and  which example all the Hanafi  Fuqaha adopted, is the clearest and strongest evidence for the Ijmaa’ of the Math-hab on this issue. It is the height of  stupidity to contend that the prohibition was initiated by Ibn  Humaam. There is not a single Hanafi Faqeeh in any age who  had averred a contrary opinion.  The opinion of the liberal morons  of our time are devoid of Shar’i substance, and have no validity  in the Shariah.

The maajin mufti’s claim: “there  is no explicit prohibition for trimming the beard under a fist’s  length in the original Hanafi texts”, is a portrayal of his jahaalat. When there is Ijmaa’of  all the Ulama of former times and later times, on this prohibition, the explicitness is glaringly conspicuous. No Aalim of Haq and no evil aalim of former times had ever understood that it was permissible to cut the beard shorter than a fist length. Not even the ulama-e-soo’ of former times held the corrupt opinion which this maajin ‘mufti’ is propagating in stark conflict with the Ijmaa’i stance of all our Ulama. 

Ibn Humaam (Rahmatullah alayh) was not a mufti maajin. If his explicit statement in this regard  had been erroneous, there would have been numerous Hanafi Ulama of his age and subsequent ages who would have refuted his contention. But there is not a single Hanafi Faqeeh or Aalim from his time and thereafter, who had ever refuted or even contested the mas’alah as stated by Ibn Humaam. This ‘mufti’ maajin appears to be the first mujrim or one of the liberal mujrimeen of this age who propagates the haraam view of permissibility of cutting shorter than a fist length. 

There is not a single Math-hab which holds the corrupt opinion propagated by the maajin character. On the contrary, the other Math-habs, prohibit even any type of beard-cutting. According to the other Math-habs, cutting to even a fist length is haraam. They do not consider the fist-length Hadith sufficiently sound for permitting any kind of cutting. 

The mas’alah as it appears in Faidhul Baari –Sharah Saheehul Baari, is:   

“Verily, they (the Fuqaha) have differed regarding the beard. What is afdhal (better)? It has been said that cutting that which is in excess of a fist is afdhal as is mentioned in Kitaabul Aathaar of Imaam Muhammad. And, it has been said that I’faa’ mutlaqan (leaving it to grow  unrestrictively) is afdhal. But to cut it less than a fist length is  haraam Ijmaa-an (i.e there is a consensus on prohibition) among the Aimmah (Rahim ahumullaahu ta’ala).”

Should the explicit statement in  Faidhul Baari be accepted or the stupid, haraam view of the ‘mufti’  maajin of this day? Did this unbaked maajin ‘mufti’  understand the mas’alah better  than Allaamah Anwar Shah  Kashmiri (Rahmatullah alayh),  Author of Faidhul Baari wherein  he explicitly mentions Ijmaa’ on the hurmat of cutting shorter than a fist length? 

In all the Kutub it is explicitly  mentioned that cutting the beard is only when it is longer than a  fist length. No one has ever  advocated cutting less than a  fist length as the moron ‘mufti’  alleges baselessly.

“Al-Kaaki said: ‘The length of the  beard is the extent of a qubdhah  (fist-length) according to us  (Ahnaaf). Whatever is in excess  of this (qubdhah), its cutting is  incumbent (waajib)…” (Al Binaayah)       

Cutting only the ‘excess’ is  permissible. The excess is more  than a fist-length. Explaining  this fact further, it is stated in Nukhbul Afkaar: “The Salaf  differed regarding the limit for    (its length to grow ) Among them are those who have not placed  any limit (on its growth) except  that it should not be grown for the sake of shuhrat (fame/attracting attention/pride and  the like). (For then) he should cut from it. Maalik has disliked  excessive lengthening. Among them (i.e. Fuqaha) are those who  limit it to a qubdhah. Thus, the  excess over a qubdhah should be  removed. Among them are those  who regard it reprehensible  (Makrooh Tahrimi) to remove  anything from it except in Hajj and Umrah.”

“Abu Haamid said: ‘There is difference regarding the length of the beard. It has been said that if a man cuts from his beard the portion beyond his qubdhah, then there is nothing wrong with it. Verily, Ibn Umar and a Jamaa’at of the Salf-e-Taabieen had done so (i.e. cut off the excess below a qubdhah). Ash-Sha’bi and Ibn Sireen preferred this.  Al-Hasan and Qataadah said: ‘Leaving it (to grow) is more preferable)……..” 

It should be palpably clear that the difference of opinion among the Fuqaha is applicable to only the excess below one qubdhah. There is no difference regarding the prohibition of cutting less than a fist-length. There is Ijmaa’ of all authorities of all Math-habs that such cutting is haraam. 

In Durarul Hukkaam Sharh Ghuraril Ahkaam, it is mentioned:  

“Cutting from the beard less than a fist-length as is the practice of some westerners and hermaphrodites, no one (among the Ulama/Fuqaha) had permitted it.    

Regarding lengthening the beard, Muhammad narrating from Imaam Abu Hanifah said: ‘It should be left (to grow) until it is thick and abundant. Cutting from it is Sunnah in that portion in excess of a qubdhah.” 

Imaam Muhammad narrated Imaam Abu Hanifah’s statement in which he explicitly states that cutting applies to only the ‘excess’, not to anything else as the maajin ‘mufti’ hallucinates. ‘Sunnah’ in the context means the incumbent practice for adoption. It does not mean permissibility for discardence. The Fardh Salaat is also ‘Sunnah’ in the meaning of it being the practice of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam). It is not a practice of Islam to shorten the beard to less than a fist length. There is not a single authority of Islam since the inception of Islam, who has ever advocated the permissibility of shortening the beard as the moron ‘mufti’ promotes. 

In Ghaayatul Bayaan, the noble Author, Qiwaamuddeen Itqaani (died 758 Hijri) states:   

“Regarding I’faaul Lihyah (lengthening the beard), there is difference of the people (i.e. of the Fuqaha). Some said that it should be left to grow (unrestrictedly) without cutting or clipping. That in reality is the meaning of I’faa’. Our Ashaab (i.e. the Ahnaaf) said that I’faa’ is to leave it to grow until it is thick and abundant, and cutting it is Sunnah and that is that a man should hold his beard in his fist and cut  that portion which is  more than it (his fist). So has Muhammad narrated in Kitaabul Aathaar narrating from Abu Hanifajh. This is what we accept.” 

In An-Nihaayah Sharh Al-Hidaayah, it is mentioned:   “According to us (the Ahnaaf), the length of the beard is the extent of the qubdhah (fist). It is incumbent to cut that portion more than this………..In his Jaami, Abu Isaa said: ‘Lightening the beard is from the good fortune of a man.” 

It is the height of folly, capable from only a jaahil masquerading as a mufti, to interpret or misinterpret the term khiffah (lightening) to mean a licence to shorten the beard  less than a qubdhah. The extent of shortening is prescribed in all the Kutub of the Shariah

It is said in Raddul Muhtaar:   “Regarding cutting from it whilst it is less than this (i.e. fist-length) as some westerners and hermaphrodites do, no one (among the Fuqaha) has  permitted it.”

This negation is not attributed  to only Ibnul Humaam. It states explicitly that “no one”  has ever  permitted it. It is only this  upstart ‘mufti’ maajin of our  time who is abortively  attempting to peddle the idea  that ‘cutting more than a fist  length’ was a permitted practice since the inception of Islam. But his baatil is manifest.

The qubdhah stipulation which  is the limit for cutting stated unanimously by all the Fuqaha  since the inception of Islam, is in fact the explicit prohibition for  cutting shorter than a fist length. It is therefore absolutely moronic to aver that “no mention of prohibition has been recorded in  the original Hanafi texts.” The moron ‘mufti’  displays  extraordinary jahaalat in his baseless conclusion. The lack of understanding in the sphere of Ifta of this ‘mufti’ is  staggeringly lamentable. He  portrays complete ignorance of the consequences of the  technical designations with  which the Fuqaha have clothed the Ahkaam  of  the Shariah.   

Mustahab and Sunnat in their  technical sense do not mean a  free license for the discardence  of the ahkaam. Acts of such  technical appellation remain  practically and literally Waajib  irrespective of the negation of  the technical/Fiqhi meaning of   Wujoob. For example, while    facing the animal towards the  Qiblah at the time of Thabah is  not technically designated Waajib, it remains practically Waajib to  face the animal towards the  Qiblah. The emphasis of    practical Wujoob is such that  Sahaabah would  refuse to  consume the meat of an animal  which had been intentionally  turned away from the Qiblah.

Similarly, whilst there is no  explicit prohibition of hanging an animal upside down, Sanha-MJC  style when effecting Thabah, only morons and those who have  sold their souls to Iblees, contend that it is permissible to hang the chickens upside down when  slaughtering. The  permanent Shar’i method – the Sunnah method – is in fact the explicit prohibition for any other method. Thus deliberate discardence of technical Mustahab without valid reason, is gravely sinful and haraam. If the discardence is motivated by an attitude of insignificance, scorn or disdain, it will be termed Istikhfaaf which is kufr. If the discardence is the consequence of a lackadaisical attitude or monetary greed as is the case with the carrion halaalizers, it will be Fisq provided they believe in their hearts that their action is haraam. If  they halaalize the haraam kuffaar method with which they  have displaced the Sunnah method, then such discardence will be kufr

The permanent Sunnah practice is Waajib irrespective of the technical categories to which the Fuqaha have assigned the Ahkaam. Ibnul Mulaqqeen states in his Al-I’laamu bi Fawaaid Umdatil Ahkaam:

“From the Hadith is gained the difference between Tanzeeh and Tahreem prohibition….And that (difference) in the Urf of the Sahaabah is related to Ilm. However, with regard to amal (practice), they did not differentiate in it. But they would totally abstain from Makrooh Tanzeehi and Tahreemi. Whoever has investigated their actions, statements and the principles of the Shariah will find the issue to be so.”  [Vol.4, page 468] 

Explicit prohibition is not reliant on explicit words. The explicit Sunnah method is in fact adequate for the explicit prohibition of the method/style which is at variance or in conflict with the teaching of the Shariah. Thus, the ‘mufti’s’ interpretation of ‘lack of explicit prohibition’ on the basis of which he halaalizes   the kabeerah sin of cutting the beard shorter than a qubdhah is the  effect of gross jahaalat.

Then, advertising his gross jahaalat the maajin ‘mufti’ presents a statement from Kitaabul Aathaar of Imaam Abu Yusuf (Rahmatullah alayh), which reads:  

“There is nothing wrong for a man to trim from his beard as long as he does not imitate the people of shirk.” 

On the basis of his understanding or misunderstanding of this citation, the maajin ‘mufti’ concludes:

“Based on this, many Hanafi  Ulama are of the opinion that if one does trim his beard under a fist’s length, he will not be sinful as long as one does not shave it off completely.”

The Ummah is incremently being deprived of genuine Ulama. With the departure of the true Ulama, there remain only flotsam characters who are bereft of  understanding, hence  they disgorge  such  corrupt and convoluted  gutha fatwas which distort and mutilate the Shariah thereby misleading the ignorant and the unwary. 

If the interpretation by the maajin ‘mufti, given to Imaam Abu Yusuf’s statement had to be correct, it will follow that even a telescopic beard, short of complete facial barrenness, will also be permissible, and a haraam goatee beard with the sides bare will also be permissible. Only total shaving will be prohibited. In terms of his logic, besides the factor of Tashabbuh bil kuffaar, there is absolutely no restriction on  trimming/cutting the beard in any way. This baatil conclusion is the effect of the wholesale chicanery which the moron ‘mufti’ has perpetrated regarding Imaam Abu Yusuf’s narration. 

In his presentation of Imaam Abu Yusuf’s narration from Kitaabul Aathaar, the Haatibul Lail  ‘mufti’ maajin is guilty of three shaitaani acts of chicanery: 

(1) Concealing the Haqq. While he mentions the narration of Imaam Abu Yusuf  in which appears the term ‘ya’khuthu’ (he takes, meaning, cutting/trimming), the ‘mufti’, in order to bolster his  corrupt opinion based on misinterpretation, conveniently  ignores four Hadith narrations accompanying the  narration on which he basis his convolution. 

(2)  He ignores the explicit tafseer of the term ‘ya’khuthu’ mentioned in the Ahaadith which he has concealed, believing that his deception will go undetected. 

(3) He presents his misinterpretation in diametric conflict and rejection of the Ijma’ of the Ummah on this issue. 

Chicanery No.1

The Ahaadith which he has concealed are the following:

(a) Yusuf narrates from his father who narrates from Abu Hanifah from Naafi’ from Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhuma): “Verily he (i.e. Ibn Umar) used to  ya’khuthu’ (cut) from his beard.”

(b) Yusuf narrated from his father from Abu Hanifah from Al-Aithan, from Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhuma) that verily he (Ibn Umar) used to hold with the fist on his beard, then ya’kuthu (cut) from it the portion which exceeded the qubdhah (fist).”

(c) Yusuf narrated from his father from Abu Hanifah from Naafi’ from Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhuma): ‘He (Ibn Umar) used to ya’khuthu (cut) from his beard. (d) Yusuf narrated from his father from Abu Hanifah from Naafi’ from Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhuma) that…………he (Ibn Umar) used to ya’khuthu (cut) from his beard.”   

These four narrations accompany the narration cited by the maajin ‘mufti’, but whose concealment  he deemed expedient for peddling his fallacy. 

Chicanery No.2

In the narration cited by the ‘mufti’, appears the very same word ya’khuthu (he cuts), and this narration is the very next one, No.1041, whilst its tafseer, viz., “He would cut the portion which  traversed  the qubdhah”, appears in Hadith No.1040, just one line above the narration which the maajin ‘mufti’ had ripped from its context. 

Narration No.1039 in the same section, also mentions that Hadhrat Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhuma) would cut (ya’khuthu) from his beard. The limit of the cutting is explicitly stated in narration 1040, which is the qubdhah (fist). Furthermore, this limit of cutting (ya’khuthu) is explicitly stated in numerous kutub of the Shariah, and this is the view on which there exists Ijmaa’ of the Ahnaaf, without a single voice of dissent since the inception of Islam to this day.  The ‘many Hanafi Ulama’ who allegedly differ, have not been named by the maajin ‘mufti’ – not a single one. Liberals of our era have no significance, for they all belong to the Hufaalah class of ulama-e-soo’.

It is inconceivable that Imaam  Abu Yusuf (Rahmatullah alayh)    had a meaning other than qubdhah for the cutting (ya’khuthu) when he, himself  presents Hadhrat Ibn Umar’s  qubdhah limit practice in substantiation of the  permissibility of cutting the  beard when it has exceeded the  fist length.

It should be noted that Imaam  Abu Yusuf and all Hanafi Fuqaha  of every age of Islam have cited  Hadhrat Ibn Umar’s practice of cutting to the limit of qubdhah in  negation of the view of the Shaafi’ Math-hab in its  interpretation of the term I’faa’  (to lengthen). ‘Rasulullah  (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had  ordered I’faa’ of the beard.  According to the Shaafi’ Fuqaha, the I’faa’ (lengthening)  has to be unrestricted, cutting  anything therefrom being  haraam. However, the Ahnaaf  Fuqaha interpret I’faa’ restrictively. The practice of  Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Umar and  of other Sahaabah (Radhiyallahu anhum), explicitly permits  cutting, hence precludes the Shaafi’ view of unrestricted I’faa’.

The Hanafi Fuqaha also cite the  practice of Hadhrat Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu  anhuma) in  prescribing the permissible limit  of cutting. Thus, the argument    among the Fuqaha of the two  Mathhabs is on the term I’faa’. While  according  to  the  Shaafis, I’faa’ is mutlaq (unrestricted),  the Hanafis say that it is  muqayyad (restricted) with the qubdhah length. This is the  actual meaning of Imaam Abu  Yusuf’s statement of the  permissibility of cutting (ya’khuthu) from the beard. He    specifies that the cutting should  not be in emulation of the    people of shirk who also kept  beards which entail restricted I’faa’ ,hence they would cut their  beards. The Yahood keep beards  longer than qubdhah , and  perhaps other people of shirk  also do, hence the warning that  when restricting I’faa’, it should  not be in imitation of the kuffaar.  It NEVER means to cut and shorten to less than a fist length.  This is a satanic inspiration. 

The maajin ‘mufti’ has attempted with his own baatil ta’weel to negate the explicit tafseer of the term ya’khuthu mentioned by Imaam Abu Yusuf (Rahmatullah alayh) in his Kitaabul Aathaar

Chicanery No.3

The third satanic act of fraud perpetrated by the Haatibul Lail ‘mufti’ is his reckless and stupid opposition  to the Ijmaa’ of all the Hanafi Fuqaha of all ages, and his  ludicrous attempt  of  attributing the prohibition to Ibnul Humaam of the 8th century and to Ibn Aabideen of the 12th century. If  Ibnul Humaam had been the first Faqeeh to have  issued the Fatwa of prohibition as the ‘mufti’ hallucinates or  stupidly presents, then  most certainly there would have been many Hanafi Fuqaha who would have contested his Fatwa. But not a single Hanafi Aalim or Faqeeh had ever breathed a difference since his era to this day. This upstart maajin ‘mufti’ of today is the first moron who has stupidly ventured what no Faqeeh has ever stated. 

In the entire history of Islam since its inception to this day, there has never been any difference of opinion among the Authorities – the Fuqaha, Muhadditheen and the Ulama-e-Haqq – regarding cutting the beard less than a qubdhah. The difference is confined to only I’faa’ (lengthening). According to the Ahnaaf, I’faa’ is restricted with qubdhah, while according to the Shawaafi and also others, I’faa’ is unrestricted, that is the beard must be allowed to grow irrespective of the length it reaches. 

Imaam Abu Yusuf’s statement regarding akhth (cutting), applies to the qubdhah  length, and to substantiate this,  are the practices of the Sahaabah, notably Hadhrat Ibn Umar, Abu Hurairah and also of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi  wasallam). Less than a qubdhah is hallucination inspired by Iblees.

It  is observed that the maajin  ‘mufti’ has designate himself “ al-Mahmudi” ostensibly relating  himself to Hadhrat Mahmudul Hasan Gangohi (Rahmatullah alayh) whose compilation of Fataawa is known as Fataawa  Mahmudiyyah. This  ‘mufti’  should have consulted Fataawa  Mahmudiyyah to ascertain the  view of his patron, Hadhrat    Mahmudul Hasan. In Fataawa  Mahmudiyyah, Hadhrat Mahmudul Hasan says:

“Keeping a beard is Waajib. It is  haraam to shave or cut it prior to  it having reaching the prescribed  limit…….Cutting the beard is of the practices of the Ajam (non- Arab kuffaar). Today it is a salient feature of many of the  people  of shirk and  idolaters such as the English, Hindus and those who  have no morality in Deen ….(Mirkaat) 

Cutting in it (the beard) is  Sunnat, and this is that a man should hold his beard with his  hand, and cut off that portion  which is longer than a fist. So  has Muhammad narrated in  Kitaabul Aathaar from Imaam  Abu Hanifah. And this is what  we adhere to….Muheetus Sarakhsi, Tahtaawi.” (Vol.6)

In the Hadith Shareef, it is  explicitly said: “Increase the  beard; lengthen the beard; make  abundant the beard.” The  (axiomatic) demand of these  terms is that there should not  have been a limit to increasing  the beard (i.e. it should be  allowed to grow unrestrictively),  and that cutting (anything whatever) should have been totally impermissible. But, the  amal of  the Sahaabi narrator of  the Hadith was to cut the  portion of his beard in excess of  one fist length. Imaam  Muhammad has narrated this Hadith in Kitaabul Aathaar, and  he has stated that this is the  Math-hab of Imaam Abu Hanifah
It is not narrated from any  Sahaabi that the beard was cut  before it reached one fist  length….It is thus known that  this is what the Sahaabah had  understood from the Hadith    (pertaining to lengthening and  cutting the beard). On this is  enacted Ijmaa’. Thus, to interpret  the Hadith in any way in conflict  with the understanding of the  Sahaabah is not permissible. (This is precisely what the maajin ‘mufti’ is guilty  of). Such a  meaning (as peddled by the  maajin character) cannot be the  meaning (intended by) Nabi  Akram Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam. On the contrary, it is  the meaning fabricated by the  mind of the one who presents  such a meaning which is a  fabrication thrust on to the  Hadith of Rasulullah (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam). For this there is severe warning of punishment.   For such a person, is the warning  of Jahannam.

It is mentioned in Durre-Mukhtaar that NO ONE (i.e. no  one among the Fuqaha)  has    averred  that  it  is  permissible  to  cut  the beard  bef ore  it  has  reached  one fist length.. It is  self-evident that since the  command is to lengthen the  beard, cutting will be nugatory of it, and conflicting with the command is sinful. Those who  cut before the beard has reached  one fist and content themselves  with short-cropped beard or little  more than this, should present the hadith proof for such cutting.”  (Vol.5)

The Shar’i limit of the beard is  one qubdhah (fist). Imaam Muhammad has narrated this in  Kitaabul Aaathaar with its Sanad. It is mentioned in Fathul Qadeer,  Durre Mukhtaar and in other Kutub of Fiqh to cut before the  beard reaches one fist or to cut    it to less than one fist is not permissible by anyone (of the  Fuqaha). No one has stated that  this is permissible. This is in the  category of Ijmaa’” (Vol.1) 

No one has ever said that cutting the beard before it has reached one fist or to cut it less than a  fist–length is permissible. This shaving and cutting are  tashabbuh with aliens (kuffaar).  It is also self evident that such a  person’s testimony is not  acceptable nor is he an aadil.”. (Vol.14) 

These explicit Fatwas of Hadhrat  Mufti Mahmudul Hasan, as well as the fatwas of all our Akaabir  Muftis and Ulama, categorically  damn and reject the haraam  rubbish disgorged by the maajin ‘mufti’ who relates himself to  Mufti Mahmudul Hasan with the appellation, ‘al Mahmudi’.  There  is not a vestige of  proof for the haraam view of permissibility for  cutting the beard less than a qubdhah.

We have dealt with  mild severity with the  propounder of the haraam opinion in view of the notriety of his fraud and falsehood. His crime is of the gravest proportions. He has  attributed falsehood to all the Hanafi Fuqaha prior to the 8th century, including Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Abu Yusuf and  Imaam Muhammad (Rahmatullah alayhim). Furthermore, he has  rejected the unanimous view  of  all our Akaabuir Ulama, and he  has fabricated the despicable lie  of the prohibition having been  fabricated by the illustrious Ibnul  Humaam (Rahmatullah alayh) of  the 8th century, when in reality  Ibnul Humaam was merely  narrating the official and the  only one Ijmaa’ee view of the  Ahnaaf which has been  transmitted to him down the centuries by way of authoritative Naql (Narration).

The Importance of the Miswaak in Islam


WHAT IS A MISWAAK –  Miswaaks are twigs of certain trees that were used, and should be used, on a regular basis by Muslims. Miswaaks were used for centuries by Muslims (and all Prophets— alayhimussalaam) to maintain oral hygiene and gain the pleasure of Allah Ta’ala. It is a “natural toothbrush”, not only does it provide spiritual benefits, but it is also beneficial to the everyday maintenance of one’s mouth, gums, teeth, and general well-being.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) laid great stress on the use of the Miswaak. The Miswaak was in use for brushing and cleansing the teeth long before the advent of our Holy Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). In fact the records of our Nabi Muhummad’s (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) Ahadith indicate that the Miswaak was the practice of all the Ambiyaa (Prophets of Allah) — Alayhimussalaam.

Hadhrat Abu Ayyub (Rahmatullah alayh) narrates that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said:  “Four things are amongst the practices of the Ambiyaa  —Circumcision, Application of perfume, Miswaak and Marriage”. (AHMAD & TIRMIDHI)

In fact, the importance of the Miswaak is such that at one stage our Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) was under the impression that Allah Ta’ala might decree the use of the Miswaak Fardh (compulsory) upon the Ummah (Islamic Nation). We learn from this Hadith that the Prophet (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) liked to clean his teeth with Miswaak with every Salaat, but he did not make it obligatory for the reason that it would be inconvenient for his followers. It shows that he was extremely affectionate and kind to his Ummah.

This Hadith also shows that using Miswaak is an admirable act. Every Muslim should make it a routine to use it as frequently as possible especially before performing prayers. 

Allamah Sha’rani (Rahmatuallah alayhi) states in Kashful Ghummah that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said:  “Whoever spurns or rejects the Miswaak is not of us (Muslims).”

Hadhrat Ibn Mubarak (Rahmatullah alayh) said:  “If the inhabitants of a city spurn and reject the use of the Miswaak, the Ruler should wage battle against them like he would wage war against the renegades or murtad-deen”.   (KHAANIYAH)

All the aforegoing Ahadith  of our Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and the statements of the learned jurists of  Islam point clearly to the tremendous importance of the Miswaak in Islam. However, despite its elevated status, significance and importance, this noble practice is neglected and generally discarded by present day Muslims. Needless to say, this is one of the examples of the spiritual and worldly decadence that have set into the Muslim Nation.

The revival of the practice of using the Miswaak instead of the various substitutes is of utmost importance to Muslims. In times such as the present age when we are confronted and surrounded by the satanic forces of irreligiosity, materialism, atheism, vice and immorality, it is of greater importance that Muslims strive most ardently to re-instate the practices or the Sunnah of our beloved Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). And, of these is the Miswaak

To revive a “lost” or a forgotten Sunnah of our Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) carries a great and mighty Thawaab (Reward). In this regard our Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said:  “He who holds on firmly to my Sunnah at a time when my Ummah are (grovelling) in corruption will receive a reward of a hundred martyrs”.


(1) Eliminates bad  odour and improves the sense of taste. The wisdom underlying the use of the Miswaak after rising from sleep is that during sleep bad vapours rise from the stomach towards the mouth. This causes bad odour in the mouth as well as a change in the sense of taste. Use of the Miswaak eliminates the bad odour and rectifies the change which occurred in the taste.  (NALE WA TA’LEEQ)

(2)  Sharpens the Memory.   Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) said that: “Miswaak sharpens the memory”.

(3)  Sharpens the Intelligence.   Four things increase the Intelligence—  
(i)  Shunning of nonsensical talks   (ii)  Use of the Miswaak  
(iii)  Sitting in the company of the pious, and  
(iv)  Sitting in the company of the Ulama.   (TIBB E NABAWI)

(4)  Eliminates Slime.  Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) said that: “Miswaak removes slime”.  (IHYA-UL-ULOOM)

(5) A Cure for Illness.   Hadhrat Aisha (Radhiyallahu anha) said that:  “Miswaak (its constant use) is a cure for all illness excepting Death”.   (REPORTED BY DAYLAAMI IN FIRDAUS)

6) Miswaak creates fragrance in the mouth. 

(7) Miswaak strengthens the gums. 

(8) Miswaak prevents tooth decay.

(9) Miswaak prevents further increase of decay which has already set in the teeth. 

(10) Miswaak is a cure for headaches.

(11) Miswaak assists in eliminating toothaches

(12) Miswaak creates lustre (Noor) on the face of the one who continually uses  it.  

(13) Miswaak causes the teeth to glow. 

(14) Miswaak removes the yellowishness of the teeth

(15) Miswaak strengthens the eye-sight. 

(16) Miswaak is beneficial for the health of the entire body.  

(17) Miswaak assists in the process of Digestion

(18) Miswaak is a cure for a certain mouth disease known as Qilaa’.  This is stated in Hujjatul BaalIghah

(19) Miswaak clears the voice. This is stated in Tibb e Nabawi

(20) Miswaak facilitates the appetite (Tibb e Nabawi). 

(21) Miswaak increases the eloquence of one’s speech. Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu) said that “Miswaak increases the eloquence of a person.”. (AL-JAAMI‘)

(22) Miswaak (i.e. its constant use) will be a factor to ease the pangs of Death.  The continuous use of the Miswaak makes it easy for the Rooh (Soul) to depart from the body when its appointed time arrives. (SHARHUS SUDOOR)

(23) Through the constant use of Miswaak, In sha-Allah  the Kalimah will be  easy to recite at the time of death.

(24) Miswaak increases the Thawaab (reward) of Salaat (prayer) from seventy times to four hundred times. (HADITH)

(25) Miswaak is a factor which will earn higher ranks in Jannat for the one who uses  it.

(26) The Angels sing the praises of the one who uses the Miswaak.

(27) Use of the Miswaak displeases Shaitaan.

(28) Use of the Miswaak graces one with the companionship  of the Angels.

(29) And, the greatest benefit of using the Miswaak is the attainment of Allah Ta’ala’s Pleasure. Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu), the fourth Khalifa of Islam said: “Make the Miswaak (i.e. its use) incumbent upon you, and be constant in this practice because Allah’s Pleasure is in it and it increases the Reward of Salaat  from ninety-nine times to four hundred times”.


1. For the recitation  of the Qur’an.  
2. For the recitation  of Hadith.  
3. When the mouth emits an odour.  
4. For the learning  or teaching of virtues of  Islam.  
5.  For making  Thikrullah (Remembrance of Allah, meditation).  
6. After entering ones home.  
7. Before entering any good gathering.  
8. When experiencing pangs of hunger and thirst.  
9. After the signs of death are evident.  
10. At the time of Sehri.  
11. Before meals.  
12. Before undertaking a journey.   13. On returning  from a journey.   14. Before sleeping.  
15. Upon awakening.

One of the Sunnats of Wudhu is to use a Miswaak. Wherever a Miswaak is available and is not used, the full beauty and complete thawaab of the Wudhu is not realised. Those who neglect the use of the Miswaak invite upon themselves a great misfortune by being deprived of the tremendous amount of thawaab (Reward) which this noble practice carries.


A Miswaak  should not be longer than a “span” i.e. the maximum distance between the tips of the thumb and little finger, and it should not be thicker than a finger’s breadth.


A Miswaak should be held in such a manner that the small finger and thumb is below the miswaak and the remaining fingers on its upper side.

Brushing technique:

The techniques employed for removing plaque mechanically are similar to that for the toothbrush and the chewing stick; i.e., vertical and horizontal brushing. The cleaning movement should always be directed away from the gingival margin of the teeth (away from the gums) on both the buccal (outer cheek) and lingual (inner cheek) surfaces.  

Care should be taken to avoid damaging the soft tissues of the mouth.  Satisfactory cleaning can be achieved if this procedure is followed for five minutes.

There are two basic holds: Pen-grip (three-finger) or palm-grip (five finger-grip). In each case the aim is to ensure firm but controlled movement of the brush end of the Miswaak within the oral cavity, so that every area of the mouth is reached with relative ease and convenience.  


Miswaak should be freshly cut so that it is supple, easily chewed, and still rich in active constituents. The root should be whitish-brown in color; a dark brown color indicates that the Miswaak is no longer fresh.

If a stick is dry, the end for chewing should initially be soaked in fresh water for 24 hours. It should be noted that soaking for unduly long periods causes loss of active constituents and diminishes the therapeutic properties, although the mechanical effects on the teeth can still occur. 

The end: Before Miswaak is used, the end should be washed with water. It is then chewed repeatedly until the fibers stand out like the bristles of a toothbrush. These fibers should be trimmed every 24 hours. 

When to use Miswaak:
In general, the Miswaak should be used a minimum of five times a day (i.e. before each prayer). However it is recommended to use it all the time, whenever possible.

Common mistakes in Miswaak use:

1.  The end is either too thin or too thick.
2.  Keeping it in the mouth while doing other things.
3.  Not cutting  the end every day.   4.  Forgetting that teeth have five faces (inner, outer, two sides, and biting/chewing face), and only using Miswaak to clean the outer faces.


(1) The Miswaak should be a straight twig, devoid of roughness. (2) The Miswaak should be clean. (3) The Miswaak should not be too hard nor too soft.
(4) The  Miswaak should not be used while one is lying down.
(5) The new Miswaak should be approximately 8 inches (a handspan) in length.
(6) The Miswaak should be the thickness of the forefinger.
(7) Before using the Miswaak, it should be washed.
(8) After use, it  should be washed as well.
(9) The Miswaak should not be sucked.
(10) The Miswaak should be placed vertically when not in use. It should not be thrown onto the ground.
(11) If the Miswaak is dry it should be moistened with water prior to use. This is Mustahab. It is preferable to moisten it with Rose water.
(12) The Miswaak should not be used in the toilet.
(13) The Miswaak should be used at least thrice (brush three times) for each section of the mouth, e.g. brush the upper layer of teeth thrice, then the  lower layer thrice, etc.
(14) The Miswaak should not be used at both ends.
(15) The Miswaak should not be taken from an unknown tree as it may be poisonous.


Hadhrat Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the  Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: “Make a regular practice of the Miswaak, for verily, it is healthy for the mouth and it is a Pleasure for the Creator (i.e. Allah is pleased with the Muslim who uses the Miswaak).” (BUKHARI)

Hadhrat  Abu Umamah (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam)  said:  “Use the Miswaak, for verily, it purifies the mouth, and it is a Pleasure for the Lord. Jib-ra-eel (Alayhis salaam) exhorted me so much to use the Miswaak that I feared that its use would be decreed obligatory upon me and upon my Ummah. If I did not fear imposing hardship on my Ummah I would have made its use obligatory upon my people. Verily, I use the Miswaak so much that I fear the front part of my mouth being peeled (by constant and abundant brushing with the Miswaak).”  (IBN MAJAH)

Hadhrat Ibn ‘Abbas (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said:  “I was commanded so much to use the Miswaak that I thought  Wahi of the Qur’aan (Revelation) would be revealed, regarding it (i.e. its use).”  (ABU YA’LAA)

Although the use of the Miswaak was not made Fardh (compulsory) upon the Ummah, nevertheless its use was Fardh upon our Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). This is borne out by the following Hadith:  Hadhrat Aisha (Radhiyallahu anha) narrates that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said:  “These (practices), viz., Miswaak, Witr Salaat and Tahajjud Salaat, are Sunnat for you and Fardh for me”.

Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) would use the Miswaak (regularly) prior to sleeping and after rising from sleep.

Allamah Sha’rani (Rahmatullah alyay) states in the Kitaab, Kashful Ghummah, that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) advised:  “Whenever you retire for sleep, use the Miswaak”.

Hadhrat Ibn ‘Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) says that many a time Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used the Miswaak as much as four times in a single night. 

Hadhrat Aishah (Radhiyallahu anha) narrates:  “Verily, the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) would use the Miswaak before making Wudhu (ablutions), whenever he arose from sleep, whether it be during the night or during the  day”.  (ABU DAWOOD)

Similar Ahadith have been narrated by Imam Ahmad and Abu Ya’laa (Rahmatullah alayhim). Imam Ghazali (Rahmatullah alayh) has mentioned in his Ihya-ul-Uloom that a person before sleeping at night should keep his water and Miswaak ready and close at hand. As soon as he wakes from sleep during the night he should immediately use the water and the Miswaak, and engage in the remembrance of Allah. 

Hadhrat Ibn ‘Abbas (Radhiyallahu anhu) states: “The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) would use the Miswaak at night time (i.e. Tahajjud time) after every two Rakaats Salaat he (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) performed”.  (IBN MAJAH)


It is clear from this Hadith that two types of benefits accrue  from the use of the Miswaak. These could be categorised as follows:

(1)  Benefits which relate to the Hereafter.
(2)  Benefits which relate to this worldly life.

The 1st category comprises the various thawaabs (Rewards) which the Servant of Allah will obtain  in the Hereafter for using the Miswaak. The 2nd category comprises the immediate benefits or advantages accruing to the physical human body by the constant use of the Miswaak.

The prime motive of the true Believer in his use of the Miswaak is his desire to  obtain the first category of Benefits, the obtainal of the second category benefits being a necessary corollary. This is so, since the only factor which governs the motive and intention of the Believer in his Ibaadat (Worship) is the Pleasure of Allah, our Creator, Nourisher and Sustainer. 


MISWAAK UPON ENTERING HOME: Shuraih (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that he asked Aa’isha (Radhiyallahu anha): “What was the first thing Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) did upon entering the house?”  Aisha (Radhiyallahu anha) replied:  “Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) would use the Miswaak”.   (MUSLIM)

MISWAAK UPON LEAVING HOME: Whenever Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) left the house he would use the Miswaak.”  (KASHFUL GHUMMAH)

MISWAAK BEFORE AND AFTER MEALS:   “Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu) said:  “I have used the Miswaak before sleeping, after rising, before eating and after eating, ever since I heard the Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) advising so”.

MISWAAK BEFORE RECITING THE HOLY QUR’AAN:  Hadhrat Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) said:  “Verily, your mouths are the pathways of the Qur’aan (i.e. you recite with your mouth), therefore cleanse your mouth with the Miswaak thoroughly”.  (IBN MAJAH)

MISWAAK ON FRIDAYS:   “Ibn Sabaaq (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said on one Friday:  “O gathering of Muslims, Allah has made this Day (Friday) a Day of Eid for Muslims, therefore, bathe (on this day), use perfume and regard the use of the Miswaak (on this day) as an obligation upon you”.    (MUWATTA IMAM MUHAMMAD)

Suhail Bin Hanief states that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said that to bathe and use the Miswaak on Fridays are of the Huqooq (Rights or Duties) of Friday.

MISWAAK DURING FASTING:  Aamir Bin Rabiyah (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrates:  “I  have seen Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) using the Miswaak many a time while fasting”.   

In another Hadith our Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam)  said that one of the best characteristics of a fasting person is his use of the Miswaak.

The majority of the Ulama have opined that it is Sunnat to use the Miswaak while fasting. It is recorded in Fataawa Siraajiah that a fasting person may use a dry or a moist (i.e. fresh, green) Miswaak.


The Sahabas (Radhiyallahu anhum) who were the best and the noblest examples and teachers of the Sunnah of our Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) viewed the Miswaak in a very  serious light and regarded it as a practice of supreme holiness. Their constant use of the Miswaak, their continuous exhortations to use the Miswaak and their warnings to those who neglect the Miswaak are ample evidence of the nobility and the importance attached to this practice of using the Miswaak

Ibn ‘Abbas, Ali and Ataa (Radhiyallahu anhum) said:  “Regard the Miswaak as an obligation on you, and do not be neglectful of it. Be constant in using it, for verily, in it lies the Pleasure of Allah, The Merciful, and in it is greater reward for Salaat”.

Hassaan Bin ‘Atiyyah (Radhiyallahu anhu) said:  “Miswaak is half of Imaan, and Wudhu is half of Imaan”.   (SHARHU IHYA-ULULOOM)

Abdul Aziz Abu Dawood (Radhiyallahu anhu) said:  “Two things of a Muslim are  among the best of practices—(1) Performing Tahajjud Salaat, and (2) Constancy in the use of the Miswaak”.  


‘Allama Shawkani (Rahmatullah alayh) said:  “Miswaak is one of the Laws of  Shariah. And, this fact is as clear as daylight. This has been conceded by the people of the world”.  (NAILIL AUTAAR)

Hadhrat Sha’rani (Rahmatullah alayh) said:  A pledge has been taken from us on behalf of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) that we be steadfast in the use of the Miswaak at the time of making Wudhu. Should any of us be forgetful then he should tie the Miswaak with a string and hang it around his neck or keep it in his turban (so that it will be at hand when making Wudhu).  

The general public has broken this pledge.  It (constancy in the use of the Miswaak) is indicative of the strength of one’s Imaan and the degree of respect one has for the Laws of Allah and His Rasool (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). The Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) emphasized the use of the  Miswaak. And, Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) was not satisfied merely with issuing an order once, but repeatedly exhorted his followers (regarding its use).

Allamah Aini (Rahmatullah alayh) says:  “Abu Amr (Radhiyallahu anhu) said that upon the  significance of the Miswaak concensus of opinion exists. There is no difference of opinion on this score. According to all learned men of  Islam, Salaat performed after using the Miswaak is far nobler than a Salaat without Miswaak.

Shaikh Muhammad (Rahmatullah alayh) said:  “Verily, over a hundred Hadith have been narrated regarding the significance of the Miswaak. Therefore, it is a great astonishment to behold that so many among mankind as well as among the learned neglect such an important practice which has been emphasized to such an extent.  


The majority of the ‘Ulama hold the view that the use of the Miswaak is not Fardh (compulsory). However, despite it not being decreed Fardh by the Shariah,  it is of utmost importance. It is likewise essential that all the Aadaab pertaining to the Miswaak be observed. Neglect of the Aadaab is a sign of spiritual indolence and weakness of Imaan. In order to achieve the thawaab of a particular practice in full measure it is necessary that the Aadaab relating to the practice be observed. If neglect is shown towards the Aadaab, the final result will be the neglect of that very practice. In the Kitaab, Ta’leemul Muta-allim the following is stated: “He who becomes neglectful about the Aadaab is deprived of the Sunnats; and he who becomes neglectful of the Sunnats is deprived of the Faraa-idh (compulsory acts); and he who becomes neglectful of the Faraaidh is deprived of the Hereafter”.  

Faqih Abu Laith al-Samarqandi (Rahmatullah alayh) states:  “As long as the Servant of Allah safeguards the Aadaab shaytaan does not attempt to assault him (i.e. mislead him). However, when he neglects the Aadaab shaytaan makes advances into the Sunnats (i.e. misleads the Servant from the  Sunnats). Thereafter follows shaytaan’s assault on the Faraa-idh (compulsory duties). This is followed by shaytaan’s assault on Ikhlaas (sincerity), and finally on Yaqeen (Faith). Hence, it is necessary for a person to protect the Aadaab of all his affairs and actions, eg. the Aadaab of selling and the Aadaab of Wudhu, Salaat, buying, etc.  (BUSTAANUL AARIFEEN)


It is permissible to take for a Miswaak all types of tree twigs provided these are not harmful or poisonous. It is forbidden to use a Miswaak from a poisonous tree. Miswaaks from the following trees are  not  permissible:

(1) Pomegranate 
(2) Bamboo 
(3) Raihaan 
(4) Chambelie

Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam)  FORBADE THE USE OF  Raihaan as  Miswaak because it causes the sickness, Juz-zaam

The following are the types of Miswaak are recommended:

(1) Peelo tree 
(2) Zaitoon or Olive tree 
(3) Bitam or 
(4) Any bitter
(5) Walnut tree

Miswaak of the Peelo Tree: And, the best of Miswaaks is the Peelo, then the Olive.”  (KABIRI) The best type of Miswaak is that which is taken from the Peelo tree. In the Kitaab, Ta-heelul Manaa-fi’  it is mentioned that the miswaak of the Peelo tree is excellent for obtaining the glow or glitter of the teeth.

Our Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) also praised and recommended the Peelo tree for Miswaak purposes. Besides recommending the Peelo tree, Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) as well as the Sahaabas (Radhiyallahu anhum) used Miswaaks of this tree. 

Ibn Sa’d (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Abu Khabrah (Radhiyallahu anhu) said:  “Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) presented me with a Miswaak of the Peelo tree, and he (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) said: “Use the Miswaak of the Peelo tree”.

Ibn Mas’ood (Radhiyallahu anhu) said:  “I always kept a stock of Peelo Miswaaks for Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam)”.

In the Kitaab, Mawaahib, it is stated that the Companions of Imam Shafi (Rahmatullah alayh) have recorded Concensus of Opinion among them on the fact that the use of the Peelo Miswaak is Mustahab (i.e. an Islamic practice which carries much thawaab (Reward) if upheld, and in the event of not fulfilling it no punishment will be meted out).

Miswaak of the Olive Tree:  Rasullulah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) has spoken highly of  the Miswaak of this tree as well. The following Hadith brings out the significance of the Olive tree Miswaak: “Use the Miswaak of the Olive tree. It is the Miswaak of a Mubarak (auspicious or gracious) tree. It purifies and makes wholesome the mouth. It  removes the yellowishness of the teeth. It is my (i.e. Rasulullah’s—Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) Miswaak and the Miswaak of the Ambiyaa (Prophets) who came before me”. (MUNTAKHAB)

Miswaak of the Bitam Tree:  In another Hadith it is stated that in the absence of the Peelo tree, the Olive tree should be used, and in the absence of the Olive Miswaak, the Bitam tree Miswaak should be used. (MUNTAKHAB)

Miswaak of some bitter tree:   If none of the three abovementioned types of Miswaak is available, a Miswaak of  any bitter tree should be used.  Miswaak of a bitter tree removes odour of the mouth to a greater extent.

In Alamgiri it is stated that the Miswaak of a bitter tree makes the mouth wholesome, strengthens the teeth and the gums.

Miswaak of the Walnut Tree:   Miswaak of the Walnut tree has been recommended as well.


The Fingers

In the case of the non-availability of the Miswaak the fingers should be used to cleanse the teeth. This method will serve the purpose of the Miswaak  as far as the thawaab is concerned, i.e. if a Miswaak is not available the thawaab (Reward) attendant to the Miswaak will be realized by using the fingers as a substitute provided that Niyyat (intention) of Miswaak be made when the fingers are used for this purpose.  Rub the teeth with the forefinger and the thumb.  

Hadhrat Amr Bin Auf Muzni (Rahmatullah alayh) states that the fingers could be used as an adequate substitute for the Miswaak in the case of the latter’s absence.

Imam Tahtaawi (Rahmatullah alayh) says: “The promised Reward (of using the Miswaak) shall be obtained in the event of the nonavailability of the Miswaak, and not in the event of its availability”.  In other words, if a Miswaak is available and you are able to use same then the Sawaab of it will not be realised by using a substitute.


A coarse piece of cloth may also be used in case of the non-availability of a Miswaak. Those who have no teeth should use the fingers or a cloth as substitutes for the Miswaak, and they will obtain  the thawaab. But Niyyat of the Miswaak should be made.  And, the significance of the Miswaak shall be obtained even though the finger or a cloth be used in the event of the non-availability of the Miswaak (SHURAMBALI)


If the toothbrush is made  of bristles (pig’s hair) then its use is  not permissible. If bristles are not used, the use of the toothbrush is permissible. However, the toothbrush will not serve as a substitute in the case of the Miswaak being available. If a Miswaak is available Reward will not be realised by using the toothbrush. The same applies to toothpowder or any other means of cleansing the teeth. It should be remembered here that during the time of our Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) substitutes, e.g. Byzantinian tooth-powder, etc., existed, but our Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) never equated these with the Miswaak. Therefore, the argument of the modernist that the toothbrush today takes the place of the Miswaak is fallacious. 


The Miswaak is a natural tool for brushing the teeth. It is taken from the roots and branches of particular desert trees. It differs from one region to another, but in Arabia and Asia it is taken from the Arak tree. This is the most famous variety, and is the kind that was used by the Prophet (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam)

The Miswaak is also obtained from other trees. In Africa, for example, it is cut from Lime and Orange trees, and in America some are cut from the Senna tree.  As the Arak tree is so well-known, and as it was the kind that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) used, it has been scientifically studied. The following summarize the various discoveries regarding Miswaak

Health effects of Miswaak:   Physically, the Miswaak is a natural toothbrush. It is composed  of a compact group of minute natural fibers that perform exactly the same function as a normal toothbrush except that it is made of natural rather than plastic fibers. For this reason it may be more gentle on the gums. 

Miswaak’s natural toothpaste is made up of many substances that are important for cleaning teeth. Many researchers have studied the Miswaak in depth, and have proven that Miswaak contains over ten different natural chemical compounds considered essential for good oral and dental hygiene. 

They are: fluoride, silica, tannic acid, resins, alkaloids (salvadorine), volatile oils (sinigrin), sulfur vitamin C, sodium bicarbonate, chlorides, calcium, benzylisothiocyanate (BIT), and others including salicylic acids, sterols, trimethylamine, saponins, flavenoids.  

Some of these components are stain removers and teeth whiteners, some protect teeth against caries, some are bactericidal and antiseptic, some help in healing and to repair tissues, some promote remineralization (building) of tooth enamel,  and some give the pleasant taste and smell.

Results of cytotoxic tests showed no cytotoxic (cell damaging) effects from using freshly cut Miswaak. However, the same plant used 24 hours after cutting did contain harmful components.

Based on  these findings, researchers recommend cutting the used portion of the Miswaak after it has been used for a day and preparing a fresh part.

Scientific comparison between Miswaak and toothbrushes:

A clinical trial study on Ethiopian schoolchildren, comparing Miswaak with the conventional toothbrush, found Miswaak to be as effective as the toothbrush in removing oral deposits. The study also found instruction and supervision to be important since the children in the sample were not familiar with techniques  for using Miswaak.   (source:

Potential Dental Benefits With Regular Use:

Research shows that the bark of the “Toothbrush Tree” contains an antibiotic which suppresses the growth of bacteria and the formation of plaque in the mouth. Research also suggests that the regular use of Miswaak significantly reduces plaque, gingivitis, and the growth of cariogenic bacteria. No toothpaste required! Miswaak, naturally contains many components such as fluoride, astringents, detergents, resins (a possible enamel protectant) and abrasives. (source:

Scientifically as well, it has been proven that Miswaak is very good for gums maintenance and it kills bad odour, overall, it improves your taste buds and makes your teeth whiter. Research also indicates that Miswak suppresses decay-causing bacteria, gingivitis and plaque formation among many other benefits.

1.  Natural way of brushing teeth. 2.  It is an organic product.
3.  Keep you safe against all teeth diseases.
4.  Kills bad odour.
5.  Requires no toothpaste.
6.  Easy to carry around. It has no harmful side-effects.  (source:

A Miswaak or is probably an alien thing to the western world. But, it’s a twig which a majority of people from Muslim countries use daily to  brush their teeth. Although it might sound outdated to use twigs from trees for cleaning your teeth, studies conducted on the Miswaak prove otherwise. Studies have inferred that Miswaak is better than toothpaste for preventing gum disease. It is being known as chewing stick in the western world and is being looked upon as a form of alternative medicine. So, let’s analyze this “wonder twig” keeping documented scientific studies as proofs. The use of Miswaak is well spread in the Muslim population of the world, and is a common entity in Muslim countries. The reason for common use of Miswaak by Muslims can be attributed to religious beliefs. The last messenger of Islam used it frequently and also instructed his followers to do the same and hence the practice continues widely in Muslim countries. There are 70 benefits of Miswaak as suggested by Islamic Literature and many of these have been scientifically proven.

You might be wondering what exactly a Miswaak is in the first place. The Miswaak is obtained from  the twigs of the Arak tree (Peelo tree) although a few other trees can also be used to obtain it such as walnut and olive.

A few important benefits of Miswaak

*  Kills Gum disease causing bacteria.
*  Fights plaque effectively.
*  Fights against caries.
*  Removes Bad breath and odour from mouth.
*  Creates a fragrance  in the mouth.
*  Effectively clean between teeth due to its parallel bristles.
* Increases salivation and hence inhibits dry mouth (Xerostomia)

Scientific Studies on the Miswaak:

Although the  70 benefits of Miswaak range widely, the main one we are examining is its effect on oral health. So, let’s throw some light on scientific studies conducted on Miswaak.

The Wrigley Company made a study on Miswaak which was published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. The study found that mints laced with Miswaak extract were 20 times more effective in killing bacteria than ordinary mints. A small testimony to this fact is that after half an hour, the mints laced with Miswak extract killed about 60% of the bacteria where as the ordinary mints managed only 3.6%
In the August issue of Journal of  Periodontology (2008) appeared a study conducted by Swedish researchers on Miswaak. The study apparently found that suspended Miswaak pieces in a petridish (medium for culturing bacteria) were able to kill bacteria that cause periodontal disease with out being in physical contact with the bacteria. The researchers suggested that Miswak might be giving antibiotics as gases trying to explain this phenomenon.

A study which compares toothbrushing and using Miswaak (Miswak ing!) can be seen on .  The study concluded that Miswaak was more effective than toothbrushing in reducing plaque and gingivitis provided it  was used correctly. Similar studies found on the same website and elsewhere vouch for the effectiveness of Miswaak over toothbrush.

A study conducted by a group of dentists at King Saud University concluded that using Miswaak was at least as good as tooth brushing, if not better. There have been plenty of published studies on Miswaak and infact entire books published which study its oral and systemic benefits. Now, with all those studies chucked at you, you couldn’t help but wonder why it is so effective.  This can be attributed to its strong antibacterial properties. Another important aspect to consider is that its bristles are parallel to the handle rather than perpendicular which  means effective cleaning between the teeth. Now, that’s one natural toothbrush cum toothpaste cum floss. (Source:

Status of Beard According to Shari’ah

By Maulana Najeeb Qasmi

What is the stature of beard in Shari’ah, is it obligatory or Sunnah?? And is shaving impermissible or makrooh or forbidden (Haraam)? Majority of the scholars of Hadith, jurists, our respected Ulama and all the four Imams (rahimahumullah) (i.e. Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Shaafi’i, Imam Maalik and Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal) agree that beard is obligatory. Even in the present times almost all the schools of thought in Islam, in the light of the Holy Qur’an and sayings of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), are convinced about its status as obligatory.

On this topic, I studied statements of Hadeeth scholars, jurists and our respected Ulama recorded in numerous books written in Arabic and Urdu. All of them have acknowledged that in the light of the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) growing a beard turns out to be obligatory because Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has commanded the Muslim Ummah to grow beard and a commandment signifies obligation unless some other statement or act of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) or act of companions of Prophet Muhammad reveals that the commandment of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was not about obligation but more of an insistent expression. However, with reference to the topic we are discussing at the moment, the life of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and his companions (radhiyallahu anhuma) categorically informs us that Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) injunction to his (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) Ummah in relation to growing beard is about its obligatory status. Therefore, during the best of periods, from amongst the companions of the Prophet, Tabi’een (those who saw the companions of Prophet in a state of faith and died as believers) or Taba’ Tabi’een (those who saw a Tabi’ee in a state of faith and died as believers) not even a single scholar of Hadeeth, jurist or Aalim passed a decree that declared growing beard as non-obligatory. Rather, everyone has pronounced it obligatory. For details in relation to this particular topic please refer to Sheikhul Hadith Maulana Muhammad Zakariya Kandhlawi’s (rahimahullah) Arabic book titled Wujoob I’faa‘illihyah.

Even if we were to agree that growing beard is only Sunnah then it cannot be one of those common or ordinary Sunnahs. Instead, alongside being an extremely important Sunnate Mu’akkadah, growing beard is also to be understood as an essential part of Islam’s adage, and it has been a Sunnah of all the prophets (alayhimussalaam). Moreover, it is something that is natural in the case of human beings and there is simply no scope for changing human nature as Allah has mentioned in Surah Al-Rum, verse no. 30.

An iconic scholar of Hadeeth from the subcontinent Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlvi (rahimahullah) has written in his book Hujjatullaahil Baalighah (1/152) that trimming or shaving beard is altering the creation and shape given by Allah. This does not get over here. Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has declared that trimming or shaving of beard is the way of infidels and Zoroastrians and the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did not even like to look at the faces of those who trimmed or shaved their beard.

Let us first go through the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in relation to beard:

Abdullah bin Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “Oppose the polytheists, by growing your beards and trimming your moustaches.” According to another report the words are, “Trim your moustaches properly and grow your beard.” (Bukhari and Muslim).

‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that once when a Zoroastrian (one who worships fire) was mentioned before Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “These people grow their moustaches and shave their beards. Thus you should oppose these people.” (Sahih Ibn Hibban).

‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was commanded to trim the moustache and grow beard. It came to people’s knowledge that the commandment to grow beard is from Allah, the Ruler of all the rulers. The word of Amara (أمر) too is found in books, which means that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has ordered us to trim our moustache and grow our beard (Muslim).

Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “Polytheists grow their moustache and trim their beard. Thus, you oppose them and grow your beard and trim your moustache (reported in Bazzaaz on the authority of a Hasan Sanad). Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “Trim your moustache and grow your beard and oppose the Zoroastrians.” (Muslim).

Ayesha (radhiyallahu anha) narrates that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has declared ten traits as natural. Out of those the first one is trimming of moustache and the second is growing of beard (Muslim). It means that growing beard is natural for human beings and is an Islamic motto. Moreover, it is the Sunnah of all the prophets (alayhimussalaam) as mentioned by Allamah Ibne Hajar Asqalaani (rahimahullah) in Bukhari’s commentary Fathul Baari (339/10) and by Allama Jalaaluddin Suyuti in Tanveerul Hawaalik, summary of Mu’atta Imam Maalik (219/2), while summarising nature (Fitrah).

When Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) wrote to different kings calling them to Islam, one of the letters was also written to Chosroes, the King of Persia. When the Prophet’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) letter reached him he tore it apart and wrote to the governor of Yemen to send two well-built persons to Hijaaz so that they could bring him the person who wrote to him the letter. So, by the permission of the King of Persia, the governor of Yemen sent two soldiers to Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). They both came to Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Their beards were ‘clean-shaved’ and their moustaches were grown. The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did not even care to look at them. Then the Prophet addressed them and said, “There is chastisement for both of you, who has ordered you to do this?” They said, “Our lord, meaning Kisra has ordered us to do this.” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “But my Lord has ordered me to grow beard and trim moustache.” (Al-Bidaayah Wan-nihaayah 4/270, Taarikh Ibne Jareer 3/90-91). This incident has been recorded by Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Sahab Kandhalvi in his famous work Hayaatus Sahaabah (Volume 1, Page 115) with different Sanad.

A person from the community of Zoroastrians came to Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) who had shaved his beard and grown his moustache. Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) asked him, “What is this?” He said, “This is our religion.” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “But in our religion we grow beard and trim moustache.” (Ibn Abi Shaibah 8/379)

Jaabir bin Samrah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates, “Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) beard had a lot of hair”. (Muslim)

Hind bin Abi Haalah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) beard was dense” (Tirmidhi and Baihaqi). The same has been reported by Baraa (radhiyallahu anhu) (Nasai 5232) and ‘Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) (Musnad Ahmad 2/102).

Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) beard was extremely dense. (Musnad Ahmad (1/127).

Ayesha, Uthman bin Affaan, Ammaar bin Yaasir, Abu Ayyub Ansari (radhiyallahu anhuma) and other companions of Prophet Muhammad have been quoted in Hadeeth books saying that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) used to run his wet fingers through his beard during ablution.

The beard should be left on its own, as in from any of the sides no hair should be trimmed or cut. Imam Shafi’i (rahimahullah) has made two statements in this regard out of which one that has been declared correct by Imam Nawawi (rahimahullah) and, in addition, one of the opinions of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahimahullah) is the same.

The beard should be left on its own, however, after performing pilgrimage or Umrah it could be trimmed from the right and left sides. Out of two statements of Imam Shaafi’i (rahimahullah) this is the second one which is declared correct by Hafiz Ibn Hajar (rahimahullah).The hair that goes unkempt on the right and left side of the beard could be cut without holding them in the fist. Imam Maalik (rahimahullah) has the same opinion which has been declared correct by Qadhi ‘Iyaadh (rahimahullah). After holding the beard in the fist the remaining (length wise) should be trimmed. Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) has the same opinion that sunnah is to keep beard that could be held in a fist and less than a fist is not permissible. This opinion has been declared correct by all Ulama of Hanafi Fiqh. Renowned student of Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) Imam Muhammad (rahimahullah) has written in his book Kitaabul Aathaar that we narrate from Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah) and he narrated from Haitham  and he narrated from Abdullah bin Umar (rahimahullah) that [Abdullah bin Umar (rahimahullah)] used to take his beard in his fist and he would trim whatever was left outside the fist. Imam Muhammad (rahimahullah) says that he has adopted that stance only and the same opinion is held by Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah). Therefore, in all the renowned and celebrated texts of Hanafi jurisprudence the same opinion is found that one has to keep beard that could be held in a fist and in case the beard is shorter than that then it is not permissible to trim it.      

On the day when Makkah was conquered, Abu Qahaafah (radhiyallahu anhu) was brought before Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in such a way that his hair was totally white. So Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “Change his hair’s whiteness, however, stay away from black colour.” (Muslim, Abu Daud, Nasaai, Ibn e Maajah, Musnad Ahmad).

Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “In order to change the whiteness of hair use henna or Katam.” (Abu Daud, Nasaai, Tirmidhi, Ibne Maajah).

Abdullah bin Abbas (radhoyallahu anhu) narrates that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “During the last days (close to qiyaamah), few people will dye their hair with pure black colour. Those people won’t even get the smell of the paradise.” (Abu Dawud, Nasaai).

Description of Prophet Muhammad’s Beard:

Leader of all the prophets and apostles, seal of prophets and Khairul Bariyyah (the best of all human beings) Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) always had beard as we find frequent references to Prophet’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) beard in Hadeeth books.

The fact of the matter is that the companions of Prophet Muhammad have referred to his (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) beard in different ways. The gist of their description is that Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) beard was dense and had a lot of hair. Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) also used to run his wet fingers through his beard while performing ablution, and at times he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) would also apply henna on it. The Hadeeth books have references of the beard of the righteous caliphs and other companions of the Prophet but I am skipping them so that the article does not get too lengthy. Not even a single companion of the Prophet shaved his beard or had sported one that could not be held in his fist.

Size of beard

On the basis of categorically clear instructions majority of scholars of Hadeeth, jurists and our respected Ulama are in favour of beard being obligatory but for a very long time Ulama and jurists have expressed disagreement vis-a-vis what will be the size of the beard and whether Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) himself set a certain size of beard to be kept in mind. It can be said with considerable authority that in the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) there is not much clarity with reference to the size of the beard. Yet, as per a Hadeeth recorded in Tirmidhi, which is indeed weak in terms of authenticity, Prophet Muhammd (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) used to trim extra hair in length and breadth. Moreover, several companions of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), for instance it is substantiated by an authentic Hadeeth that Abdullah bin Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) used to hold his beard in his fist and trim the extra hair, as mentioned by Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) (Bukhari).

As a matter of fact, in relation to the size of the beard, few opinions are to be found of Tabi’een, Taba’ Tabi’een and our respected Ulama who belonged to subsequent periods. However, in relation to keeping a beard that is less than the hold of a fist, no companion of Prophet Muhammad or Tabi’ee or Taba’ Tabi’ee or any other reliable scholar of Hadeeth or jurist has given an argument.

Statements made by jurists in relation to the size of the beard:

Through the most authentic and reliable sources clear cut teachings of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in relation to beard have reached the Muslim Ummah through Abdullah bin Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) only who is among those companions of Prophet Muhammad from whom even renowned companions of Prophet Muhammad sought opinion on different matters. Moreover, Abdullah bin Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was an ardent follower of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and he was always among those who zealously followed each and every Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). His acts are presented as standards in themselves. Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) presented Abdullah bin Umar’s (radhiyallahu anhu) act in relation to beard as a standard that when he would get done with pilgrimage or Umrah, he would untie his Ihram (the cloth wrapped for pilgrimage) and hold his beard in his fist and trim the extra hair (Bukhari).

Hafiz Ibn Hajar (rahimahullah) in his commentary on Bukhari, narrating from Tabari, informs that one group says that when the beard grows longer than a fistful then the extra length of hair ought to be trimmed, then, on his own authority, Tabari (rahimahullah) has narrated from Abdullah bin Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) and Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) that they did the same.

Jaabir bin Abdullah (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates, “We used to keep the front portion of our beard grown but in Hajj and Umrah (meaning once they completed Hajj or Umrah) we used to trim that part.” (Abu Dawud).

In relation to beard, after Abdullah bin Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), maximum number of reports is from Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu). It has been mentioned that with reference to his beard he too used to trim whatever remained extra after holding it in his fist (Nasabur Raayah).

Imam Ghazali (rahimahullah) writes in his book (Al-Ahyaa’, 1/143) that Ulama disagree in relation to trimming the beard more than a fistful (such that after trimming the beard cannot be held in the person’s fist) but in case someone trims his beard after it can be properly held in the fist then there is no problem because there is evidence for the same from Abdullah bin Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) and Tabi’een. Allamah Ibn Siren (rahimahullah) has affirmed that keeping a beard that could be held in a fist is better.

Sheikh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlvi (rahimahullah) writes in his book (Ashi’atul Lama’at, vol. 1, page no. 228), “Shaving beard is forbidden and growing it till it becomes a fistful is obligatory.”

Allamah Ibn Taymiyyah writes in his book (Sharhul Umdah, 1/236) that, “I’afaul Lihyah means leaving the beard on its own but in case someone trims his beard after it has become more than a fistful or trims the unkempt hair from the sides then it is not disliked (Makrooh) because Abdullah bin Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) has done this.

An article by the author of Safwat At-Tafaaseer’s and teacher at the Prophet’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) mosque, Sheikh Muhammad bin Ali Al-Saabooni which was published in the famous newspaper of Arabia Al-Madinah on 24 Muharram 1415 AH, wherein along with arguments he had written that beard’s hair should not be left unkempt. Instead, unkempt hair should be trimmed in order to give the beard a proper look. Nor should be the beard left (to grow) in such a way that children start fearing and elderly start avoiding.

Note: Several Ulama of the present times have given fatwa justifying keeping beard that is less than a fistful. However, these Ulama too encourage growing beard till it could be held in a fist.

Clarification of a doubt:

Few people ask that where is it written in the Holy Qur’an to grow beard?? I would like to enquire those people that where is it written in the Holy Qur’an that we have to practice only on those things that are mentioned in it, and where is it written in the Holy Qur’an to not obey the injunctions of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Instead, in the Holy Qur’an, there are numerous occasions where Allah has commanded believers to obey Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and, more importantly, Allah has declared obedience to Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as following Him (Surah Al-Nisaa, verse no. 80). Moreover, at different places in the Holy Qur’an, Allah has declared that alongside obeying Him it is necessary to obey Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). In case the Holy Qur’an is sufficient for us then why has Allah commanded us repeatedly in the Holy Qur’an to obey Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)?

It is impossible to understand the Holy Qur’an without the aid of Sayings of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). As specified clearly by Allah in Surah Al-Nahl verses 64 and 144 that the first commentator of the Holy Qur’an is Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has been assigned the responsibility by Allah that he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) may explain to the Muslim Ummah the commandments present in the Holy Qur’an in absolutely simple and clear terms.

Still, in order to satisfy these people it needs to be highlighted that beard has been mentioned in the Holy Qur’an (Surah Taha, verse no. 94). When Prophet Moosa (alayhissalaam) held the beard of Prophet Haroon (alayhissalaam), the latter said, “O son of my mother, do not hold me by my beard.

Colouring the beard by applying Henna or Khizaab:

In case, hair of beard or head have turned grey because of old age then our respected Ulama, in the light of sayings of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), unanimously agree that hair cannot be dyed with pure black colour because it implies altering the order of nature. However, in case a person’s hair turns grey during youth because of some disease then, in relation to dying hair with pure black colour during youth, the Ulama have disagreement but it is better to avoid. However, other than pure black colour, dying hair with henna or a shade closer to black is, whether it is done by young or old, not only permissible but recommended.


My dear friends, keeping beard is the obedience of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), following and expressing love for him. The commandment of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) signals that growing beard is obligatory. However, in the times we live in, few people don’t care at all about what Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) commanded and not only do they get their beards shaved but they start passing various comments on it. Do remember that not growing beard is a sin but to pass false comments on beard or making fun of it pertains to infidelity.

May Allah make us all true lovers of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and may He make us one of those who grow beard, Aameen!

Islamic Dress Code According To The Sunnah

[By The Majlis]

Bismillah Hirrahmaan Nirraheem





























Choice of dress style is the effect of Imaan and kufr. It is precisely for  this  reason  that  the  Fuqahaa  have  ruled  that  adoption  of kuffaar  dress-style  is kufr. The dress itself is not kufr. But the attitude of the heart which constrains a Muslim to adopt a non Muslim  dress-style is kufr since it displays a preference and a desire for something which belongs to the kuffaar. This attitude  implies that the kuffaar style is better and more  preferable than the style of the Ambiyaa, Sulaha and the Ummah. This is the attitude which exposes a Muslim to the grave danger of kufr.

Qaadhi Baidaawi (rahmatullah alaih) in his Tafseer of the Qur’aan Majeed  states:

“Verily; wearing the clothes of aliens (kuffaar), tying  a zunnaar (the holy thread of idolaters or the crucifix)  and similar other  acts have been proclaimed kufr  because the acts display (or imply) rejection (of Islam).  Most assured,  a person who has accented  the Rasool (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) will obviously not be so audacious to commit these acts.”

Leaving  aside  the  technical  argument  pertaining to  haraam and Makrooh, the question which has to be  asked is:

Why  would  a  Muslim  give  preference  to  the  dress-style  of  the kuffaar?? Why would a Muslim love to walk around with a  bare head when 124 000 Ambiyaa, 120 000 Sahaabah and the entire Ummah of Islam from the very inception of this Deen, always covered their heads with a special type of headgear which belongs exclusively to Muslims??  If  your  Nabi  (Sallallahu  Alayhi  Wasallam)  and  his Sahaabah always covered their heads, why do you who claim to be their followers, love to bare your head in public like the kuffaar do??

A question for meditation is: Whose style is it to wander around bare-headed and whose style is it to cover the head in public? The barometer of a man’s Imaan is in his dress-style. For some it is a barometer for ascertaining the very validity of Imaan, and for others a barometer to test the quality of their Imaan. At the least, kuffaar dress-style is fisq.



When a modernist Muslim criticizes the dress style and appearance of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah, we in this age in which kufr preponderates, are not surprised. Immersed in the kufr concepts and liberalism of the western kuffaar, it is just natural and logical for modernists to  denigrate every teaching of the Sunnah which conflicts with the tastes and hues of western culture. In fact, even Ulama have become so terribly desensitized with the kufr of the modernists as a consequence of their mutual association and their dubious and baseless policies of ‘hikmat‘ and diplomacy, that they (the Ulama) too have become chronic victims of the maladies of kufr and liberalism.

So while we cannot be surprised when modernists criticize, mock and sneer at the dress styles and appearance of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah, there is not only surprise but shock when molvis  —products of Darul Ulooms –  who purport to be followers of the Ulama of the Sunnah, resort to labyrinthal arguments in order to justify styles which are in conflict with not only the practical example of the Nabi, but in diametric opposition to his explicit statements of prohibition pertaining to certain dress styles.


Every  molvi  is  aware  or  should  be  aware  that  ALL  the  Books  of Hadith contain  many authentic ahadith clearly explaining the style of Rasulullah’s izaar. There is absolutely no difference of opinion among any of the innumerable authorities of the Shariah from the very inception of Islam that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah always wore their izaar and trousers above their ankles.


In  addition  to their practical example, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah verbally propagated in explicit terms the prohibition of wearing the trousers below the  ankles. This style is  completely unrelated to age and time. There was no incumbency of the era to wear the trousers in this manner nor were there any physical or geographic restraints or factors which compelled the adoption of this style. On the contrary, the age and the people of the time demanded that the trousers be worn  below the ankles in exactly the same way as modernists, kuffaar and Muslim ashamed of the Sunnah Culture are advocating today.


In order to accommodate the liberal fancies of  the western kuffaar, molvis in this age of corruption, have hooked onto a legless and baseless argument to justify, propagate and even praise the kaafir style of wearing the trousers below the ankles—a style which is in clear opposition to the style and command of Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).

The modernist molvis of the liberal cult of westernism are arguing that the reason for the prohibition to wear the trousers below the ankles was pride.  Their argument goes that on account of pride, the style was prohibited.  But if  there is no pride then wearing the trousers below the ankles is permissible, in fact commendable by implication of their baseless  and  satanic  arguments  which they voice over their radio channels.

Why is it haraam for a Muslim to wear a crucifix around his neck or arm? Why should it be haraam for a Muslim to keep a small idol of Bhagwan or Buddha in his pocket or display it in his home. Why should this be haraam if the Muslim concerned has no beliefs of shirk or kufr. He simply regards these items as ‘artifacts’ and symbols of ‘history’. He does not believe in these idols. He does not worship them. But we can claim without fear of contradiction that even the modernist molvis have as yet not descended to the level of corruption which  will constrain than to say that keeping such idols is permissible if the reason is not shirk/worship. Although this is still the case presently, we know that there will soon come a time when keeping and admiring even these  instruments of shirk and kufr will be justified and made legal by the presentation of the argument that the reason for the initial prohibition was the belief of shirk which had not yet been completely eradicated from the hearts of the new converts to Islam.


When  the  Shariah  categorically  prohibits  an  act  or  practice,  the prohibition will endure regardless of the reason for which it was initially prohibited.  Reciting  the  qira’t  jahran  (aloud)  in Zuhr and Asr was prohibited initially on account of a particular reason which soon after the prohibition no longer existed. But inspite of the disappearance of the reason for the prohibition, the hukm of Sirri (silent) recitation will endure until the day of Qiyaamah.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that he who plays chess is like one who has dipped his fingers in the blood of a swine. Surely there was a cogent reason for this stern prohibition. Now, regardless of whether that reason exists  in some cases or not, the prohibition of playing chess will remain until the day of Qiyaamah. In fact, the prohibition has been taken further by the Fuqaha (the  Authorities of the Shariah). This prohibition has been extended to all similar games of the kuffaar.


We shall now present the relevant authentic Ahadith on the issue of the trousers below and above the ankles and then proceed to further refute and negate the utterly baseless and devious arguments tendered by modernists  molvis to beguile the Ummah.

(1)  Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrates: Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whatever of the garment is below the ankles will be in the  Fire (of Jahannum).” (Bukhaari)

(2)  Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) narrates: “Verily the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: Whoever hangs his garment in pride, Allah will not look at him (with mercy) on the day of Qiyaamah.” (Bukhaari and Muslim)

(3) Abu  Saeed  al-Kudri  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates:  “I  heard Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) saying: The izaar of the Mu’min is halfway on the forelegs (i.e.midway between the knees and the ankles). There is no sin on him  in that which is between it and the ankles. And, whatever is below this is in the  Fire (of Jahannum). He (Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) repeated this statement) three times, and he said: Allah will not look (with mercy) at the  person who hangs his izaar in pride.” (Abu Dawood and Ibn Maajah)

(4)  Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates: “I passed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) while my trousers was hanging (i.e.  below the ankles). He  then exclaimed: 0 Abdullah! Raise your izaar. I then raised it (a bit). Then he  (Rasulullah-  sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: Raise it more! I then raised it more. Thereafter I was always conscious of it” Some people asked: “Until where (did you raise it)?” He (Ibn Umar) said: “Until midway of the foreleg.”  (Muslim)
(5)  Ubaid Bin Khaalid (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates: While I was walking in Madinah, (I heard) someone behind me say: “Raise your izaar! Verily it (raising  the  garment)  is  better  for  piety and preservation (of the garment).”  I then looked behind and observed that it was Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam). I then said: O Rasulullah! It is a simple (of inferior quality and price) garment. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) commented: “What, is there not for you in me an example (to follow)?”  When I looked (at Rasulullah’s garment), his izaar was midway on his forelegs.” (Tirmizi)

(6)  Salmah  Bin  Akwa’  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates:  “Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) would wear his trousers midway on his forelegs, and he would say: ”So  was  the  izaar  of  my  Companion,  i.e.  Nabi  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).”  (Tirmizi)

(7)  Huzaifah  Bin  Yamaan  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrates:  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) took hold of the flesh of my foreleg  (or of his foreleg) and said: ‘This is the location for the izaar. If you are not satisfied (with this position),  then a bit lower. And if you are still not satisfied, than know that the izaar has  no right in the ankles.” (Tirmizi)

Commenting on these Hadith narrations, Hadhrat Shaikh Muhammad Zakariyya (rahmatullah alayh) writes:

“Severe warnings have been recorded for wearing the lungi, trousers, etc. below the ankles. That section (below the ankles) on which the garment hangs will be burnt in the Fire  (of Jahannum). In view of this type (of severe) warnings (of punishment) in the ahadith, special attention should be paid to this  matter. But, on the contrary in our age, the garments are specially (i.e.  intentionally) worn below the ankles. To Allah does  the complainer  (register his complaint).”


Inspite of the many unambiguous ahadith explicitly prohibiting the kuffaar style of wearing the trousers below the ankles, molvis in this age are  devoting  special  time on their radio channels to negate what Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) has commanded.


Any level-headed and unbiased Muslim in search of the truth will understand after a perusal of the aforementioned ahadith that wearing the trousers below the ankles is haraam.

In Hadith No. 5, Ubaid Bin Khaalid (radhiyallahu anhu) was wearing his garment below his ankles. He was walking in the streets of Madinah. When  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered him to raise his izaar above the  ankles. In this Hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) presented two reasons for wearing the trousers above the ankles in this style (of the Sunnah), is greater piety in view of the fact that it firstly is in conflict with the style of the kuffaar. Secondly, when a Muslim consciously abstains from emulating the  style of the kuffaar, he rises in rank of taqwa. Following the method of  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is an incumbent requirement of Taqwa,  hence he said that wearing the trousers above the ankles is ‘atqaa‘ (more  pious).  It thus flows from this reasoning presented by Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) that wearing the garment below the ankles is not in conformity with taqwa. Whether we understand the relationship between this style and taqwa is of no significance.  Since Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has offered this explanation, it is the fardh duty of every Mu’min to  blindly accept it.

The second argument which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) presented for his command to wear the garment above the  ankles is that this style is  ‘abqaa’ for the garment. In other words the garment will be better preserved  against the dirt and filth of the road and in this way be better protected. The Mu’min’s trousers should not serve the function of the street-sweeper.

It is significant that in this Hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not tender the argument of pride. Since he was aware that the Sahaabi was not wearing his garment below the ankles on account of pride, he did not mention pride on this occasion. However, when the Sahaabi did not understand the  argument, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) broached the subject from  another angle. He asked: “Is my example and way not sufficient?” In other words, for the Mu’min the acts, practices and example of the Rasool are more than adequate. There is no need to search  for reasons and wisdoms for the ahkaam (laws of the Deen).  The  example  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  is compulsorily  imposed  on  Muslims  by  the  Qur’aan  Majeed.  There is no need to look elsewhere and further than this. It thus does not behove a  Muslim, least of all a learned man, to dig out technicalities and by distortion present these in justification of the endeavour to negate the style and custom of Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).

In Hadith No. 6 Hadhrat Uthmaan (Radhiyallahu anhu), the third Khalifah, long  after  the  demise  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam) commented on the practice of wearing the trousers above the ankles. Everyone knows and  accepts that he had no pride. If the order to wear the trousers above the ankles was based on pride, Hadhrat Uthmaan and all the Sahaabah would not have  been so meticulous in observing this injunction. They would have worn their trousers below their ankles since they were bereft of pride. They had attained  the loftiest heights in the reformation of the nafs. There were no better, no more  pious and no humbler community on earth than the Sahaabah who were  thoroughly purified of all spiritual maladies by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Yet, inspite of their high stage of humility, they adhered meticulously to the style of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Everyone who has studied a bit of the history of the Sahaabah, is aware that  Hadhrat Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was such a staunch and ardent follower  of the minutest details of the Sunnah, that people believed that he would  become insane. Pride was never the reason for him  having  worn  his  trousers  below  his  ankles.  When  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) saw this, he  commanded him to raise his garment midway between the knees and the ankles.  The issue of pride never featured in his wearing his trousers below his ankles  nor in the argument of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) on the occasion when he issued his instruction to this devotee of  the Sunnah.


In some narrations the reason for wearing the trousers below the ankles is stated as pride. While this was the actual reason in those times for this prohibited style, it was not always the case  with everyone who would wear his trousers below his ankles. Hence, we find Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) issuing stern warnings and threats of the punishment of the Fire for those  who wear their trousers in the fashion of the proud people. So whether one wears the trousers below the ankles for the sake of pride or not, one is undoubtedly, imitating the style of the proud ones and the style of the kuffaar.  Imitating the kuffaar by itself is a factor of prohibition.


Now the question to be asked is: Why would a molvi advocate a style which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had prohibited. He did not only  present pride as the reason for the prohibition. So why is there so much concern to negate a Sunnah style?? Leaving aside the technical questions and academic rulings, it can be simply understood that the permanent practice and style of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah were to wear their garments above the ankles, not below their ankles.

That wearing the  trousers above the ankles is an irrefutable Sunnah practice  will be acknowledged by all Muslims, even the modernists and the liberal  molvis. On the assumption that it is not haraam to wear the trousers below the  ankles, then too, why should Muslims who claim to love Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) have a desire to scuttle this Sunnah practice and in its place  follow the style of the kuffaar?? Whose style is it to wear the trousers above the ankles?? And, whose style is it to wear it below the ankles??  What does the Imaan  of a Mu’min demand, follow the style of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) or the style of the kuffaar?? Why is there such a strong aversion in the ranks of the Muslims for the style of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)?? What  goes on in the heart of a molvi who advocates a style abhorred by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)?? Surely there must be some hidden  disease (mardh)  lurking  somewhere  in  such  a  heart.  It is inconceivable that a  Mu’min of healthy Imaan will ever stoop so low as to scrape the very bottom of the barrel of spiritual corruption. Remember that to negate a preference of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), to feel ashamed of the style of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and to present  devious  arguments  to  distort  and  deny  what  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had commanded, are worse than consuming liquor, worse than fornication and worse than all the major sins put together. Such an attitude is kufr.


The solitary narration which the denigrators of Rasulullah’s practice are able to produce as ‘evidence’ is the Hadith in which it is mentioned that Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) allowed Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) to wear his garment below his ankles. To present this Hadith in substantiation of the claim, the aim of which is to negate the style  of Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam), is ludicrous and utterly baseless.

The Hadith in question is very clear as for the reason of the permission granted  to  Hadhrat  Abu  Bakr  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  who  was highly perturbed by his inability to maintain his garment above his ankles. He therefore, discussed this matter with Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam). Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhiyallahu anhu) was a man with a  big stomach. Inspite of all his efforts to keep his garment in place, he failed. His  garment would repeatedly slide down over his ankles. The Hadith in question explicitly mentions this fact. In view of this condition and his inability to retain his garment in position above his ankles, he was exempted  from the prohibition. But he had a valid reason. What valid reason do the modernists and the liberal molvis have?? There are always exceptions to general rules. But the exceptions do not cancel out the law or  the rule. The  rule remains in place. Furthermore, why do the scoffers of Rasulullah’s style cast a blind eye to all the ahadith of prohibition and cling onto this solitary narration which in no way negates the prohibition stated  so  emphatically in the other narrations??


Like a drowning man, the modernist molvi tries to cling to every floating straw that passes his way. Entirely bereft of proper Shar’i arguments to bolster his corrupt view and enmity for Rasulullah’s dress style, the molvi claims  that  according  to  Imaam  Shaafi  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  it  is permissible to wear the trousers below the ankles.

Let us for a moment assume that what the molvi tendered is correct. The question now is: Why does the Hanafi molvi resort to a view of Imaam Shaafi (Rahmatullah alayh), especially on an issue for which there is absolutely no need to adopt the view of another Math-hab?? If it was a critical issue or an emergency or some urgent need, then in terms of the principles of the Hanafi Math-hab, a pious and experienced Mufti will have  the right to issue a Fatwa on the basis of one of the other Mathhabs among the Four Math-habs. But in this case of wearing the trousers, there is absolutely no such expediency.

When a Hanafi molvi ignores the views and fatwas of  the authorities of his  own Mathhab and clings to an opinion of another Math-hab, it follows that there is no flexibility for his baseless view in his own Mathhab, hence he had to look elsewhere for aid. His act in itself is sufficient testimony for the  claim that according to the Hanafi Fuqaha and Ulama and Auliya, wearing  the trousers below the ankles is haraam.


The liberal molvi claims that according to Imaam Shaafi (rahmatullah alayh) wearing the trousers below the ankles is permissible. His claim is baseless. Imaam Shaafi does not say that “it is permissible”. According to  the Shaafi Math-hab there are different degrees of prohibition for the style  of wearing the trousers below the ankles. Explaining this, Imaam Nawawi (a Shaafi authority) states in his Sharhul Muslim:

“It is not permissible to hang the garment below the ankles if it is for pride. If it is for a reason other than pride it is Makrooh.  The Mustahab requirement is midway of the calfs (the forelegs)  as it is stated in the Hadith of Ibn Umar. Midway of the forelegs is Mustahab. Below this limit until the ankles is permissible without it being Makrooh. What descends below the ankles is Mamnoo’ (prohibited). If it is for pride, then the prohibition is of the haraam category  (i.e.  Makrooh Tahrimi). And, if it is not for pride, the prohibition is of the tanzihi category (i.e.  Makrooh Tanzihi).”

Makrooh Tanzihi does not mean ‘permissible’. It remains a detestable act in the Shariah. In fact, persistence on a Makrooh Tanzihi act  transforms it into Makrooh Tahrimi which is sinful and a punishable offence. It makes a man a faasiq. Clutching at straws is not Shar’i evidence for a claim.


From the aforegoing explanation it will be understood that there are several factors  for the prohibition of wearing the garment below the ankles:

(a) It is the style of the kuffaar. Whoever imitates the kuffaar becomes of them.

(b) It is the way of the mutakabbireen (proud people). So whether one has  pride or not, is immaterial. The fact that the mutakabbireen’s style is  adopted is in itself a grave sin.

(c) The opposite style (wearing above the ankles) is ‘atqaa‘ and abqaa‘ according to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

(d)  Wearing the garment above the ankles is part of the Uswah-e-Hasanah  (Beautiful Life Pattern) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The Qur’aan commands adoption of this Sunnah.

(e)  The trousers has no haqq (right) on the ankles according to the explicit pronouncement of Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).

(f)  What is below the ankles will be in the Fire of Jahannum.

In view of all these factors of prohibition, the arguments of the modernist and liberal molvis have absolutely no validity. These molvis should also understand that in airing their liberal, modernist and baatil views, they do not have the support of a single one of our Akaabir Ulama. Our advice is that they should utilize their radio channels constructively to aid the Deen,  not to breakdown Islam and its Culture, for then, there will be absolute  justification for branding their organs of transmission as radio shaitaan and  channel shaitaan.



Style of dress is among the salient features (Sha-aair) of Islam. The Shariah accords great prominence to a Muslim’s way of dress. Detailed rules enacted by the great rulers of Islam among the Sahaabah, Taabieen and- their followers illustrate the emphasis which Islam lays on the dress of  a Mu’min.

Among the prohibited factors pertaining to dress is the emulation of non-Muslim dress styles.  In all ages of Islam such emulation has been regarded as among the major  (kabaair) sins. Tashabbuh bil kuffaar (emulating the kuffaar) is an evil with far reaching effect on the heart of a Muslim. Hence, Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) said:

“Whoever emulates a people becomes of them.”

In this article we propose to discuss one particular aspect of Islamic dressing, viz., headgear. In these times of intense ,kufr and dhalaal, when many Muslims have sacrificed their intelligence to become slaves of western  culture, there is a great desire among modernists to abandon the wearing of Islamic headgear. Among the styles of Islamic headgear is the popular topee which innumerable millions of Muslims have donned over the past centuries  of Islamic history. Now  in this belated century modernists are at pains to  discard this compulsory dress-style of Islam. Fallacious arguments are  fabricated to deceive innocent and unwary people  into  accepting  that  the  topee  or  Islamic  headgear has no relevance in the Shariah.

It  should be understood that the ways and styles of Islam did not originate  from dubious sources nor were its originators non-entities as are the votaries of western styles. Furthermore, Islamic dress-styles were inherited by the Ummah from generation to generation. Each successive generation obtained its Islamic dress-style from its preceding generation. In this way  the chain links up with the Sahaabah who disseminated nothing other than the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Headgear in Islam is  not a new development The villifier of the topi must present his proof toindicate the point in time in Islamic history when this headgear became an  accredited Islamic head-dress. If he contends that the topi has no Islamic relevance, let him prove his case with Islamic facts and Shar’i proofs. The assertion that many people presently in the Middle East pray without headgear is not Shar’i evidence for the fallacy that the topi has no Islamic status. What is presently being perpetrated in Muslim countries  cannot  becited  as  Islamic evidence for a claim. Only an ignoramus who suffers from colossal ignorance will advance such puerile and ludicrous ‘proof for his claim. When the weight of Islamic practice of the past fourteen hundred years upholds Islamic headgear as an integral and  incumbent  part  of  a  Muslim’s chess, then by what stretch of intelligent reasoning can any  Muslim decry and villify such head-dress? When all the illustrious authorities of Islam from the time of the Sahaabah emphasised the donning of headgear, not only for Salaat, but at all times, then it is only necessary to dismiss with contempt the arguments against the topi blustered out by the  enemies of the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The topi is the head-dress which distinguishes a Muslim from a non- Muslim. The importance of this headgear is amply illustrated by the following  command  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam):“The difference between us and the mushrikeen  is turbans on top of qalaanis (topis).”


Even mushrikeen were in the habit of donning turbans. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) detested resemblance with them. Emulating non-Muslims is forbidden by Islam, hence Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) ordered that Muslims wear topis under their turbans even though  the topis are totally concealed and not visible from under the turbans. Even the style of headgear which the Muslim adopts should not resemble the  head-dress of the kuffaar, hence Shaikhul Islam Zakariyya (rahmatullah  alayh) states:

“In our  time it is not permissible to  wear green and yellow turbans” (Husnus Siyar of Dimyaati Shaafi).

Since green and yellow turbans were among the particular dress-styles of the Yahood and Nasaara of that time, the authorities of the Shariah banned  the wearing  of such turbans so that Muslims do not violate the Shar’I  prohibition of emulating kuffaar. The following verdict appears in Fataawa  Khaazin and Fataawa Hindiyah:

“A man will be proclaimed a kaafir for adopting the head-dress of the Majoos (fire-worshippers).”

The following verdict appears in the famous Maaliki Kitaab, Mukhtasarul Khaleel:

“A Muslim will be proclaimed a kaafir if he wears the hat of the Nasaara.”

Strutting about bare-headed is undoubtedly the style of western man who has discarded the norms  of true civilization.  It has never been the style of  any Muslim community, anywhere in the world, right from the time of  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to emerge in public with bare-heads.  One  who  walks  around  bare-headed  is  mardoodushshahaadah, i.e. his testimony in an Islamic court is not  admissible. Those Muslims  who  are  desirous  of  abandoning  the  Islamic  topi  are undoubtedly influenced by western fashions and styles. The fact that they have opted for a kaafir style  at the expense of an Islamic style—a style which the Ummah has always accepted speaks volumes for their way of  thinking. It points to the  direction in which their hearts have inclined. Overtly they proclaim them-selves to be Muslims while covertly their hearts are saturated with love for  the styles of kufr. But, Allah Ta’ala warns them:

“Do not incline towards  the zaalimoon.”

Inclining towards the kuffaar is banned by Islam in all aspects. A Muslim is not allowed to unnecessarily adopt the ways, methods, institutions and styles of the kuffaar. Islam demands head-dress—Islamic head-dress—for its adherents. Western modernity demands a bare-head in order to confirm  to  western  standards  of  dress,  the  westernized  Muslim conjectures the most  baseless arguments to bolster his case against the ways of Islam. This  attitude borders on kufr and threaten the Imaan of such deviated modernists. Clarifying the Islamic ban of tashabbuh bil kuffaar, Hadhrat Umar  (radhiyallahu anhu) despatched a detailed decree to  the Muslims of  Aazarbaijaan. Among the many prohibitions contained in  this Decree the following appears:

“The dress of your father Ismaa-il (alayhis salaam) is incumbent on you. Beware of the luxuries and the styles of the Ajam (non Arabs).”

Allaamah Ibn Hajar Haithami (rahmatullah alayh), in his Kitaab Azzawaa- jir an Iqtiraafil Kabaa-ir, records the following narration of Muhaddith Maalik Bin Dinaar (rahmatullah alayh):

“Allah revealed to one of his Nabis: Say to your nation: Do not wear the garments of My enemies for then you  will  become My enemies like they are my enemies.”

In  Tafseer  Ma-aariful  Qur’aan  Hadhrat  Mufti  Muhammad  Shafi (rahmatullah alayhi) the then Grand Mufti of Pakistan, explains in the exposition of the aayat:

“O!  The  Sons  of  Aadam!  Adopt  your  beauty  at  the  time  of every Salaat” (Aayat 31 Surah A’raaf)

“From this aayat it is obvious that just as the compulsion of concealing the satr  is  based  on  the  command in this verse, so too is based the significance  and merit of donning good and clean garments according to one’s means and  ability. Since only concealment of the satr is not adequate for Salaat, but the adoption of zeenat (beauty) is also commanded, therefore it will be Makrooh for a man to perform Salaat bare-head, bared shoulders and exposed elbows, whether he has donned short-sleeved shirt or has rolled up his sleeves.”

Islamic headgear is an integral part of the Sunnah, so much so, that a turban  will  be  described  as  Islamic  only  if  it is worn on top of a qalansawah (topi). Abandoning this Sunnah is a sign of Imaani disaster. It is indicative of the  Muslim’s drift from Seeraatul Mustaqeem. There can be no other meaning for a Muslim who detests or regards as insignificant and unimportant the donning of Islamic headgear. While abandonement of any Sunnah invites  the Wrath and Curse of Allah Ta’ala, adoption of the Sunnah brings in its  wake great rewards and creates vitality and Noor in the heart of the Mu’min.  In this regard, Rasulullah {sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Whoever protects my Sunnah, Allah honours him with four qualities: He  becomes  endeared  to  pious  people,  evil  people  fear  him, increase in  Rizq and steadfastness in Deen” 

In Al-I’tisaam, Imaam Zuhri (rahmatullah  alayh) narrates that Imaam Maa-lik (rahmatullah alayh) said: “The  Sunnah  is  like a ship.  He who embarks on it is saved while be  who  remains  behind  (stranded  in  the  ocean)  will  drown.”

Thus, those who have adopted the process of abandoning the Sunnah will soon find themselves drowning in the raging ocean of kufr, immorality and baatil. Diversion from the Deen and abandonement of the Sunnah is an  incremental process. It commences with the  abandonment  of the Aadaab (etiquettes), progressing to the abandonment of Mustahab acts, then deteriorating to the  abandonment  of Sunnatul Muakkadah, then Waajib acts and finally it leads to the neglect of Fardh acts.

One’s very Imaan is exposed to the gravest dangers by the abandonment of  Sunnat acts. Such abandonment leads to the total distintergration of Taqwa  and Imaan. For this reason it is most dangerous for Muslims to view Islamic headgear as an insignificant item. Nothing in the Deen and Sunnah is  insignificant. Every act of the Sunnah, be it an Adab or a Mustahab act is  of great importance for the acquisition of the Pleasure of Allah Ta’ala.  Every Mustahab act being part of Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) Uswah Hasanah (beautiful example)plays a vital role in the rising stages of Taqwa. Of such importance is Islamic headgear and all other aspects of the Sunnah that the authorities of the Shariah  have ruled:

“Using a Miswaak is Sunnat, but rejection of thefact that the Miswaak is Sunnat, is kufr.”

The  Qur’aan  Majeed  commands  Muslims  to  adopt  the  Sunnah  of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and to refrain from every act which the Nabi  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam} has forbidden:

“Whatever the Rasool has given to yon, take hold of it and  whatever he has forbidden you of refrain therefrom.” 

The Rasool has given us the way of dress which includes the Islamic  headgear. We are bound by the Qur’aanic command to adopt it and uphold  it. He has forbidden us from emulating the kuffaar. Muslims are, therefore,  under Qur’aanic obligation to abhor and refrain from the styles of the kuffaar. There is no gainsaying that a bare-head is among the styles of the  kuffaar. To strut about without headgear is undoubtedly the way of the  kuffaar, especially the libertine western kuffaar. A Muslim in whose heart  is embedded Islam cannot find pleasure in the adoption of a style of the  kuffaar. Every kufr emulation necessitates abandonment of a Sunnat. Thus, by adopting the kaafir style of walking about bare-headed and entering the Musjid bare- headed,  the  Sunnah  style  of  Islamic  headgear  is  abandoned. Like kuffaar enter their places of worship bare-headed and like the kuffaar  attach no significance to headgear, so too does the westernized Muslim who  follows in the footsteps of the enemies of Allah Ta’ala. In opposing the  Command of Allah Ta’ala, viz. the Sunnah, Muslims are invoking the  chastisement of Allah Ta’ala Who says in  the Qur’aan Shareef:

“Those  who  oppose  His Command should fear a disaster reaching them or that a painful punishment will overtake them.”

Spelling out the calamity of confrontation with Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam), the Qur’aan Majeed says: “Whoever opposes the Rasool after the guidance (of Shariah) has been made dear for him and he then follows a path which is not the way of the Mu’mineen, then we shall allow him to do as he pleases. And We shall cast him into Jahannam. Indeed it is an evil place.”

It is significant and noteworthy that in this aayat, the Qur’aan-e-Hakeem describes ‘opposition to the Rasool’ as being a path other than the path of  the  Mu’mineen.  Thus,  any  practice which the Mu’mineen have inherited from the Salf-e-Saaliheen is in  fact the Sunnah. An item of this practice is the Islamic headgear. Discarding this important item of Islamic dress is in fact  a path other than the path of the Mu’mineen. The Path of the  Mu’mineen  is  given  authority  and  Divine  sanction  in  the aforementioned Qur’aanic Aayat in view of the fact that it stems from the teachings, of the Sahaabah who were the first and the most authoritative expounders and upholders of the Sunnah. Diversion from this path of the Mu’mineen leads to Jahannum  according to the Qur’aan.

In the sphere of Islamic belief and practice, the Path of The Mu’mineen cannot be ignored. The Qur’aan Shareef explicitly declares Jahannum to be  the consequence of adopting a path other than the Path of The Mu’mineen. While all Muslims who truly believe in Allah, His Rasool and the  Divine  Law  are  Mu’mineen,  the  uppermost  echelons  of  The Mu’mineen are, undoubtedly the Sahaabah, the Taabieen and the Tab-eTaabieen  The  Mu’mineen of these three noble eras, described by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as the Khairul Quroon (the Noblest Ages), are undoubtedly the first of the Ummah whom we have to emulate and whose Path the  Qur’aan commands us to follow. Islamic headgear has come to us from  these illustrious Mu’mineen whose Path can be abandoned only at the peril  of Imaan.

In the satanic conspiracy to wean Muslims away from the Sunnah and Islam itself, the liberal influences of the western kuffaar are adopted in degrees. In  the initial stage of diversion from the Sunnah, the Muslim simply abandons  his  Islamic headgear in public, at home and on the streets. Still believing  that such headgear is necessary for only Salaat, its importance is diminished for other occasions and as a permanent item of Islamic dress. Later, when  his outlook has changed on account of having become habituated to strut  around bare-headed in public and he has become sufficiently audacious by  virtue of his Imaani conscience and Deeni convictions becoming paralysed,  he rebelliously steps into the Musjid without Islamic Headgear and in  this  abominable way performs his Salaat without even realizing that he has  despoiled the value of his Salaat. Salaat performed without headgear is  Makrooh. Such Salaat has to be compulsorily repeated within the confines  of the time. If it has not been repeated within the confines of that particular Salaat, the Fardh (i.e. the obligation) while having been discharged, is short of its rewards and blessings.  Such  defective  discharge  of  such  an  important  and fundamental institution of Islam will undoubtedly have far reaching consequences for Muslims in both this transitory world and in the   Aakhirah.

From the above mentioned discussion it will be clear that dress-style is of vital  importance  for  the  Muslim.  It  is  essential  for  his  spiritual development that the Muslim differentiates himself from non-Muslims by even his external appearance. His external appearance must testify that he is a  Muslim. A Muslim dressed in the style of the kuffaar cannot be recognised  as a Muslim by another Muslim who is not acquainted with him. A  Muslim  in western garb and western appearance can reasonably be mistaken for a  kaafir and he (the imitator of the kuffaar) is solely responsible for such a  serious mistake committed genuinely. In so far as the Shariah is concerned,  the topi or  any Islamic head-dress is essential for a Muslim in Salaat as well  as at all times. The arguments of the denigrators of the topi arise from kufr mentality and should be dismissed with contempt.


In Pakistan and other Muslim countries there appears no justification to hang on to the western dress in utter disregard of our own graceful costumes and derive a false sense of elevation with a rope around our neck  (necktie). The necktie is designed by the Christian world as a sign of the  Cross symbolizing Jesus’s crucifixion and thus is an insignia of the Christian faith.

Extract from Muslims in Alien Society, by Muhammad Samiullah of Pakistan In the footnotes of this book, the author presents the following information on the necktie:

“The practice of the necktie started at the insistence of the Pope in 1700. By 1850 all Christian nations had accepted and implemented this order of the Pope……..Necktie in reality is a symbol of the cross.” (Dr Akhtar Ali, Qaumi Tashakh-khus, pages 5-6)

Towards the end of the 19th century the Europeans omitted from dictionaries and encyclopedias the introductory phase about the necktie, that it is a symbol of the cross….lf one looks at the dictionaries and encyclopaedias  printed before 1898 one will find clear indication of the cross-symbol relationship in the meaning of the necktie/ (Ehsan Qureshi Sabri, Daily  Nawa-e-Waqat) (THE MAJLIS VOL.8 NO.6)


(Hadhrat Mufti Muhammad Shafi)

Acts which are considered to be signs and salient features of shirk, also fall  within the scope of shirk (polytheism). This is borne out by the command of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) when he saw Hadhrat Adi Bin  Hatim (radhiallahu anhu) with the crucifix around his neck. Hadhrat Adi who had converted to Islam from Christianity, once came into the presence  of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with the crucifix around his  neck. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) commanded:

“Remove this idol from your neck”
At this time Hadhrat Adi’s belief was already purified. He did not believe any longer in the cross. (The wearing of the crucifix was merely by force of  habit). However, Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) ordered its removal.  He considered it important to command abstention from displaying even  the external symbols of shirk. But, alas! Today, thousands of Muslims are, in defiance and audacity, donning this very symbol of the crucifix (viz., the necktie), thus making them guilty of the crime of shirk. [THE MAJLIS VOL 9 NO. 12]

One may well consider the claim of the tie being a form of the crucifix as being ludicrous, but consider the following:

The neck tie was designed by the Christian world as a sign of the Cross symbolising Jesus’s (Eesa AJS.)  crucifixion  and is an insignia of the Christian Faith. The practice of the necktie started on the insistence of the Pope In 1790. By 1850 all Christian nations had accepted and implemented this order of the Pope”. (Extracted from Encyclopaedia Britannica), Consider also the following discovery: Towards the  end of the 19th century, the Europeans omitted from dictionaries and Encyclopaedias the Introductory phrase about the necktie being a symbol of the cross. A glance of encyclopaedias printed before 1898 will confirm this point (E. Quraishi  Sabri).

Those with any vestige of Islamic dignity and honour will immediately abandon  such  flagrant  displays  of shirk. Keep in mind the severe reprimand  of Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and let our love for him come to the fore. Those who derive a false sense of elevation and pride from aping the  dress of the West should consider what fools they are. They are feeling  proud about having a rope tied around their necks.
Editor. Al-Jamiat (South Africa) Nov 1995. Vol.2 No. 15


The Qur’aan Majeed says:

“O Son’s of  Aadam, adopt your  beauty at the time of every Salaat”

The validity of Salaat requires concealment of the satr (that portion of the body which has to be compulsorily covered). The satr for males is from the navel to just over the knees which have to be concealed. If any part of the  satr is exposed, the Salaat will not be valid.

However, apart from the validity of Salaat, Allah Ta’ala requires more from  His servants when they stand in His Presence. They have to be properly,  decently and Islamically clad  as is clear from the term zeenat (beauty)  which appears in the aforegoing Qur’aanic verse. Zeenat does not refer to  only the Satr. It refers to decent and Islamic dress. Salaat performed in garments which lack Islamic decency is Makrooh (detestable) and should be repeated.


During Salaat, the servant stands in the special presence of his Creator, Allah Azza Wa Jal. He is, therefore required to adopt dignity , reverence and  respect  He  cannot  act with an indifferent attitude. He is not allowed  to be immodestly and improperly dressed when performing Salaat.  When man visits a worldly king or has to be present in a court of law  presided  over  by  a  non-Muslim  judge  or  he has to attend a conference or any  other meeting which he regards to be of importance, he adorns himself, he  dresses in his best garments to present a proper and a decent image of himself. But, some people having more respect for worldly personalities,  have no regard for the Musjid and the Divine Presence. They come dressed shabbily in jeans, T-shirts, tight-fitting pants which reveal the form of the satr and of even the satr-e-ghaleezah (i.e. of the private Parts). They come  into the Musjid for Salaat with kuffaar Tshirts decorated with stupid  emblems and slogans in emulation of the kuffaar. In Ruhul Ma’aani it is  mentioned:

When Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu)—the grandson of Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)—engaged in Salaat, he would don his best garments. It was said to him: “O Son of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam):  ‘Why  do  you  don  your  best  garments  He  replied: “Verily Allah is beautiful and He loves beauty. I, therefore adorn myself for my Rabb. It is He who says (in the Qur’aan) “Adopt your beauty at every Salaat.” I, therefore love to wear my most beautiful garments.”


The authoritative Book of the Shariah, Badaaius Sanaa’i states that for the purposes of Salaat, garments are classified into three categories:

(1) Mustahabb (preferable) It is Mustahab to perform Salaat in three garments:

Izaar(trousers),Qamees (kurtah-long shirt) and Ridaa (outer shawl). An Amaamah (Turban) or Islamic headgear is also included. Some authorities say that it is Mustahab to have at least two garments-  an upper  and a lower garment since both concealment of the satr and zeenat are  achieved.

(2) Permissible  without  any  Karaahat  (i.e.  without  it  being abominable in  any way): Performance of Salaat in two garments— Qamees and Izaar—is  permissible since both concealment of satr and zeenat are achieved. This is also described as Mustahab by some.

(3) Makrooh (Repugnant): Performance of Salaat in a single garment, viz., in only a trousers (saraaweel) or izaar (lower cloth covering from the navel until just above the ankles) is Makrooh even though the Salaat is validly discharged. The repugnance of performing Salaat in this way is on account  of  the  prohibition  stated  by  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  who prohibited performance of Salaat in a single garment. In Badaaius  Sanaa it appears as follows:

“Makrooh dressing is that a man performs Salaat in one garment(viz. a lower garment) while his shoulders are bare. Although satr-e-aurah is achieved, zeenat is not. Allah Ta’ala says in the Holy Qur’aan: “O Bani Aadam adopt your zeenat at (the time of) every Salaat.” It is narrated that  someone  asked Abdullah Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) about performing  Salaat in a single garment. He responded: If I send you for some work will you walk in a single garment?” The man said: “No!” Abdullah Ibn Umar  replied: “Allah is more deserving that you beautify yourself for Him.”

Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) said: “Verily Salaat in one garment is the act of unjust (shameless) people. Salaat in detestable garments is worst than injustice, and Salaat in (two garments izaar and ridaa’  is among the noble qualities (of character).”(Badaa’i)

Mufti Muhammad Shafi says in Ma-aariful Qur’aan:  “Since, in Salaat, the only demand is not only covering of the satr, but the  command is to adopt zeenat as well, therefore it is Makrooh (abominable)  for a man to perform Salaat with bare-head or with his shoulders exposed or with elbows exposed whether it is a short-sleeved shirt or whether the sleeves are rolled up. In every case the Salaat is Makrooh.

Similarly (Salaat is Makrooh) if performed with a handkerchief tied around  the head. An intelligent man will not go in the presence of his friends and  others in this state. How then can be prefer to go into the presence of  Rabbul Aalameen in this state? The Salaat being Makrooh when performed with bare-head, bared shoulders and uncovered elbows, is substantiated on  the basis of the word zeenat mentioned in the Quraanic verse as well as  from the explicit statements of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)


The importance of correct dress for Salaat is stated in Hajjatullahil Baalighah by Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dahlawi (rahmatullah alayh):

Know that wearing of clothes distinguishes man from all animals. It is among his best conditions…. In dress is the honouring of Salaat and observance of the respects of supplication with Rabbul Aalameen. It is an original incumbency. It has been decreed a condition for the perfection of Salaat…”

The importance of dress for Salaat does not refer to the minimum satr coverage necessary for the validity of the  Salaat. The reference is to correct  dress which is such dress considered Islamically to be respectable. Thus,  garments which are not regarded as respectable in Islamic culture are  Makrooh  and  the  Salaat  too  is  rendered  Makrooh. Salaat performed with sleeves rolled up or with the elbows exposed is considered disrespectful in Islam. It is not regarded as a decent form of dress. In Ahsanul Fatawa, the following is said in this regard:

“It is Makrooh Tahrimi to perform Salaat  with sleeves rolled up without valid reason.”

Ramali has said that Makrooh in this context refers to Makrooh Tahrimi which is a sinful act. The detestibility of performing Salaat with elbows exposed is mentioned in a number of Books of Fiqh.


Some people claim that there is nothing wrong in performing Salaat with sleeves rolled up, with T-shirts, with tight pants and with western shirts and ties because the Shariah has defined the satr to be only from the navel to the knees. This is a childish, silly and ridiculous argument. Those who  present such baseless arguments will not go into public or to court or to  their business places with only loin cloths covering only their satr. They adorn themselves and present a stylish image, adding perfume and lotion and powder, etc. to perfect their appearance. But, for Salaat, when they have to stand in the special presence of Allah Ta’ala they are able to tolerate  hooligan appearances.

If the requirement is only to cover the satr, then why on a hot day do they not come to Musjid with only a piece of cloth covering their satr?? Why do  they not wander around the streets in this nude fashion with only their satr  covered? They refrain from such semi-nudity because they know that they  may be rushed to the madhouse.

When Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has prohibited performance of Salaat in a single garment, it testifies that the requirement for a perfect  Salaat is not mere covering of the satr. Dress plays an important role in the perfection of Salaat. Salaat performed in the indecent dress of the kuffaar is  Makrooh and has to be repeated. Defectively discharged Salaat is flung  back into the faces of the musallis.


Hadhrat Umme Salmah (radhiyallahu anhaa) narrates: “The most liked dress by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) was the qamees (kurtah).” (shamaa-il Tirmizi)

Qamees is a kurtah (the upper garment-a long shirt). The Qamees which  has  the  closest  resemblance  to  the  qamees  of  Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  and  his  Sahaabah  is  the  kurtah adopted by our senior Ulama and Auliya, namely, the Ulama of Deoband.

The  Qamees  of  Rasulullah  (sallallahu  alyahi  wasallam)  in  length reached  half  the  forelegs  (nisf-e-saaqain)—well  below the knees. It never reached the ankles. It is only the qamees (kurtah) of our Ulama  which  measure  up  to  the  dimensions  of  Rasulullah’s (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) kurtah.

The  long  shirt  worn  by  modern  Arabs  nowadays  is  a  decidedly un-lslamic  and  Haraam  garment.  The  factors of prohibition of the maxi-modern long western imitated shirt  are:

(1)  It is ankle-length and below ankle-length is Haraam

(2)  Its  shirt-like  sleeves  with  cuffs  is  in  emulation  of  the kuffaar.

Similarly, the knee and above knee-length kurtah worn by modernist molvis is also not permissible.


Allah Ta’ala has divided mankind into two classes:

Hizbullaah (the Army of Allah) and Hisbush Shaitaan (the  Army of Shaitaan). The kuffaar-  all of them  —  are members  of the army of shaitaan. Rasulullah’ (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) warned:

“Whoever emulates a people becomes of them.”

Muslims who emulate the ways, styles and dress of the  kuffaar should understand that in so doing, they show a  strong  preference  for the army of shaitaan. By the styles and  appearances of the kuffaar. Muslims ultimately  become  members of the army of shaitaan.

The  issue  of  imitating  the  kuffaar in their dress styles is of  such importance and off such a grave nature, that Hadhrat  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), during his Khilaafat, issued special  instructions to his governors to prohibit tashabbuh bil  kuffaar in matters of dress and daily life. In a directive to tfae  governor of Azarbaijaan which had come under the sway of  the Islamic empire, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)  commanded:

“Adopt the dress of your Father, Ismaaeel (alayhis salaam),  and beware of luxury. Wear simple, coarse and old  garments.”

Hadhrat Umar bin Abdul Azeez (rahmatullah alayh) known  as Umar The Second, wrote to his governors:

“Ban  in  your  region  the  wearing  or  the garments of the  Nasaara (Christians)…Be  firm and strict in this  regard\  Disseminate this order in written form so that it  does not remain hidden from anyone.

It has been mentioned to me that numerous among the Nasaara have returned to wearing turbans and they  have abandoned wearing  their waist-girdles (which was  exclusive to them). They have started to grow long  hair  (i.e.  they  had  abandoned  their  Nasaara  style  and had begun adopting the hair style of the Muslims who were the rulers). By Allah! If all this is happening in  your region then it is  clear evidence of your weakness.  Therefore, enforce what I have forbidden. Do not be lax in any of these things, and do not be unjust to anyone.”

Dress-style is a practice of great importance in Islam.  For this reason the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) in particular, went to great lengths to  prevent Muslims from  adopting the dress-styles of non-Muslims and vice-versa as it is clear, from the  directive mentioned above issued by Hadhrat Umar  Bin Abdul Azeez (rahmatullah alayh).