"MuslimSister" wrote:

[b]I apologise if this topic is already being discussed in the boys only thread. [/b]

Wasalaam

LOL, that was funny for sum reason, we discuss useless things like who's got the coolest beard, n which razor (shaving razors, not me ) is better.

BTW, I havent posted a pic of my beard, im waitin to let people think they hav cool beards, then one day, WHAM, RITE IN DA FACE. They will see, i hav the coolest of cool beards., Also, im very modest about it

"MuslimSister" wrote:

Salaam

The Holy Prophet said “Whatever of the lower garment is below the ankles is in the Fire.”

[b]Some say that it’s only wrong if one does this out of arrogance like the Arabs used to…others claim that there is no condition on this ruling. [/b]

Wasalaam

Salaam

I also follow that view. Also should be noted it says 'dangling below ankles' but some guys tak the alway the up to the calf muscles just to be safe, which is cool.

That view was expounded to me by a scholar who said if it is below the aankles and not out of pride then one may be following the sunnah of Hadhrat Abu Bakr RA.

I sometimes keep them above sometimes not, depends usually, most people take it as a not so important issue, but that may be because it doesn't signify pride in todays society but is about looking smart. :?

"Dawud" wrote:

"MuslimSister" wrote:

Salaam

The Holy Prophet said “Whatever of the lower garment is below the ankles is in the Fire.”

[b]Some say that it’s only wrong if one does this out of arrogance like the Arabs used to…others claim that there is no condition on this ruling. [/b]

Wasalaam

Salaam

I also follow that view. Also should be noted it says 'dangling below ankles' but some guys tak the alway the up to the calf muscles just to be safe, which is cool.

That view was expounded to me by a scholar who said if it is below the aankles and not out of pride then one may be following the sunnah of Hadhrat Abu Bakr RA.

I sometimes keep them above sometimes not, depends usually, most people take it as a not so important issue, but that may be because it doesn't signify pride in todays society but is about looking smart. :?

WOW, i thought this was only for the daily prayers. (salat).

So u gotta walk round wiv ya bottoms over ya ankles? hmmm? Wat bout the thowbs scholors wear with are below ankles?

From what I understand that hadith referes to wearing long garments in arrogance.

Like the queen with ten people behinf her holdinh the back of her dress, but to a lesser extent.

HGowever I am aware that others take this very seriously.

One thing that has been taught to me is that if one has the ankles covered, it worse to roll up the trousers just for salaah. |In such a situation they should be left unrolled.

This topic is one I have not thought about in years!

lol.... for the record my pants are NOT on fire.

Ive always thought this is one of those things thats recommended but not absolutely necessary.

So what your saying is that if im wearing really long 'pants' for whatever reason the bottom part will catch fire??

Loooooooooooooooooooool @ this topic. Most of the religious boys in my university roll up their trousers half way up their leg. It looks like Jack ups :D.
Even Jackson can not carry of this look.

"Seraphim" wrote:

for whatever reason the bottom part will catch fire??

Actually the reason matters, however I think its less of a danger in this country cos to me, pants that go below the shoes [u]and[/u] drag on the ground signify trampiness.

i shudnt generalise...BUT

from what i seen in uni-only the wahabi boys pull their trousers up

"MuslimSisLilSis" wrote:

i shudnt generalise...BUT

from what i seen in uni-only the wahabi boys pull their trousers up

LOL, ive been holdin back from saying this.

This issue is blown out of proportion by some peoples according to Shaykh Hamza Yusuf.

There are people who pay more attention to people physical looks, i.e.for a guy - "hav i got a beard which is long enough n wearing pants over ankles", Girls - "am i wearing hijaab, jilbaab" rather than lookin within, people tend to look at the outside

Nope, just men, I'm pretty sure...To quote Med a few months back:

"This society is backwards, men are covering their ankles and women are uncovering them."

the 'long train' is covered by this.

Its a sign of arrogance, which is used by upper echelons of society, and copied by lesser people.

(and yes I wanted to use big words.)

"MuslimSister" wrote:

Girls often wear longish skirts or jilbaab's that sometimes touch the floor..and many wedding dresses (English/Asian) are designed with a long train, I take it, this ruling doesnt apply to them?

dunno bout the train, as admin said, i assume it denotes arrogance or atleast status, then again maybe its summat that depends on one's intention.

but about the long skirts or jilbaabs, i prefer them because they look more elegant, but only problem is when u go out on a wet day, as my mom says, 'you pick up the filth from the road', so can't really pray in those clothes.

it's considered a sin to cover the ankles out of prayer aswell, it's not merely a prerequisite of prayer according to the hanafi school see here:

http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=64&CATE=90
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=4931&CATE=4

I can't find it but i know i've read it before someone can help me out i'm sure. With women it's different. They are allowed to let their garment drag a handspan length over their ankles- (there's hadith on it). Maybe 1-2 inches to ensure they are totally covered. If however they don't want dirt on their garment then they may prefer not to do this. Wear trousers or a long skirt under the jilbab to ensure ankles are covered. I prefer to wear trousers rather than let the jilbab drag. Specially with UK weather it rains a lot it's not nice getting jilbab wet.

This is different from wedding trails and trails on skirts. That is totally forbidden as far as i know coz the pagans did it as a sign of their status in society, it's regarded as a form of arrogance, whether you do it by arrogance or not it's still sinful.

"yashmaki" wrote:

That is totally forbidden as far as i know coz the pagans did it as a sign of their status in society, it's regarded as a form of arrogance, whether you do it by arrogance or not it's still sinful.

pagans also used to wear eyeliner

so is that forbidden too?

the upper class english used to wear heavy white ghostly make up to diffentiate themselves from the poor who used to have dark tans cos they were doing manual labour out in the sun all day

it was a status thing

so is wearing face powder forbidden too-regardless of ur intention? :roll:

nope but there's lots of evidence as to why we shouldn't trail our garments, nothing saying we can't wear eyeliner, cept maybe in front of strange men.

What's with the sarcy reply anyways I was trying to give out some important info for those who wanted to know the ruling, it's not like i made the whole thing up?

Each to their own

"yashmaki" wrote:

What's with the sarcy reply anyways I was trying to give out some important info for those who wanted to know the ruling, it's not like i made the whole thing up?

i never said u did make it up.

but the i did find the pagan comment funny. esp since many things have pagan roots

and like i said above-snobby, rich english ppl used to wear face powder out of arrogance

but if we do the same i doubt we be sinning

But if the scholars are telling us it's a sin, then it must be a big deal huh? Best ask your local scholar see what their position is on it. There may be differences of opinion concerning ladies garments.

but ur own links said its not considered a sin by all

"However, classical hadith commentators........and other major classic Hanafi references say that it is only prohibitively disliked to keep one's lower garment below the ankles if it is done out of arrogance, as many of the hadiths from the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) mention explicitly

If not done out of arrogance, it is somewhat disliked (makruh tanzihan) or even simply leaving the best way (khilaf al-awla)"

OTHER LINK

"The established position of the Shafi`i school....is that it is somewhat disliked (makruh tanzihan) to lengthen one's trousers without pride, and sinful when with pride

The Shafi`i scholars confirm that we do not affirm that someone who simply happens to lengthen is "being proud" by "turning away" from the sunna; rather, they are doing something somewhat disliked and would only be sinful if their motivation was pride or arrogance.

The same details are found in the works of the Hanbalis
You can find the same in the major reference works of the Malikis.

This is also the same as what you'll find in many of the major references of Hanafi fiqh"

"yashmaki" wrote:

But if the scholars are telling us it's a sin, then it must be a big deal huh? Best ask your local scholar see what their position is on it. There may be differences of opinion concerning ladies garments.

I have been told that there is a hadith (which I myself have not seen, so take it with a pinch of salt, but the source is reliable...) that Hadhrat ABu Bakr asked the prophet wether he too should have his ankles uncovered (or somethign similar... long time no study of topic as I mentioned earlier), and the reply was something like he was not one of those to whom it implied...

So the two positions are nothing below the ankles is allowed, and secondly nothing below the ankles is allowd for fashionable/arrogance purposes.

One thing I was taught was that no matter which position one's fiqh taught from the two, it was considered worse for just rolling up just for salaah. Bigger sin apparently.

"MuslimSisLilSis" wrote:

but ur own links said its not considered a sin by all
...

"The established position of the Shafi`i school....is that it is somewhat disliked (makruh tanzihan) to lengthen one's trousers without pride, and sinful when with pride"

"Admin" wrote:

"yashmaki" wrote:

But if the scholars are telling us it's a sin, then it must be a big deal huh? Best ask your local scholar see what their position is on it. There may be differences of opinion concerning ladies garments.

I have been told that there is a hadith (which I myself have not seen, so take it with a pinch of salt, but the source is reliable...) that Hadhrat ABu Bakr asked the prophet wether he too should have his ankles uncovered (or somethign similar... long time no study of topic as I mentioned earlier), and the reply was something like he was not one of those to whom it implied...

guys, wasn't yash referring to wedding dress trains in that quote, as opposed to men's trousers?

I thought it was both... Probably my mistake, as I know some people say even trousers are not allowed below the ankle... and they have their evidence.

Admin, so accordin to this HAdith, was commentary given as to why that was said?

cannae remember.

The hadith with I referenced being told about said it was about arrogance.. but that is what I was told, and not out of some textbook, or big scholar...

and then there is the question of what places us in not being of those people?is that not arrogance in itself?

what lilsis was having a go about was the wedding trail. Coz there's hadith which i haven't dug out yet that says women can lower their garments a handspan length so as to ensure they are full covered. Anything longer than that however is considered sinful. Whether it's makruh or worse I don't know. But I remember looking into this just before I did my wedding shopping.

As for men's trousers being above their ankles all four schools of thght consider it a grave sin to leave trousers hanging lower than the ankles. Although there are certain students of the Imams who said it's extremely disliked and therefore gave some leeway to it, most of todays scholars suggest men should keep their trousers above their ankles.

As I said earlier if you follow a particular scholar it's best to consult him, so as not to follow your own desires. If he says you can keep them covered fair dos no sin upon you. I really don't wana argue. Feels like everything turns into some sort of feud lately.

So what you're saying is guys cant wear trousers/Jeans whose length falls below their ankles? Bcoz its considered a sign of pride?

{guess i should burn all my clothes then}

What about shorts? I have a pair that go to my shins, so its lower than the knees but now quite near the ankles?

I just think its a little OTT to be honest. Trousers are supposed to go just beneathe the ankles otherwise it looks like you've bought a pair thats too small for you.

"Seraphim" wrote:

So what you're saying is guys cant wear trousers/Jeans whose length falls below their ankles? Bcoz its considered a sign of pride?

.

i aint saying that

read the posts above

its only a sin if done out of pride-based on what the scholars have said in the links given above

"MuslimSisLilSis" wrote:

read the posts above

READ :shock: That wasnt part of the deal....

cant you just give me the short version??

I dont consider wearing trousers a sign of pride... i only where them coz its a choice between that and a kilt...and englands too cold for a kilt... even tho im not scottish.

Heres a random question: wheres our resident scot angel??? I havent mentioned her lovable IrnBru in some time.

Salam,

I had this argument with some brother yesterday at library….(which I am sure people around us just thinking what is these crazy guys talking about ... specially when its get so hot) newyay … I think Islam came to fit every time and every place, just think of the reason of why the prophet said that hadith not just the fact he said it.

at the prophet time, that was arrogance and now it NOT. And I am sure if the prophet came in our time… he would of said something different……may be if u have neons in ur car and going with loud music that would be classified as arrogance and showing off.

Wa allah a'lam