View Single Post
Old 04-03-2010, 01:11 AM   #4
gniewkoit

Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
366
Senior Member
Default
Also Allamah Shabbir Ahmad Uthmani said:

“Isbal according to us is forbidden, even if it is not (done) with conceit [khuyala], unless it is not (done) by choice, due to not attending (to the clothes) and ignorance of it due to walking or (some) other (reason), with the condition that one does not persist on that and corrects it after being told. As for one of the sides of the izar of Abu Bakr being lowered, that was only because he (Allah be pleased with him) did not attend to it, as has occurred (in the narration) according to al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Libas, and (further) detail will come if Allah wills in some other place of this commentary.” (Fath al-Mulhim, vol 2 p. 106)

However, Shaykh Khalil Ahmad al-Saharanpuri said:

“The ‘ulama said: the preferred (mustahabb) (position) for the izar and (other) garment(s) is to half the shins, and (it is) permissible without (any) dislike (karaha) below that to the ankles. Thus, that which descends (below) the ankles is disallowed (mamnu‘). If it is due to conceit it is disallowed prohibitively (tahriman) and otherwise it is disallowed lightly (tanzihan)” (Badhl al-Majhud, Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, Beirut, vol. 16 p. 411)
Assalamu alaikum brothers,

In my opinion the views expressed by Allamah Saharanpuri and Allamah Uthmani are the same but worded differently.

Allamah Saharanpuri is saying:
Below the ankles without pride is mamnu' tanzihan - light prohibition = makhruh tahriman - severe dislike
Below the ankles with pride is mamnu' tahriman - prohibitively (strongly) probited = haraam

Allamah Saharanpuri did not say makhruh tanzihan for below the ankles without pride - but rather mamnu' tanzihan.

Does it sound logical? (I don't know Arabic well - so please clarify).

JazakAllah
gniewkoit is offline


 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:37 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity