[AssinHT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz7EVkIzm0M

[envenonearo]

I respect the Shaykh. Is this hadith applicable to all Muslims in all times and in all places or was this only relevant in the time of the Rasul salalahu alhi wassalam? I have been told that in those times it was a matter of pride and status to drag ones clothes on the ground amongst the pagan Arabs. And to remove this trait from the Muslims this hadith was related to them. We do not have the same pagan antecedents so the hadith is not general for all Muslim men in all times and places?

[sam]

All ahkam from the legislatives sources apply universally unless specified to a particular person, situation, etc. The circumstances surrounding a particular ruling/hukm are also defined by the legislatives sources and not human intellect

Horwever, the issue of this matter pertains to understanding of the actual text.

Here is another opinion on the matter which examines the arabic text:

Sheikh Muhammad Muhammad Sâlim `Abd al-Wadûd
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will not look at whoever dragged his garment out of pride.” Abû Bakr said to him: “O Messenger of Allah, my waistcloth slips down if I do not pay attention to it.” He said: “You are not one of those who do it out of pride.” [Related in full in Sahîh al-Bukhârî (5784) and partially in Sahîh Muslim (2085)]

I hold the view that the rulings against wearing clothes below the ankles (isbâl) does not apply to pants. The prohibition applies to articles of clothing like robes (thawb) and waistcloths (izâr) that go around both feet together, since it is these types of clothing that, by their nature, drag upon the ground.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever drags his garment (jarra thawbahu) out of pride…”

Pants, by their nature, are not dragged upon the ground in this matter. Therefore, the very idea of isbâl is not applicable to pants.

Those who apply the ruling to the pants consider the generality of the term “garment” (thawb). In one narration, one narrator (Shu`bah) asked his sheikh among the narrators: “Did he mention the waistcloth?” The sheikh replied: “He did not specify either a waistcloth or a shirt.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (5791)]

The issue at hand is whether the word garment (thawb) is to be understood as being specified by the verb “drag” (jarra) that is connected with it. The verb jarra means “to tow, to pull or drag along.” Therefore, I hold that the ruling applies to the action of wearing garments that are dragged along behind.

Those who disagree and apply the ruling of isbâl to pants do not specify the noun “garment” by the context of the verb.

And Allah knows best. Here are some of the differences from the schools of Fiqh from an opinion from Sheikh Salman al-Oadah:


In his commentary on Sahîh Muslim, the Shâfi`î jurist al-Nawawî writes:
The apparent meaning of these hadîth, by qualifying the act of dragging one’s garments with prideful intent, is that the prohibition is specific for doing this act out of pride. [Sharh Sahîh Muslim (14/62)]
Likewise, al-Shâfî`î expressed that there is such a difference in ruling, saying that whatever falls below the ankles is proscribed. However, if it is worn that way out of pride, then it is proscribed to the extent of being unlawful. Otherwise, it is proscribed only to the extent of reproach.

As for the hadîth stating that what is below the ankles is in the fire, they make no mention of prideful intent. However, their intended meaning is that of clothing being worn that way out of pride. This understanding is drawn from the juristic principle that an unqualified statement on a matter should be understood in the contexts of other statements on the matter that have qualifications attached to them.

We see similar statements in Hanbalî law. In the Hanbalî legal work entitled al-Insâf (1/472), the author mentions a ruling of mere dislike for dragging one’s garments. He writes:
This is one of the two opinions. This is the only opinion expressed in al-Hidâyah. It is the position of the school of thought and that of Ahmad…
He then mentions a number of Hanbalî law books that support this point of view. He then goes on to say:
This is, however, a very weak opinion if we mean by dislike a ruling of mere reproach. If we look at what the author of al-Mughnî says as well as what al-Majd writes in his commentary upon it, we see that they state: “What is intended here is the dislike that is indicative of unlawfulness.” This ruling is more appropriate.
The Hanbalî works al-Furû` and al-Ri`âyah al-Kubrâ state that there is disagreement within the school of thought as to whether allowing garments to hang below the ankles is unlawful or merely disliked. One opinion on the matter is that it is unlawful except during war or in cases where there is a need to do so. The conclusion reached in these books is that “this is the correct ruling from which there can be no departure. This is the position of the school of thought and the apparent meaning of Ahmad’s statements.”

The Mâlikî scholar, Ibn al-`Arabî writes in his commentary on Sunan al-Tirmidhî:
It is impermissible for a man to allow his garment to reach below his ankles


What I advise for Muslims to put into practice is for them to avoid allowing their lower garments to drag below their ankles, even if they do so without pride. This is because it can lead to pride and can lead people to think ill of the one who is doing it or lead them to follow his example. Also, we must consider that it is wasteful.

And Allah knows best. .