Salām.

Its dissappointing that there is no mention of the wisdom of this principle.

“...Raise your izār (lower garement) half way up your shin, if you are averse to this, then just above your ankles. Beware of letting the izār hang down, for it is from pride, and Allāh does not like pride...”

[Abu Dawud]

Now before we begin to condemn all those who do not practise this to Hell, let us consider the difference of opinion. Some say that at that time and place, this action represented pride, because those who could afford new clothes allowed their garments to hang down and get dirty in the muddy and sandy environment, and those who could not afford new clothes, lifted them higher. So the Prophet (s) told them all to lift them higher, so there was no chance of one demonstrating their pride.

However, this action of pride does not necessarily apply in today’s world. You can wear normal trousers without worrying about getting them dirty, therefore without any pride.

What if the idea changes in today’s world - and it becomes an act of pride to lift the garmet? This is the case with the Queen, you can see pictures of her with a cloak and 2 servents behind her lifting her cloak. Isn’t that pride?

If the Prophet (s) was travelling and the wind blew the sand and he told people to cover their eyes, this principle of covering the eyes would not apply today where sand does not blow!

However, this principle can still be followed today by abondoning ANY action of pride. For example, in Pakistan, when it comes to the time of Eid and sacrifice, the rich buy the best animals and tie them outside their house, showing-off to everybody the animal that they have obtained. This is an action of pride, just because it did not happen at the time of the Prophet (s), does not mean that it is ok to practise.

I’m not saying that we should not practise the principle of izār, I’m just explaining another peoples difference of opinion on this issue. Personally I think it is better to observe it, although its only fair to let others give their say on the matter.

Wa salām,

Zishān.

Bismillāh.

al-Salāmu ‘alaykum Zishān,

Jazākum Allāhu khayran for your comments.

Although at times when I’m writing I may allude to particular fiqh issues, it has not been my intent to present a detailed analysis of any particular issue. I tend to try and keep what I writedown to around the two and half pages in a Word document(this reply excluded), so please understand that when I mention something I’m also pursuing a goal of brevity at times. When I mention a particular issue I will invariably mention the opinion that I’ve been taught is the strongest and will rarely enter into a detailed account of the differences and the respective evidences.

However, never be disappointed if I don’t touch on an opinion that you feel is stronger, you are most welcome to post the arguments that have been presented by the scholars who differed.

Regarding the specific points you made I would like to respond a little to them if I may?

Firstly in regards to condemning all those to Hell who don’t practice this, then this is not an entirely accurate representation. Like any other ruling that has been encroached upon we say that a person falls under the threat (wa’īd) of the punishment mentioned. Whether Allāh will punish them or not is known only to Him. He may punish and He may forgive the person, the person may have other good deeds that will intercede on his behalf and remove that specific punishment from him, etc. Plus there’s the case of someone having erred in their ijtihād. I was particular when I wrote the article to have said that a person is under the threat of the punishment, not that they will all specifically be there.

In regards to the meaning of “The part of the izār which hangs below the ankles is in the fire”; then Ibn Hajr was of the opinion that the obvious literal meaning holds true, that the clothes together with the part that hangs below will be in the Hell fire. So if my words seem harsh I am restricted by the text of the ahādīth and cannot temper a saying that mentions a punishment by suggesting that it is other than it was stated.

Incidentally, I mentioned this particular issue of fiqh because from my own personal observation I feel that it is an issue of fiqh that is often belittled. It is common for it to be cited in the context of extremism or of “over concern” with “minor” issues. For example, a speaker may say “You have people dying around the world and the youth are preoccupied with the length of someone’s trousers!” I’ve heard such statements many times and it has the effect in the minds of people that this is an issue of little importance and for someone to mention it is to show concern for something that is trivial. But this is not the case, the religion is all inclusive and all of it is important. When Allāh said “O you who believe! Enter perfectly in Islām and follow not the footsteps of Shaytān.” (al-Baqarah 2:208) Ibn Kathīr said in his tafsīr of this ayah “Enter in Islām and obey all of its rules and regulations.”

It is indeed the opinion of many scholars that the ahādīth referring to isbāl are restricted in application to those who do so out of makhīlah (conceit, arrogance) as you argued. I’d also like to mention some of the replies that have been given to those who argue that the prohibition is restricted in this way.

One such point is that for someone to say that they are doing something without pride is from pride itself because pride is something that is not tangible and one is not able to accurately say whether he is free from it or not. Such knowledge is from the ghayb (unseen) and requires wahy to ascertain; for example in the hadīth regarding isbāl the Messenger of Allāh (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) informed Abu Bakr when he complained “My izār sometimes hangs low (in another narration he said, “One of the sides of my lower garments hangs low if I do not take care of it)” (Bukhari & Abū Dawūd); he (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said “but you are not one of them (i.e. someone with conceit/arrogance).” The Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was able to make such a statement that Abu Bakr did not do it from pride, but who here can claim with certainty that they are free from pride in a particular action, we hope that our intentions are clean but Allāh knows?

Even from this hadīth we see that Abu Bakr was asking out of concern about when he falls into isbāl without intending to, i.e. when it slips down. ‘Ā’isha is reported as having explained that “Abu Bakr was ahnā {having a bent back} his izār could not hold on him; it used to go loose around his loins” (Ibn Sa’d & quoted by Ibn Hajr). We note that Abu Bakr mentioned “if I don’t take care of it”, so it is evident that he was trying to wear it above his ankles.

We also find hadīth where there appears no evidence that makhīlah was the motivation yet the person was still commanded to raise his izār.

Take for example when the Messenger (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said to a man, “Pull up your izār and fear Allāh.” The man said: “I am an ahnaf (a person with a foot disorder) person with trembling knees.” He (the Prophet sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said:
“Tug up your izār! Certainly, all of Allāh’s creation is good.” Since then the man was not seen except with his izār touching the middle of his shins.” (Ahmad)
The Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) did not enquire if the person was doing it from pride. The man actually stated his reason for being a musbil, i.e. he was an ahnaf and was attempting to cover this; yet he was still commanded to raise it.

Next, from an usūlī perspective we find proofs that it is a prohibition rather than a recommendation because the commands to raise the izār come in the linguistic imperative (i.e. command) form; which from usūl, indicates tahrīm (prohibition), in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

For example, from the hadīth in Ahmad I cited before we find the phrase: “Pull up your izār (Irfa’a izārak)…” appears twice, the second time translated as “Tug up your Izār” It comes in the imperative form and is applicable whether it is with or without makhīlah.

Also from usūl the prohibition is stated in general terms “Do not lower your garment… (Lā tusbil)” (Ibn Mājah, I cited the full text in the article) And once again in the imperative form.

Ibn Hajr, when commentating on some of the ahādīth on isbāl said “The isbāl mentioned in these ahādīth is a grave sin if it is done out of makhīlah, otherwise the apparent meaning of the ahādīth indicates that it is forbidden.”

And this is the position that I follow and which I was taught was the strongest, that the ahādīth mention that isbāl is something prohibited in general, both with or without makhīlah. The one who does isbāl with makhīlah has transgressed further than the one who does it without, but both are prohibited and both need to rectify the situation when they discover they are doing it.

In regards to the hikmah of the ruling, the majority of scholars hold that the rules of the sharī’ah are founded in their ‘illah (legislative/effective cause) not in their hikmah (objectives/wisdom). So I disagree with your examples where you used a perceived hikmah to make qiyās for other situations. Scholars have argued that it is the ‘illah that is used for the basis of qiyās rather than the hikmah because the hikmah in a ruling is often something that varies and can be a hidden quality which cannot be detected or measured by the human senses.

A brief article on the subtle differences between the ‘illah and the hikmah of a ruling can be found here: http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=2&sub_cat_id=727

Take as an example the issue of the shortening of the prayers for the traveller. The ‘illah (legislative cause) is the travelling itself and where this ‘illah is found the ruling can be implemented, i.e. when you are travelling you shorten your prayers. Now the hikmah in this example would be that it “reduces hardship from the traveller”. However, it is possible to travel without hardship (i.e. this particular hikmah is not present although others may be) and yet we are still allowed to shorten our prayers. The implementation of the ruling is not dependent upon the hikmah but rather upon the ‘illah and indeed, as we showed, the hikmah may not always be present. As an example, we cannot make qiyās on the hikmah of this ruling and say that whenever there is hardship we can shorten our prayers; like on our wedding day arguing that we’ve got a million and one things to do and claim hardship then pray zhuhr as two rak’ahs.

Also in the example you mentioned of the Queen wearing a cloak that is lifted, this could be shown to be prohibited with an explicit text and thus foregoing the need to attempt qiyās on the ahādīth of isbāl in the manner that you suggested. “On the day of Resurrection, Allah will clothe the one who wears garments of fame with garments of humiliation” (Ahmad and others) We’d give priority to the explicit text in deriving the ruling over an obscure qiyās from another text.

I’d like to comment on where you said here “However, this action of pride does not necessarily apply in today’s world. You can wear normal trousers without worrying about getting them dirty, therefore without any pride.”

You seemed to suggest that there is some causal link between dirt and pride. I don’t understand your reasoning here, that the presence of dirt indicates pride. Actually preventing both of these factors (pride, dirt) could be viewed as amongst the hikmah of the ruling; along with avoiding excess/extravagance (i.e. wasting of material) in isbāl and avoiding imitating women (who are commanded to wear their garments below their ankles).

I’d like to argue that there can indeed be observed into today’s garments (trousers/pants) evidence of all these factors. For example, you only have to look at flares (which regularly come in and out of “fashion”) or the baggy trousers of hip-hop culture to observe excess, extravagance of material used, worn with pride, they also tend to drag on the floor and become dirty and worn, and in many cases they can even mirror the “fashions” of women.

So in summary the position I was taught and which I follow is that this is something prohibited for a Muslim male, he is not allowed to let his garment hang below the ankles. It is an obligation to raise, rather than a recommendation. The one who does it out of pride/arrogance has sinned more so than the one who does it without, but both should raise it. The one who lets it hang out of inattentiveness (i.e. when it becomes loose and hangs low whilst he intended it to be above the ankles) is excused.

However, I totally accept that there is a difference of opinion in this issue and respect that; I just wanted to mention some of the evidence behind the position that I follow, as you had mentioned the arguments known to you, as a means of achieving some balance.

Seriously, jazākum Allāhu khairan for your input and may Allāh grant us all fiqh of His dīn. My apologies for a late response but I’ve been a little busy.

JazākAllāhu khairan… its so refreshing that we can have a discusstion on Islām without resorting to argumentation; congratulations upon a polite, well-structured and clear response with evidences.

My dissappointment was that pride was not mentioned in the original post. However, there was absolutely no objection on the command to lift the garment at the time of the Prophet (s).

The difference of opinion only comes in when deciding if this command of lifting the garment is valid today. There are two things to look at: what I call the principle and the object. The principle in this case is an action of pride: therefore ANY action of pride should be abondoned. Now at that time, one of the objects of this principle was lifting the garment. Now the question is, does it remain an object of the principle today?

Principles remain the same, but objects are subject to change. For example, in the Qurān, Allāh commands the Believers in the context of warfare to gather ‘ribāt al-khail’ which I believe means ‘horses tied at the frontier’. Now does that mean we must have horses in today’s warfare? Here, the principle is to obtain power in warfare, and the object was horses. But now, although the principle of gathering power remains, perhaps the object has changed, maybe to tanks and other technologies?

Also, the principle of pride can have objects that did not exist at earlier times, as I previously quoted with the animal slaughtering example. But these objects should be included in the prohibition because they are of the same principle, not forgotten just because they were not objects at the time of the Prophet (s).

I can give many other examples of things where we follow the Prophet’s (s) principle rather than the object. His principle was travelling, his object was a horse. Our principle is also travelling, but our object of transport may be different.

There are so many examples… in some areas and times, showing the palm of the hand may be offensive, but in others it may be polite. But where-ever you go, the principle of not offending people remains.

Now who can decide whether the lifting of the garment is still an object of the principle of pride today? Well, if there is no link anymore to pride, then it isn’t.

Having said all this, my position is to follow your understanding, and lift the garment. This is because, although I respect the difference of opinion, I would rather avoid doubt for fear of coming in the same category as those who have been condemned by the Prophet (s), for not lifting their garment. And it is best to leave what causes you doubt, towards what does not cause you doubt.

Wa salām,

Zishān.

Salām,

Can I just add to that… there is a clear link between lifting the garment and pride from the Hadith. However, it seems as though you have added links using your own mind, saying that it is ‘avoiding excess/extravagance (i.e. wasting of material)’ and it is ‘avoiding imitating women (who are commanded to wear their garments below their ankles).’

I don’t agree with this at all, IF there is not any evidence that suggests these links. Extravagence? You can buy a small sized pair of trousers for the same price as an XXL pair of trousers. And surely a couple of inches of material is not extravagent. And I really don’t think that wearing ‘normal’ trousers would be imitating women… these points because I have found no evidence to back your links up, and Allāh knows best.

Wa salām,

Zishān.

Bismillāh.

al-Salāmu ‘alaykum Zishān,

The difference between the scholars comes in two primary areas: 1) Is the prohibition to lower the garment below the ankle restricted to those who do so out of pride? 2) Is the type of garment that falls under the ruling general or restricted to those clothes that wrap around, such as the thobe and the izār (i.e. not trousers/pants)?

There are those scholars who hold that the prohibition of allowing one’s garments to fall below the ankles is specific to someone who does so out of makhīlah (pride/conceit), which is also the position you advocate. Their argument in favour of this is that the generality of the command to raise the izār becomes specified by the statement “… and beware of the isbāl of the izār because it is from al-makhīlah (conceit, arrogance, etc.)” Which as you mentioned can be found in Abū Dawūd. This is a principle from usūl al-fiqh, the general becomes qualified by the specific, known as takhsīs al-‘amm. This is a known and accepted principle of usūl and some scholars who looked at this specific issue of fiqh conclude that the generality has been specified, and the prohibited isbāl is the one done from pride.

What you are arguing, although similar in conclusion, is slightly different. You appear to me to be arguing that the relevancy or applicability of a text/ruling is culturally variant. In usūl al-fiqh we do have the principle of ‘urf (custom) which is defined as “recurring practices which are acceptable to people of sound nature.” (Kamali, p.283) Provided that custom does not contravene the principles of the sharī’ah it is considered valid and authorative. Al-Suyuti said “What is proven by ‘urf is like that which is proven by a shar’ī proof.” (Kamali, p.284) I’ll give an example of the application of ‘urf: The issue of a husband and wife holding hands in public, we don’t have any textual evidence on this issue so we refer it to the ‘urf and consequently the ruling may vary between localities. For a husband and wife to hold hands in public in this country (UK) it is an accepted cultural norm, yet somewhere like Saudi it would be socially frowned upon and so the ruling varies between these two localities.

However, please note that we only make recourse to the ‘urf in the absence of textual evidence on the subject. So we do not say that specific textual injunction become abrogated by the custom of the people. Because you can have customs of the people that are in clear variance to the texts (nusūs), these are known as al-‘urf al-fāsid (disapproved customs). An example would be the case of ribā. No matter how culturally accepted or widespread ribā becomes in a society, we will never say that the custom of the people has specified the application of the prohibition of ribā in transactions.

I’d thoroughly recommend that if do you have some time to read more into usūl al-fiqh as it helps develop one’s understanding of why a ruling is one way and not another. Many of the principles that we’d think are principles of logic are found in usūl and have extensive proofs from the sharī’ah for there usage. We also learn how various principles are given precedence over others in particular situations. And with the depth of scholarship behind such principles it is better that we refer to them in discussion, than that we approach evidences with our own logical deductions. The most thorough work on this topic in English is likely “Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence” by Prof. Mohammad Kamali, which I could also send you a pdf version of, if it would be of any interest?

The second issue that can have an impact on whether the ruling is applicable to the trousers or not is: how general is the type of garments that fall under the prohibition? One side (who I support) argue that the command to raise the garments is made in a general form and therefore encompass any and every garment that has the potential to fall below the ankle. The other side argues that the prohibition is specific to the types of clothing mentioned in the narrations, such as those wrap around clothes like the thobe, izār, etc. Those who argue this naturally exclude the trousers/pants from the prohibition. As I mentioned, from the perspective of usūl the command form is general and so I follow those who hold that it is inclusive of any garment with the potential to hang below. Hence, from what I follow, trousers would be subject to the prohibition.

In the same way that we are now debating the issue of applicability to trousers/pants, scholars of the past debated the issue of this injunction applying to those who leave extremely long ends on their turbans, such that it would actually hang below their ankles.

Now returning to the specification, other scholars have argued that specification has not been established and the prohibition is not restricted in application to makhīlah because other evidence indicate otherwise.

For example:

“The Messenger of Allaah (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said: ‘The lower garment of the Muslim should come down to mid-calf, but there is nothing wrong if it is between that point and the ankles. Whatever is lower than the ankles is in the Fire. Whoever trails his garment on the ground out of pride, Allāh will not look at him.” (Abū Dawūd)

Now this hadīth refers to two separate cases. Case one “whatever is lower than the ankles” this is said to be “in the Fire”. Case two “the garment trailed on the ground out of pride” about this it is said that “Allāh will not look at him”. So rather than one specifying the other, it is two separate scenarios each being warned against in a slightly different manner. Hence the conclusion that I mentioned in my last post, the one who allows his garment to fall below his ankle out of pride has transgressed further than the one who does it without pride, however both have fallen into the prohibition.

Secondly, as we discussed in the previous post that I made, the hadīth where Abu Bakr (radiya Allāhu ‘anh) made the statement “… if I do not take care of it” shows that he was in fact trying to raise his izār but that his physical features meant that sometimes it fell below his ankles. Abu Bakr was not someone (as testified to by the Prophet ‘alayhi al-salām) that let his garment hang from pride, yet he was still trying to raise it.

Even the Messenger of Allāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was certainly not someone with arrogance and yet what was his example in regards to his izār? ‘Uthmān said “The lower garment of the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) extended to the middle of his shins.” (al-Sham’īl – al-Tirmidhi)

“Indeed in the Messenger of Allāh you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allāh and the Last Day and remembers Allāh much.” (al-Ahzāb 33:21)

We also previously mentioned the case of the man who lowered his garment because he was ahnaf, again no mention of pride and yet he was still ordered to raise it.

So many scholars have concluded that the prohibition is not restricted to arrogance but that the one who does it out of arrogance has sinned more than the one who does it without, but both are commanded to raise their izār. Wa Allāh a’lam.

Regarding the other wisdoms that have been noted in the ruling for a man to raise his izār, then these were not from myself but I was reiterating points that I have read from various scholars. I assume you haven’t come across them before which may be what lead to you to the conclusion that I had made them up, I shall expand a little further here so that you can understand why I said such.

Imitation of women:

Firstly, we know of the hadīth “Allāh cursed the man dressed like a woman and the woman dressed like a man.” (Abū Dawūd, Ibn Mājah)

Secondly, in regards to a woman having to lower her garments below the ankle we have the hadīth:

Ibn ‘Umar said that: “The Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, ‘the one who trails his thobe out of conceit, Allāh will not look at him on the Day of Judgement.’” Umm Salamah said: “What should the women, O Messenger of Allāh, do with the lower ends of their dresses?” He said: “They may let them hang down a span.” She said: “Still their feet will be uncovered.” He said: “Then let them hang the ends down a forearm’s length, not exceeding it.” (Abū Dawūd)

So we can see that the lowering the garments is from the dress code of the women. And just in case it is thought that I am still unique to have made this observation, it is reported in al-Tabarī that:

When ‘Umar bin Khattab (radiya Allāhu ‘anh) saw a man dragging his izār, he called upon him and said: “Are you having your menses?” The man replied: “O Amīr al-Mu’minīn! Does a man have menses?” ‘Umar said: “What made you drag your izār over your feet?” He then ordered a blade, folded (the lower ends of) the man’s izār and cut what trailed below the ankles. (I’m quoting this from a book by Dr. al-Sālih)

Extravagance:

I’m sure you’re already familiar with the ayah which condemns extravagance:

“And eat and drink but waste not by extravagance, certainly He (Allāh) likes not those who are extravagant.” (al-‘Arāf 7:38)

Now Ibn Hajr said in fath al-Bārī “If the thobe (as well as all other garments) exceeds the appropriate size of the one who wears it, then it would be prohibited based upon extravagance and that leads to tahrīm (prohibition).” (Again, I’m quoting this from a book by Dr. al-Sālih)

There are a number of contemporary scholars who have mentioned that isbāl is from extravagance and I only followed them in their statement.

Unclean, Longevity of the material:

Although you did not specifically question the evidence that these two factors can be considered amongst the wisdom of the prohibition to allow one’s garment to hang below the ankle, I would like to mention a narration that backs this up.

“’Ubayd bin Khālid said: ‘I was walking trailing my burd (a black decorated square garment). A man spoke to me saying: ‘Pull up your thobe because that (will keep it) more clean and it will last longer.’ I looked (to see who was talking to me) and he was the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam). I said: ‘It is only a black and white striped burdah (outer garment).’ He said: ‘Don’t you have an example in me?’ I said: ‘I looked (at him) and his izār was (extending) to the middle of his shins.’” (This is collected in al-Shamā’il al-Muhammadiyah of al-Tirmidhi)

Lastly, in regards to me to my own observations on some fashions, I suggested that indeed many of these wisdoms behind the rulings can be observed in some designs. I did not make a general statement that all trousers are worn out of pride, rather I mentioned some designs that came to mind. For example when I see some of the youth who’s trousers are so loose, wide and long that their shoes are totally obscured from vision, I cannot help but remark that there is an excess of material being used; that it can lead to dirt being collected on the garment; that the ends of such clothes are often frayed and therefore compromise longevity of the material; and as fashion is all about “look at me” I would also maintain that someone with such a garment as I described is wearing it with a degree of pride. These are my personal observations and you are most welcome to disagree with my thoughts on fashion.

So in conclusion akhī al-Habīb, I feel that this is one case where we’ll just have to agree to disagree and as you asserted it is refreshing to discuss in an environment free from malice.

If anyone wanted to make some further reading on the subject I found a couple of online papers on this topic:

Three fatāwā that argue that it is obligatory to raise the izār both for the one who does it out of conceit and the one who does not:

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=762&dgn=4

http://www.islamtoday.net/english/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=205&main_cat_id=4

http://www.memphisdawah.com/article/isbaal.htm

One fatwā that argues that the prohibition is restricted to those who do so out of pride:

http://www.islamtoday.net/english/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=702&main_cat_id=4

Jazākum Allāhu khayran for your input, I think I’ll need to leave aside further debate as I am going to be very late this week in getting something up on the site as it is. So please excuse me.

It’s an issue on which people have differed, many of whom were much greater in their understanding than you and I, so I am at peace with a situation where you and I disagree and found this discussion here stimulating.

Bāraka Allāhu fīkum

i myself don’t know which side to take definitively

although abu ilyaas you make a stronger case (in my opinion) i was always perplexed by the idea of dragging garments out of pride (being american raised) until i thought about the kings, queens, and i guess brides too

but now i think does anyone drag trousers out of pride?  seems impossible- i can’t think of one case as an act itself (not in terms of if the person has pride themself or not) - just the act i don’t think is done;

the closest i could come up with is when a man dresses “elegantly” he has long pants which almost cover his shoes and anyone who has “short pants” are ridiculed - so Allahu a’alam

but i agree- better safe than sorry

and it was a pleasure reading this debate (although for many years i took abu ilyaas’s position) - it’s rare to see one where it’s not personal and insulting, rather it’s precise and instructive

jazakallah to you both

Salāmun ‘alaykum..

Dear Fatimahye, jazāk-Allāhu khair for your comments, I agree that it is better to observe this practise than it is not to. All I was doing is providing and acknowledging another opinion on the issue. Its not clear if our dear brother Abu Ilyas shares this acknowledgment.

Nobody can dare deny the prohibition of over-extravagance and imitating women. But is wearing 2 inches more of material extravagance? I don’t think so at all. Then we can apply the same principle to our arms, and shorten them as well? And tell everybody to wear the minimum, just enough to cover their bodies and survive?

Rather the believers are described as “...they who when they spend, are neither extravagant nor niggardly, but hold a just (balance) between those (extremes)” [EMQ 25:67].

I have seen clothes that are exceedingly long and the material is so expensive that the outfit runs into £100’s. But to generalise and say that all those who have clothes that are not above the ankles are being extravagant, I don’t agree with at all.

Similarly imitating women. If you have a long robe that a women would wear, then fine. But to generalise and say that all those clothes that are not above the ankles are imitating women, I don’t agree with at all. Are my work trousers that run half an inch passed my ankles an imitation of women? Surely not.

However, thanks to brother Abu Ilyas I have become more convinced (although not totally) of ensuring my garment should remain above the ankles, due to the past link of pride (I’m still not sure if this link remains with anybody today) - and nothing to do with extravagance or imitating women.

May Allah grant us knowledge and wisdom, and the ability to tolerate our minor differences.

Ameen.

Although this discussion may be closed, please continue to maintain your level of akhlāq, ikhlās and ‘ilm with future discussions, which I have witnessed and learnt from you. Jazāk-Allāhu khair.

Zishān.

assalamu alaikum again,

yes, i see your point (i saw it earlier when you made it) but really my comment was more on the great debate; on our message board we have a debate section and i hope we get more discussions like this (no matter what our own personal final conclusions); i did appreciate your input and i agreed with it (wisdom behind rulings) somewhat in my own comment; so that’s why i thanked you for bringing up the other side; inshallah we’ll see more of you on our site and boards

Try the youth in america who drag their clothes and show their underwear thinking it is cool. They do it out of kibr and feel at the top of the world.