Injunctions on length of pants

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

I had a heated discussion about this with someone and I’m very angry. Anyway. I believe in hadith but I think this one is absurd: that for men, the length of pants must be above the ankle. To the best of my knowledge, this has to do with pride. That poor men back then worked such that what they did required them to have the cuff of their pants lifted up to expose the ankles. Rich men had their cuffs below their ankles because they didn’t work in those jobs. And this simple neutral thing took on connotations of class differences and pride.

I compare this to color differences. Like poor people work outside so they are darker. Rich people are fairer because they don’t have to work outside, so gora rang becomes about class, becomes more preferable. I equate the injunction about pant cuffs with making all people stay outside and burn their skins dark brown just so there is no pride. It sounds silly to me, and very archaic, especially when living in the West and not even the poor lift their cuffs above their ankle. To me, Islam is not about you getting fun made of yourself because you’re so painfully out of place and violate dress codes in offices.

So silly! Christ. Anyway, what do you all think? And what’s with men saying, yeah hey Islam says this is so, but they never do it themselves. But if you say, no you’re wrong, they end up insinuating you’re a kafir on the fast lane to hell.

If you really wanna do something Islamic, hey hold off on those 70 dollar jeans and buy the Wal-mart ones instead. How’s that for curbing pride.

2

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

For the above-ankle debate I tend to point towards the actual dress of Arabs and contrast it to some of the modern dresses. We need to understand and follow the essence of the issue.

The traditional dress worn by Arab men at that time, and very similar to the one they wear now - *thoub *- if worn longer than the ankles, will drag in the middle and sweep the floor. Consequently it will become dirty and therefore only those people would wear it longer than ankles who have no scruples in discarding expensive dresses or washing them all the time. This is wasteful, and a brash display of wealth.

Men's dresses in other parts of the world now (including pants, jeans, trousers, shalwars etc) have one thing in common. They won't drag from the middle if you wear them on the ankles cause they are designed and tailored differently. Anyone wearing the jeans on or slightly longer than the ankle is not doing it to show off wealth, nor will it get dirty or need to be discarded. Anyone who is brandishing very expensive dresses or showing pride in the dress, even if worn above ankles, is actually the person who should be worried.

3

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

Faisal can you find the hadith for me regarding this exact issue ? I am trying to find it right now but i cant.

4

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

This is why hadith's are not farz. They need to be looked at in a historical angle. And they are certainly not time-independent.

But no, people think this stuff were all commandments from the Prophet that if we don't follow them, then we're all gonna land in hell.

5

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

Please see:

http://www.sunnah.org/ibadaat/garments.htm

6

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

Ur concept of Farz is not clear.

Farz or Fardh is something that if not done will be penalised.The Farz may be commanded thru Hadeeth or Quran for example,5 prayers are Fardh but they are not mentioned in Quran but in Hadeeth.Similarly Quran says that give to the poor what is in excess of ur needs but giving everything to poor that is in excess of one’s need is not Fardh,only Zakat is.

And to the best of my knowledge we are required to keep the ankles bare in Namaaz,i have also heard from scholars that they shud be kept bare all the time as mentioned in Hadith,i myself do not do this.

7

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

…

I disagree with what you’ve said because even though you’re talking of common sense, yet talking with a lack of exactly that. Islam is to be followed as laid out in the Quran, and as followed by the Prophet (saws), and his family and companions (raa). I’m sure you already believe that.

Many people I know follow one Islamic ruling happily (since they’re ok with it) but cry foul when find out that they cant do such_and_such, since this one is a little harder on them. The question really is, will you trust the evidence, or will you push everything through ‘your notion’ of common sense.. Since there is no common global ‘logic’, it is always correct to follow what the Prophet (saws) left us with. A female hijab may be out of place in an office environment, and a beard may be made fun of, and a person avoiding pork be ridiculed, but that doesn’t mean they should be pushed aside..

Once again.. the issue is so perfectly clear really, the Prophet (saws)'s words are so strong and full of warning that it seems really stupid to claim that he was talking of some notion of pride back then. We’ve been warned of having pride separately, and this isn’t the same thing..

Also interesting to notice that you call upon christ when you’re frustrated.. :k:

8

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

Yeh, ok.. is that why the Quran tells ONLY the people at THAT TIME to follow the Prophet (saws).. ok i see… oh wait, it doesn’t.. it tells ALL of mankind to follow the Prophet (saws), so what else have you got to back up that claim of yours??

Mohabat ki Demaak...................
9

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

^ ammarr, you should also know that the laws of Islam, the rules, the recommendations, etc are all based upon some reason or the other. When even in the PRophet's lifetime, the Prophet allowed for questions, and tried his best to explain the practical purposes of the laws and decisions he made, then why should we, at this point in time, clam up and believe everything we're told?

Plus, you have to keep in mind that the hadith were written down some centuries after the prophet died, and many were fabricated by variuos leaders and for various political reasons. If the shia and sunni scholars can't agree on one set of authentic hadith, then there is room for debate.

Plus, you might have a statement, but you may need the proper context to understand it ... which may not have been accurately recorded in the hadith, or it might have been deemed common knowledge at the time, and somehow historians have come up with different explanations for one thing.

There is really only one constant document and that is the Quran. The hadith should be looked at and examined, but keeping in mind historical context is very important when analyzing them.

Eid Clothes
10

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

i had these sort of questions in mind when i wrote this thread:

http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showthread.php?p=3352139#post3352139

but at that point people seemed to insist that the difference is very clear.

11

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

Narrated Abd Allah binUmar: The Prophet said: "Allah will not look, on the Day of Resurrection, at the person who drags his garment (behind him) out of conceit. On that Abu Bakr said, "O Allah's Apostle! One side of my izar hangs low if I do not take care of it." The Prophet said,** "You are not one of those who do that out of conceit."**

So basically I dont think it matters as long as you are not doing it out of conceit.

Secondly, if you roll up your pants before namaz you would probably get ajar for your intentions and if you dont, you probably dont get gunnah for it. Allah knows our intentions and its not that big of an issue anyways.

12

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

PCG,

my view is not to 'clam up and not question anything'. Like the Prophet (saws) has said that the cure to ignorance is to question. I am sick of muslims who clam up and do not question the religious figureheads, and would rather do rituals with no understanding, but I am certainly against questioning the words of the Prophet (saws) himself.

We are not talking here about a hadith reported through a single companion and declared weak etc, its reported in multilple ahadith, with different wordings, but almost the same idea.. again and again and again. Doesn't it make you wonder of its importance if the Prophet (saws) kept insisting on it? Shouldn't you just look it up, rather than say its about 'pride' or ahadith should only be for history..

The sunni/shia disagreement on ahadith is a separate issue, and yeh political figureheads and people with ulterior motives definitely invented false ahadith. I would encourage you to read up further on the issue, remember.. the quran tells us that truth stands out clear from error. Its not impossible to distinguish between the ahadith which are words of the Prophet (saws) and which are fabrications.

Eid Clothes
Eid Clothes
13

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

specially teenagers in ny usa wear pants dragging under their feet, ihv seen dog's 1 and 2,s on side walk people walking over it.

14

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

Kukar Khan's analysis is right.

amarr- as you can see, some people will take the hadith and read them wrong. These two following statements are very different:

  1. Don't wear pants that drag.

  2. Don't wear pants that drag out of conceit.

I would liken it to the following real world example:

Girls wear skirts, right, that can drag if they're too long? ex. ghararas, etc. Its usually just bad tailoring.

But then you've got da boys frum da hood who will wear pants that start from right beneath their butt and the paancha of the pants drag on the floor. Do they do it out of conceit? ...

That might be dragging it, but they sure do it out of ignorance, and I can imagine that they do it to show off as well, especially since they will think you're a "cracker" if you try to wear your pants appropriately.

Secondly, the issue is about dragging on the ground...so where do normal tailored men's pants drag on the ground? They come to your ankle, right? So I don't see the big deal and why people would go around at namaz time telling men to roll up the bottom of their pants (and they base their orders on this hadith).

:)

15

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

Basically, the issue is not about how long your pants are. The issue is that your dress reflects you, and that you should be careful to dress appropriately and humbly. That’s all the hadith really is.

No need to go smacking guys at the masjid when their panchas are not rolled up.

:rolleyes:

16

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

PCG: what do you know about Hadhart Umer Ibn Al Khataab Al Farooq al Aadham:razi: 's interpretation and reflection of this hadeeth?

17

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

You tell me. I'm interpreting directly from the hadith as I see them written. The Quran says that you know - that any muslim can interpret the religion for themselves. Hence no pope.

Or I'm sorry, you think Hadhrat Umer was a pope?

Instead of being a smartass by asking these questions, why don't you be humble for a change, and just make a post where you state the Umer-ian interpretation and then show how it differs from what has been said in the thread?

Haan jee!

18

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

This is kind of detailed.. read up on it: Link. Maybe you’d like to revisit your interpretation…

----> TimePass
19

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

I am still in agreement with Kukar jee’s explanation as noted in this thread.
The link you gave me, ammarr, if you care to read any of it, only corresponds to the hadith and explanation that Kukar jee posted. Man do I sound like a Punjabi twit, even though I’m not, but anyway:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Isbaal (wearing one’s garment below the ankles) may apply to the izaar (lower garment), the shirt or the turban. Whoever allows any part of these to trail on the ground out of arrogance, Allaah will not look at him on the Day of Judgement.”

Now this hadith directly contradicts the Hadith above posted by Kukar jee. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you have to be very careful and objective when looking at hadith, which many ignorant people do not bother to be.

All of the ahaadeeth quoted above speak against isbaal, whether or not the intention is to show off; but if a person does this deliberately out of arrogance, there is no doubt that his sin is greater. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah will not look at the one who trails his izaar on the ground out of pride.” (al-Bukhaari, no. 5788)

This one again explains the cultural significance. Since common sense tells us that in today’s fashion, wearing clothing beneath ankles is not in the least bit show-offy, unless we’re talking about particular cultures like da boyz in da hood:

Jaabir ibn Sulaym said: "The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to me: ‘Beware of wearing one’s lower garment below the ankles, because this is a kind of showing-off, and Allaah does not love showing-off.’

Yeh jee, wohi hadith hai that Kukar jee posted up. Kukar’s explanation is exactly what this hadith says. No extraneous interpretation is made by Kukar jee.

“Whoever trails his garment on the ground out of pride, Allaah will not look at him on the Day of Resurrection.” Abu Bakr said to him, “O Messenger of Allaah, my izaar slips down if I do not pay attention to it.” He said: “You are not one of those who do it out of pride.”

Here you see the first sentence is commentary by the writer of the website. The following sentences are the hadith. The first sentence in no way reflects the substance of the hadith. Therefore, this is a logical absurdity.

Author says that trailing garments are prohibited EVEN IF YOU DON’T DO IT OUT OF PRIDE. Therefore Author is saying your typical business suit pajama is haraam. But the hadith that follows nowhere indicates such a thing. It only echoes kukar jee, that it is haraam if the initial condition of the PURPOSE of the trailing garment is pride. In today’s average Pakistani culture, and western culture, this is not so! So again, we are coming into a culture-dependent hadith.

What indicates that isbaal is prohibited even if it is not done out of pride is the hadeeth of Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri, may Allaah be pleased with him, who said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) 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, Allaah will not look at him.”

If the following is true, why would the Taliban hit women if their ankles showed? :rolleyes:

The issue of isbaal applies to women just as much as it applies to men. This is indicated by the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Umar, may Allaah be pleased with him, who said: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘Whoever trails his garment on the ground out of pride, Allaah will not look at him.’ Umm Salamah said: ‘O Messenger of Allaah, what should women do with their hems?’ He said, ‘Let them go down a handspan.’ She asked, ‘What if their feet show?’ He said, ‘Let them lengthen it by a cubit, but no more.’” (al-Nisaa’i, Kitaab al-zeenah, Baab dhuyool al-nisaa’

If anything, I would say that clothes that come up above one’s ankles are defined in today’s culture as “admiring oneself”. You might be admiring your atheltic calves and showing them off. You might be admiring your delicate ankles and showing them off.

Intention does matter, as all the hadith’s that you yourself pointed me to, ammarr, all have the conditional clause of “done in pride”, etc or something to that effect following the clause involving “trailing of garments”.

20

Re: Injunctions on length of pants

.. sorry multiple post.

no multinicks