Page 10
[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Page 2 ] [ Page 3 ] [ Page 4 ] [ Page 5 ] [ Page 6 ] [ Page 7 ] [ Page 8 ] [ Page 9 ] [ Page 10 ] [ Page 11 ] [ Page 12 ]

Continued from page 9

history of the Sahaabah, is aware that Hadhrat Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was such a staunch and ardent follower of the minutest details of the Sunnah, that people believed that he would become insane. Pride was never the reason for him having worn his trousers below his ankles. When Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) saw this, he commanded him to raise his garment midway between the knees and the ankles. The issue of pride never featured in his wearing his trousers below his ankles nor in the argument of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) on the occasion when he issued his instruction to this devotee of the Sunnah.

PRIDE

In some narrations the reason for wearing the trousers below the ankles is stated as pride. While this was the actual reason in those times for this prohibited style, it was not always the case with everyone who would wear his trousers below his ankles. Hence, we find Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) issuing stern warnings and threats of the punishment of the Fire for those who wear their trousers in the fashion of the proud people. So whether one wears the trousers below the ankles for the sake of pride or not, one is undoubtedly, imitating the style of the proud ones and the style of the kuffaar. Imitating the kuffaar by itself is a factor of prohibition.

Now the question to be asked is: Why would a molvi advocate a style which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had prohibited. He did not only present pride as the reason for the prohibition. So why is there so much concern to negate a Sunnah style? Leaving aside the technical questions and academic rulings, it can be simply understood that the permanent practice and style of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah were to wear their garments above the ankles, not below their ankles.

That wearing the trousers above the ankles is an irrefutable Sunnah practice, will be acknowledged by all Muslims, even the modernists and the liberal molvis. On the assumption that it is not haraam to wear the trousers below the ankles, then too, why should Muslims who claim to love Rasulullah (sallalahu alayhi wasallam) have a desire to scuttle this Sunnah practice and in its place follow the style of the kuffaar? Whose style is it to wear the trousers above the ankles? And, whose style is it to wear it below the ankles? What does the Imaan of a Mu’min demand? Follow the style of Rasulullah (sallalahu alayhi wasallam) or the style of the kuffaar? Why is there such a strong aversion in the ranks of the Muslims for the style of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)?

What goes on in the heart of a molvi who advocates a style abhorred by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)? Surely there must be some hidden disease (mardh) lurking somewhere in such a heart. It is inconceivable that a Mu’min of healthy Imaan will ever stoop so low as to scrape the very bottom of the barrel of spiritual corruprion. Remember that to negate a preference of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), to feel ashamed of the style of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and to present devious arguments to distort and deny what Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) had commanded, are worse than consuming liquor, worse than fornication and worse than all the major sins put together. Such attitude is kufr.

HADHRAT ABU BAKR

The solitary narration which the denigrators of Rasulullah’s practice are able to produce as ‘evidence’ is the Hadith in which it is mentioned that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) allowed Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) to wear his garment below his ankles. To present this Hadith in substantiation of the claim, the aim of which is to negate the style of Rasulullah (sallalahu alayhi wasallam), is ludicrous and utterly baseless. The Hadith in question is very clear as for the reason of the permission granted to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) who was highly perturbed by his inability to maintain his garment above his ankles. He therefore, discussed this matter with Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhiyallahu anhu) was a man with a big stomach. Inspite of all his efforts to keep his garment in place, he failed. His garment would repeatedly slide down over his ankles. The Hadith in question, explicitly mentions this fact. In view of this condition and his inability to retain his garment in position above his ankles, he was exempted from the prohibition. But he had a valid reason. What valid reason do the modernists and the liberal molvis have? There are always exceptions to general rules. But the exceptions do not cancel out the law or the rule. The rule remains in place. Furthermore, why do the scoffers of Rasulullah’s style cast a blind eye to all the ahadith of prohibition and cling onto this solitary narration which in no way negates the prohibition stated so emphatically in the other narrations?

Like a drowning man, the modernist molvi tries to cling to every floating straw that passes his way. Entirely bereft of proper Shar’i arguments to bolster his corrupt view and enmity for Rasulullah’s dress style, the molvi claims that according to Imaam Shaafi (Rahmatullah alayh) it is permissible to wear the trousers below the ankles.

Let us for a moment assume that what the molvi tendered is correct. The question now is: Why does the Hanafi molvi resort to a view of Imaam Shaafi (Rahmatullah alayh), especially on an issue for which there is absolutely no need to adopt the view of another Math-hab? If it was a critical issue or an emergency or some urgent need, then in terms of the principles of the Hanafi Math-hab, a pious and experienced Mufti will have the right to issue a Fatwa on the basis of one of the other Math-habs among the Four Math-habs. But in this case of wearing the trousers, there is absolutely no such expediency.

When a Hanafi molvi ignores the views and fatwas of the authorities of his own Math-hab and clings to an opinion of another Math-hab, it follows that there is no flexibility for his baseless view in his own Math-hab, hence he had to look elsewhere for aid. His act in itself is sufficient testimony for the claim that according to the Hanafi Fuqaha and Ulama and Auliya, wearing the trousers below the ankles is haraam.

The liberal molvi claims that according to Imaam Shaafi (rahmatullah alayh) wearing the trousers below the ankles is permissible. His claim is baseless. Imaam Shaafi does not say that “it is permissible”. According to the Shaafi Math-hab there are different degrees of prohibition for the style of wearing the trousers below the ankles. Explaining this, Imaam Nawawi (a Shaafi authority) states in his Sharhul Muslim

Midway of the forlegs is Mustahab. Below this limit until the ankles is permissible without it being Makrooh. What descends below the ankles is Mamnoo’ (prohibited). If it is for pride, then the prohibition is of the haraam category (i.e.Makrooh Tahrimi). And, if it is not for pride, the prohibition is of the tanzihi category (i.e.Makrooh Tanzihi).”

Makrooh Tanzihi does not mean ‘permissible’. It remains a detestable act in the Shariah. In fact, persistence on a Makrooh Tanzihi act transforms it into Makrooh Tahrimi which is sinful and a punishable offence. It makes a man a faasiq. Clutching at straws is not Shar’i evidence for a claim.

From the aforegoing explanation it will be understood that there are several factors for the prohibition of wearing the garment below the ankles:

(a) It is the style of the kuffaar. Whoever imitates the kuffaar becomes of them.

(b) It is the way of the mutakabbireen (proud people). So whether one has pride or not, is immaterial. The fact that the mutakabbireen’s style is adopted in itself is a grave sin.

(c) The opposite style (wearing above the ankles) is ‘atqaa’ and abqaa’ according to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

(d) Wearing the garment above the ankles is part of the Uswah-e-Hasanah (Beautiful Life Pattern) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The Qur’aan commands adoption of this Sunnah.

(e) The trousers has no haqq (right) on the ankles according to the explicit pronouncement of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

(f) What is below the ankles will be in the Fire of Jahannum.

In view of all these factors of prohibition, the arguments of the modernist and liberal molvis have absolutely no validity. These molvis should also understand that in airing their liberal, modernist and baatil views, they do not have the support of a single one of our Akaabir Ulama. Our advice is that they should utilize their radio channels constructively to aid the Deen, not to breakdown Islam and its Culture, for then, there will be absolute justification for branding their organs of transmission as radio shaitaan and channel shaitaan.

In the aftermath of the collapse and dismantling of the Taliban government in Afghanistan, supporters of the Islamic Taliban government on account of the heartfelt agony and grief which overcame them, presented a variety of excuses so as to provide balm for their grieving hearts. Undoubtedly, it is not easy for sincere Muslims who believed that the Taliban stood for true Islam , to come to terms with the humiliating defeat of the Taliban.

One argument to exonerate the Taliban and to soothe the hurt in our hearts is to attribute the success of the kuffaar to the superior American airpower. But this is a dangerous conclusion. It is unintelligent to sidestep realities and cast a blind eye to the actual cause of the humiliation and capitulation of the Taliban. The simple fact is that Allah Ta’ala had withheld His promised Nusrat (aid) from the Muslims who had proclaimed themselves to be the Standard Bearers of true Islam.

This view leads to the conclusion that Allah Ta’ala -Nauthubillaah!- was impotent to aid His servants with the aid He so frequently promises in the Qur’aan Majeed. All Muslims acknowledge that Allah Ta’ala had sent His aid on the occasion of Badr and on all other Jihad campaigns of the Sahaabah. There are no two opinions among the People of Islam on this issue. It was purely Divine Aid which propelled the Sahaabah onto the hilltops of the world to plant the Flag of Islam. It was not their battle prowess nor their material superiority, for they lacked in every material sphere and at all times they were inferior in worldly terms. In fact, their successes and victories against overwhelming odds were stupendous. Even kuffaar experts acknowledge this.

When Allah Ta’ala commanded Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) to take Bani Israaeel with him into freedom—freedom from the tyranny of Fir’oun, the flight was accomplished during the night time. Thousands of unarmed and weak men, women and children fled from Fir’oun under the command of Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam).

As soon as Fir’oun was informed of the flight of Bani Israaeel, he summoned his army and gave pursuit. Meanwhile, Hadhrat Musaa (Alayhis salaam) with thousands of his followers had reached the shores of the Red Sea which blocked their onward march to freedom. When they saw the army of Fir’oun approaching, they panicked and cried that they

continued on page 11