What is the ruling on letting the garment hang below the ankles?

The questioner : You asked about letting the garment hang below the ankles, the beard, and letting the garment hang below the ankles. I answered regarding the beard, but I have not answered regarding letting the garment hang below the ankles.

The Shaykh : Which kind of letting the garment hang below the ankles is this?

The questioner : Letting the garment hang below the ankles. What is the ruling on letting the garment hang below the ankles?

The Shaykh : Letting the garment hang below the ankles is not permissible. We have written about this in the introduction to "Mukhtasar al-Shama'il al-Muhammadiyyah." Have you seen this book?
In the introduction, we mentioned that it is not permissible to let the garment, the shirt, the cloak, or the Egyptian jibbah drag on the ground for the senior Islamic preachers. All of this is not merely letting the garment hang below the ankles in the practical Sunnah, but it is also a clear contradiction of the verbal Sunnah, which rules that whatever of the garment extends below the ankles is in the Fire. Here, there is a doubt that arises for some people, and it is necessary to answer it:
They argue with the story of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq when he used to ask the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) that his garment was falling down. He said to him (peace and blessings be upon him): . Some of those who oppose this Sunnah say that extending the garment below the ankles does not involve sin; rather, the sin is to intend arrogance by it. If one does not intend arrogance by it, like Abu Bakr, then there is no burden on him and no sin on him. This is a fallacy. There is a vast difference between Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, whose garment falls down against his will and he does not intend it, on the one hand, and on the other hand, he fears that the consequence of his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): may befall him. How is this comparable to the one who goes to the tailor and says to him: "Make me a jibbah down to the heels of the feet?" How can we compare this to Abu Bakr, whose garment is in complete accordance with the Sunnah, but with walking and movement it falls down? Likewise, the cloak, for example, or the shalshil, as they say here; they are not equal. This is first: that is, the one who intends to have the garment made, whether it is a jibbah, a shalshil, a shirt, or anything else, intending to have it made below the ankles, this is not permissible for him to argue with the action of Abu Bakr; because the action of Abu Bakr was not intended, and this is completely intended by him.
The second thing: there is a hadith that we can consider a Sunnah methodology for the dress of the Muslim who cares about following the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) in everything that was legislated for us by our Lord (Blessed and Exalted is He). He said (may Allah's prayers and blessings be upon him): .
There is no doubt that the one who comes to the tailor and orders him to make him a garment, whatever garment it is, down to below the ankles, is not ... at all in accordance with this methodology that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) established for the Muslims; that it should be to the middle of the shin, and if it is long, then to the ankles. That is the last dispensation. If it is long, then it is in the Fire. So here, arrogance was not mentioned; he established a methodology. He only said: it is permissible for the garment to be to above the ankles, and if it extends below the ankles, then it is in the Fire - meaning its owner. Therefore, we should understand the previous hadith: or indicates that dragging the garment in arrogance is a greater sin and guilt before Allah than the one we imagine does not drag his garment in arrogance, but he has it made by the tailor in a way that contradicts the methodology you heard from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). If you know this, then it is not correct to restrict the second hadith by the first hadith; that is, "if it extends, then it is in the Fire" means arrogance. No, this is whether it is arrogance or not, as long as he intends it. It is possible that one of us imagines that he intends it just because that is the fashion, and arrogance does not cross his mind. It is possible. As it happened with some of the young men who are unfortunately infatuated with imitating the Westerners, they came out with their time in a pant that we call in Syria a wide pant.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes?

The questioner : Double-flap.

Another questioner : Wide, wide?

The Shaykh : Wide.

Another questioner : "Cholston."

The Shaykh : "Cholston" [Everyone laughs!], well done.
Here, we are in the place where it should be wide, they narrowed it, and in the place where it should be narrow, they widened it. All of this is from the plotting of Satan against the children of Adam. The women who are obligated to lengthen their garments, on the contrary, shorten their garments. The men for whom it is recommended, indeed obligatory by their right - by their right!! - perhaps by their right!! [Everyone laughs!]; it is obligatory by their right that what? They shorten it, they lengthen it! Glory be to Allah!! Who can say that this is not from the manipulation of Satan against the children of Adam?
Therefore, safety, as he said (peace and blessings be upon him): . So the Sunnah, the Sunnah, may Allah guide us and you all to act upon it.