Refuting the argument for the permissibility of isbal without arrogance based on the story of Abu Bakr.

The questioner : Shaykh, regarding isbal, which is letting the garment hang down, it is reported about Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) that his izar used to hang down from his waist, and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said I do not remember the hadith Does this also mean that there is a specification, for example, that the one who does not drag it out of arrogance is not considered to be committing isbal?

The Shaykh : I believe this is a modern Ghazalian doubt ... What were we saying?

The questioner : Isbal.

The Shaykh : Isbal. I said this is a modern Ghazalian innovation. The one who raises this issue ignores the details that came in the hadith of the story of Abu Bakr and his question. First, was the izar that Abu Bakr al-Siddiq wore below the ankles or above the ankles? Inform me with knowledge. Above the ankles. Those who say and cite this hadith that if one does not do it out of arrogance it is permissible, where do they take the permissibility from? From the falling of the izar, or from Abu Bakr wearing the izar long, down to below the calves? If it is from its falling, then let them do what Abu Bakr did, so that we can say they are not doing it out of arrogance. But when one of them goes to the tailor and, if he is wearing trousers, orders him to drag it on the ground, meaning to have it cut long, below the calves, and if he is having a jacket cut, he also gives him the measurement below the ankles, and then says, "I am not doing it out of arrogance," and his evidence is the story of Abu Bakr! The story of Abu Bakr is an argument against them, not for them ... The story of Abu Bakr shows that his izar was not contrary to the Sunnah, but the violation occurs when the izar falls without his intention. So when he noticed it, he lifted it up, and he (peace be upon him) said to him As for the one who goes to the tailor and has the garment cut long, he has contradicted Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, and indeed he has contradicted the Sunnah of the Prophet of the Siddiq, who said So how can he argue with the story of Abu Bakr, when it does not contain that he contradicted the Sunnah, but rather that the izar fell from his shoulder and below the ankles? Therefore, it is not permissible to interpret the decisive text with two expressions. One is that the Messenger (peace be upon him) established a practical methodology for Muslims in cutting garments regarding length, in this sequence: the highest and first rank is half the leg, the second is below the half, up to above the ankles, so this is permissible. If it is longer, it is in the Fire. He did not say here "out of arrogance"; rather, he stated the ruling generally. We come to the other text This is a severe warning, not only because he violated the prohibition and the Sunnah, but because he added to the violation that he did it out of arrogance. Therefore, if we believe a man, especially if he claims knowledge, and indeed the calling to Islam, and he deliberately lengthens the garment to below the ankles, and then says, "I am not doing that out of arrogance," we say, "Allah knows his intention, because we have not split open his heart." But without a doubt, he has contradicted the Sunnah of his Prophet, who said So this is a very clear contradiction of this text. As for whether he did it out of arrogance or not? His account is with his Lord. Therefore, the story of Abu Bakr does not mean the permissibility of lengthening the garment below the ankles on the basis, or claim, or assertion, that he is not doing it out of arrogance.

The questioner : Okay, Shaykh, regarding the hadith in "Al-Musnad" that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) This hadith was found with the same chain in "Zawa'id al-Haythami" that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) struck four times. So, for example, is the hadith in "Al-Musnad" considered to have a defect, and so on? Do we reconcile the hadith in "Al-Musnad" with the hadith in "Zawa'id al-Haythami"? Is it, for example, not reasonable that it be four fingers, meaning below the knee?

The Shaykh : In any case, the least I can say now is that I do not have at hand the verification of the authenticity of the narration of the four fingers that would allow me to oppose the hadiths of half the leg. I do not have a hadithic verification that proves that the hadith of the four fingers below the knee is an authentic hadith such that we would leave it in opposition to the hadiths of half the leg. This is first. Second, if it is established hadithically that the four fingers is an authentic text, then a very important fiqh and usul rule comes into play, which is that the additional text is always taken. The additional text, and this is one of the benefits of the book "Al-Ihkam fi Usul al-Ahkam" by Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm al-Andalusi, where he often discusses his opponents on some of their ideas with this rule. It is a fiqh and usul rule that cannot be refuted, similar in the principles of hadith science to the acceptance of the addition of a trustworthy narrator, with the known detail in distinguishing between the acceptance of the addition of a trustworthy narrator and the anomalous hadith. The point is, if half the leg means more than four fingers, as is apparent, then it does not harm us to take the additional text and leave the deficient text, because the deficient is included in the additional, and not the other way around. Exactly like some of the authentic narrations in which we have no doubt about their authenticity, such as his saying (may the prayer and peace of Allah be upon him) So we take the twenty-seven because the twenty-five are included in the twenty-seven. And this confirms that rule: the additional is taken. So there is no problem in the matter, because half the leg is the maximum limit that came to explain that it is the best and that it is the first stage, not the four fingers. However, we can say that the narrator who mentioned the four fingers, and we assume, and I am still searching based on the assumption of authenticity, and I hope you do not forget that I am not currently recalling if it is authentic, but the whole research is on the assumption that the chain is authentic, we can say on this assumption also that when the narrator said four fingers, this statement is not from the Messenger of Allah. The Messenger of Allah, who does not speak from desire, is only a revelation revealed. This is from a Companion who is not infallible and is not precise in expressing limits as if the Prophet were the one expressing it exactly. So at that time, the disagreement between the narrators who narrated half the leg and this narrator, if it is authentic from him that he specified it as four fingers, becomes less severe. This is what I have, and Allah knows best.
Do you have anything else?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.