Discussion regarding the ruling on women adding a train to their garment extending beyond the forearm.

The questioner: May Allah keep you well, praise be to Allah, if you would speak.

Another questioner: May Allah decree, do not say "if only I had," but it was possible to avoid this matter from the start.
As for the train; the train is from the custom of disbelievers, or from the custom of those who lengthen their garments out of arrogance, pride, and vanity. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not permit women to lengthen their garments more than a forearm, as you know. So where do we bring this train, specifically? I mean, it is not that the whole garment is long. If the whole garment were long, more than a forearm, that would be contrary to the command of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). So how about the train, which might be a trailing piece carried behind her by four women?

The questioner: ... She does not want to walk. This is one thing. First, when our Lord tested you with their test, do not add to this in a way that constitutes disobedience. Rather, this addition is sufficient to cover and prevent the exposure of the legs or feet. This is what the Messenger (peace be upon him) indicated.

Another questioner: How, Abu Malik? May Allah forgive me and you?

The questioner: And therefore, may Allah bless you, if you please; and secondly, this addition, this addition is not for going out or walking in the streets.

Another questioner: This is because she is at a gathering among women, to be in it with vanity and pride.

The questioner: It is not in vanity.

Another questioner : Yes.

The questioner: It is, my brother, may Allah bless you.

Another questioner : And beware of that.

The questioner: The garment itself, if we were to consider it, is vanity and pride in itself, not the train that has vanity and pride. The dress, because it is all decorated and colorful and adorned, indicates pride in itself if we were to consider this as an indication of pride. The train is not noticed, and it is not an indication of this pride.

Another questioner: O Abu Malik - may Allah reward you with good - the garment being patterned and decorated is permissible by the Shari'ah, but the train being of this length, that is the pride to which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) referred.

The questioner: O son of al-Halal, there is no pride - may Allah bless you - there is no pride in this, and this hadith does not indicate pride. The hadith of Umm Salimah does not contain an indication of pride. Pride is only in the lengthening of the man's garment...

The questioner: I mean the hadith: .

The questioner : Yes?

Another questioner: The hadith: , is general for the man and the woman equally. And why was the restriction of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) ?

The questioner: This is it; that there is no need for the addition; because this is sufficient to prevent the wind from exposing her. This is the cause for which the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted it, that she not be exposed by the wind. If it is increased, it is not a disobedience in this, but it is from the category of burdening her. And perhaps this increase contains a type of extravagance if it is increased beyond the purpose indicated by the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).

Another questioner: This extravagance and this vanity is what is present in the train.

The questioner: This is made specifically for such an occasion. There is nothing in it of pride or vanity, and she does not go out; it is originally forbidden for her to go out in the street. This is not permissible. This is for the viewing of women only.

Another questioner: Well; viewing by women means it is permissible for a man among us to wear among men what is long below the ankles?

The questioner: We said the length - may Allah bless you - this has no place here. This is a blame that has no place. If you want to consider that this garment is showy, then it is a showy garment.

Another questioner: Showiness is one thing and this is another. Showiness has no part in this.

The questioner: For this reason you say that it is forbidden.

Another questioner: We do not forbid it for showiness. This is a special garment for a wedding or a decorated celebration.

The questioner: There is nothing in it that is not permissible. If we were to forbid it, it would be more appropriate to forbid it because it is a showy garment... because it is a garment of extravagance and is not permissible. So for this reason he forbade it, not because of an increase of two or three inches in the whole garment.

Another questioner: You see now they make this trailing piece two meters and three and one meter.

The questioner : How?

Another questioner: They make the trailing piece from one meter to two, three, four.

The questioner: This is sufficient... in every inch or two inches only.

Another questioner: I have not seen it at all, nor have I seen it. I say: The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: .

The questioner: The cause you did not point to.

Another questioner: This is our Shaykh listening and he is ruling.
I have not seen a dress or seen anything, but I say in general, if the thing exceeds the forearm, the ankles, then it is not permissible. But if it does not exceed the forearm, then it is permissible. However, this is what I have. I did not say anything else in general. I did not see the dress or see anything I did, nor did I see it being worn...

Another questioner: Peace be upon you, my teacher.

The questioner: And upon you peace.

Another questioner: My teacher, I mention to Shaykh Ali that I saw this garment. We borrowed it for some of our sisters. So I remember that it does not have this length that Professor Ali is worried about. It is, perhaps, a forearm if it increases by an inch as you mentioned, so that it goes away.

Another questioner: If it exceeds the forearm by an inch, that is it. Why do we not occupy the people, meaning, let them tailor these garments according to the Sunnah and what is prescribed.

Another questioner: If it is a forearm...

Another questioner: I mean, last time my wife's daughter had a wedding. We borrowed a garment of this kind for her with a trailing piece. So we just folded it, we did not cut it or cancel the garment. We folded it from the inside and held it, meaning in a temporary way. The party went and it was the best it could be. Then they returned the dress to its owner. We said from the start that the garment could be done like this. So you said: No, we can take it to a tailor and have it tailored; because this is in the association and immediately so that it can be used by others too. They are the ones who got involved in the matter and you could not do anything.

The Shaykh: Peace be upon you.

The questioner : And upon you be peace, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.

The Shaykh: May Allah bless you. Was a test conducted on the girl to see if the train is longer than the forearm or less, so that the dispute is not impractical? Was the test conducted on her or not?

The questioner: I think, I think.

The Shaykh: Well; so Am Malik knows the truth; if it does not exceed a forearm, the matter does not deserve all this argument.

The questioner: Our Shaykh, it does not deserve it from the start, meaning the original does not deserve delving into such an argument...

The Shaykh: No, the truth is, if the hadith, as you know, contains , the least thing we should do is stand by this text without considering the intentions in the matter; because it is not hidden from you that the increase contains extravagance, contains waste, and the entry of the factor of vanity as is stated in the general hadith. So I see that if the train does not exceed a forearm; then may Allah suffice the believers in the fight.

The questioner: It is - our Shaykh - vanity is merely the increase beyond the ankles for the woman or the man if it is looked at like this, then there is vanity in it. So this slight increase that exceeds the forearm does not indicate vanity for the woman at all, especially if the garment is of the garments that the woman goes out in and uses in her going out to cover her hands; knowing that in this time there is not this increase that we know in the Sunnah at all.

The Shaykh: In any case - may Allah bless you - the matter has two sides as is not hidden from you; a practical side and a heart side. The hearts are not known except by the Knower of the Unseen; meaning - for example - as you know, many men today say: I do not lengthen my train out of vanity; so we say to him: Stand by the text, and Allah knows what is in the hearts. Likewise, women, we permit them what He (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted them, and we do not look at their hearts and their intentions; because perhaps a man does not wear a long garment but a short one, but because of what is in it of showiness and display, it is - also - vanity. So we do not forbid him from the garment, we forbid him from the vanity that issues from him, and so on.
In any case, the matter concerns Umm Malik directly. If she knows that the hem, meaning it is longer than an arm's length, she can easily and artistically fix this problem, which contradicts at least the apparent meaning of the hadith, regardless of Ali's understanding or yours. The apparent meaning of the hadith: does not allow for discussion regarding its apparent indication, and this is a side issue completely unrelated to the topic. Perhaps Umm Malik will resolve this problem, if Allah wills. May Allah give you well-being. Is there any other need?