Is it correct to say: It is not permissible to wear trousers because they are the clothing of the disbelievers, but when the affliction became widespread, it became permissible on the condition that they do not reveal or depict the private parts?

The questioner : Due to the prevalence of the affliction of trousers in Syria, I am asking you for a ruling.The Shaykh : Eid.

The Shaykh : On?

The questioner : A ruling.The Shaykh : Eid on this issue.

The Shaykh : Yes, I do not know what you mean.

The questioner : I am saying.The Shaykh : Eid, and this is an old statement, meaning that from the time trousers first entered the lands of Islam, it was imitation of the disbelievers and was forbidden. But after the affliction became widespread among the Muslims and trousers were no longer specific to the disbelievers, the ruling became that they adorn the Muslims, and wearing them became permissible with conditions: that they do not reveal the private parts and that they do not resemble [the disbelievers].

The Shaykh : This is our brother Eid, may Allah remember him with good. It is said, "You knew something, but things were hidden from you." First, this is a statement we used to say and still do, even in the session you referred to earlier. The tarboosh was Austrian clothing. When the Turks reached Austria in their known conquests and lived among them and mixed with them, some of them began to imitate the Austrians and wear the tarboosh. It is most like some Muslims, either the ignorant or the heedless who do not care about the Shari'ah, who wear caps.

The questioner : A beret.

The Shaykh : A beret. So some Turks began to wear the tarboosh, and it continued and continued, and the situation reversed. The Austrians forgot the tarboosh and wore caps, and the tarboosh became Turkish clothing. I even said that even the Christians in the era of the Turks wore the tarboosh. To this day, in Lebanon, there are people from the Muslims, let alone the Christians, and from the Christians, let alone the Muslims, who wear the tarboosh normally, meaning imitation. Here, it is said that wearing the tarboosh is fine, even though its origin is Austrian, but it is completely different now. There is no Christian on the face of the earth who wears the tarboosh, whereas trousers are still the clothing of the Christians. So they are completely different. The error in this ruling lies in two aspects. The first aspect is that trousers have not become, in terms of clothing, forgotten by the disbelievers like the tarboosh, for example, and trousers have not become specific to the Muslims like the tarboosh. It is not like that; the situation is completely reversed. Trousers are still not recognized in many Islamic lands. The closer a land is to the lands of disbelief and Europe, the more trousers are found there due to the spread of infection. Likewise, the lands that were colonized, whether by Britain, France, the Netherlands, or other disbelieving governments, transferred their clothing and customs to those lands they colonized and spread their traditions and customs that contradict the Shari'ah. Trousers are still, as I said, clothing for the disbelievers and are not recognized by many. I do not say "most," because the truth of this requires statistics so that we are not exaggerating in what we say. But I am truthful when I say that trousers are still not worn by many Muslims. Another thing that our brother Eid, may Allah remember him with good, missed is that trousers have another problem: they reveal the shape of the private parts. Look, for example, our good friend here represents two people. Look at his thighs; his trousers are tight on them. And when he bows, the two parts between the folds are visible. How is this permissible in the Shari'ah? Trousers differ greatly, so it cannot be said that this was the clothing of the disbelievers and became [permissible] clothing, as one of the Lebanese priests said to me. I think you remember the story that happened between me and the Maronite priest.

The questioner : On the train.

The Shaykh : On the train, do you remember?

The questioner : Probably.

The Shaykh : Do you remember, Nasuh? The summary is that a discussion took place between me and a Maronite priest, and the matter reached the point of why do Muslims declare Ataturk a disbeliever? Because he imposed the beret on the Turkish people. What is the beret? It is clothing.