What is the criterion for men imitating women in clothing, and likewise imitating the disbelievers in their clothing?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : We read in the books of the Sunnah that when a woman stands up for prayer, it is obligatory for her to wear the khimar and the qamis, and I do not know if there is a third garment. As you know, both the khimar and the qamis are also part of men's clothing. Therefore, a woman wearing the khimar does not make her imitate men, nor does wearing the qamis make her imitate men. The qamis referred to here is the jilbab, which you call the dishdasha here. There are things that are shared, and there are things that are distinct, specific to either men or women. If time passes and a type of women's clothing, whether in shape or color, is no longer specific to women, then there is no harm in men wearing that color or that shape. This is exactly like if the matter were regarding the clothing of the disbelievers, but it is not exclusive to them in one aspect, or they have turned away from wearing it in another aspect, as we said regarding women. For example, it is mentioned in the two Sahihs in the hadith of al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was on a journey. When morning came, he went out to relieve himself, and al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah was with him. When it was time to perform wudu, al-Mughirah poured the water for wudu over the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). When he came to wash his hands, he was wearing a robe, and here is the point: a Roman robe with tight sleeves. He was unable to roll them up, so he pulled his hand out of the sleeve until he was able to wash his forearms, to the end of the hadith. So, in this story, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was wearing a Roman robe. This means that he was not imitating them. It is like the sandals today. We share them with them, and no one looks at someone and says he is imitating the disbelievers when he wears shoes of any type...
The questioner : What about trousers?
The Shaykh : I do not say trousers. Because I warn Adnan and others like him that they will be invalidated, because this is not the clothing of Muslims. Those who wear trousers are the disbelievers who do not have awrah (parts of the body that must be covered). As for Islam, which has both major and minor awrah, they do not wear trousers.
The questioner : What about the Romans? They were disbelievers.
The Shaykh : This is an example regarding women's clothing, like the qamis shared between women and men, or the khimar. The khimar may be confusing to some. This hat that Abu 'Abdullah is wearing is the khimar. So when a woman enters for prayer, she wears the khimar, but when she goes out of her house, she must go out wearing the khimar as well. She should not just go out wearing the jilbab. She must combine wearing the khimar with wearing the jilbab, Adnan. It is not permissible to just wear trousers. What is required?
The woman must wear the khimar, and over the khimar, the jilbab. We said the example of the tight robe is like this example that is shared between women and men. So the robe was a matter shared between Muslims and disbelievers. An example is the yellow color (ma'zafar or ma'safar) which was part of women's clothing, but this color no longer represents women. The tarboosh, which some people in some countries still possess and wear, including the Christian Lebanese, who wear it to this day. Many people assume this is Turkish clothing. In reality, we received it from the Turks. But the Turks did not invent this clothing, this tarboosh. They received it from the Austrians when they conquered their lands. Yes, it is like some of the unruly, deviant youth today who wear the beret and the cap. This is not the clothing of Muslims, but they are imitating the disbelievers. When the tarboosh was worn by some individuals among the Muslims, it was then like the beret, like the cap; it was said that this person is imitating the disbelievers. Time passed and passed. The Austrians, who are a group of Europeans as you see them, stopped wearing the tarboosh. It became the dress of whom? The Turks. And we accepted and inherited this headwear, and it became like a symbol for Muslims. Then some Christian Lebanese adopted it, because they were ruled by the Ottoman sultans.
The questioner : The Egyptians.
The Shaykh : So we do not look at the origin of a piece of clothing. We look at the current reality. If it is the clothing of the disbelievers, it is not permissible to wear it. And if it is the clothing of women, it is not permissible for us to wear it, and so on. But if it is a shared matter, and the examples we gave earlier are sufficient to show that the ruling follows the 'illah (operative cause) in its existence and absence.
The questioner : What about trousers?
The Shaykh : I do not say trousers. Because I warn Adnan and others like him that they will be invalidated, because this is not the clothing of Muslims. Those who wear trousers are the disbelievers who do not have awrah (parts of the body that must be covered). As for Islam, which has both major and minor awrah, they do not wear trousers.
The questioner : What about the Romans? They were disbelievers.
The Shaykh : This is an example regarding women's clothing, like the qamis shared between women and men, or the khimar. The khimar may be confusing to some. This hat that Abu 'Abdullah is wearing is the khimar. So when a woman enters for prayer, she wears the khimar, but when she goes out of her house, she must go out wearing the khimar as well. She should not just go out wearing the jilbab. She must combine wearing the khimar with wearing the jilbab, Adnan. It is not permissible to just wear trousers. What is required?
The woman must wear the khimar, and over the khimar, the jilbab. We said the example of the tight robe is like this example that is shared between women and men. So the robe was a matter shared between Muslims and disbelievers. An example is the yellow color (ma'zafar or ma'safar) which was part of women's clothing, but this color no longer represents women. The tarboosh, which some people in some countries still possess and wear, including the Christian Lebanese, who wear it to this day. Many people assume this is Turkish clothing. In reality, we received it from the Turks. But the Turks did not invent this clothing, this tarboosh. They received it from the Austrians when they conquered their lands. Yes, it is like some of the unruly, deviant youth today who wear the beret and the cap. This is not the clothing of Muslims, but they are imitating the disbelievers. When the tarboosh was worn by some individuals among the Muslims, it was then like the beret, like the cap; it was said that this person is imitating the disbelievers. Time passed and passed. The Austrians, who are a group of Europeans as you see them, stopped wearing the tarboosh. It became the dress of whom? The Turks. And we accepted and inherited this headwear, and it became like a symbol for Muslims. Then some Christian Lebanese adopted it, because they were ruled by the Ottoman sultans.
The questioner : The Egyptians.
The Shaykh : So we do not look at the origin of a piece of clothing. We look at the current reality. If it is the clothing of the disbelievers, it is not permissible to wear it. And if it is the clothing of women, it is not permissible for us to wear it, and so on. But if it is a shared matter, and the examples we gave earlier are sufficient to show that the ruling follows the 'illah (operative cause) in its existence and absence.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.