What is the criterion for imitating the dress of the disbelievers? And is it correct to say: that their clothes have become general and are no longer specific to them, so it is permissible to wear them?

The Shaykh : Something else.
Al-Halabi : The questioner:The questioner : He says: It is known to us your statement regarding the criterion for the ruling on imitating the dress of the disbelievers, and that it is what is specific to them and not to the Muslims. So what is your opinion regarding what some have said, that the matter has now become widespread, and there is no longer any clothing that is specific to the disbelievers or specific to the Muslims, so it is permissible for a person to wear whatever he wishes, or?

The Shaykh : I do not believe that the statement of this speaker that it has become widespread is correct, unless he means a specific type of clothing; for example, the short-sleeved shirt, or this jacket, or something like that. Otherwise, among the clothing of the disbelievers is the beret. Would anyone who knows the conditions of the Muslims in all their countries say that this beret has become general clothing? Is there no difference between the Muslims and the disbelievers in that it is general clothing? The answer is no. Likewise, for example, we go down a level and say that this necktie, which they call the cravat, is not general clothing that includes all Muslims in all the countries of the world. But this speaker who says this, if he is truthful in what he says, is like the farmer who thinks the world is only his village because he has not left it and has not seen that there are villages wider and larger and more beautiful than it, let alone cities, let alone capitals, and so on. Otherwise, how can we deny a reality that still exists, praise be to Allah, that much of the clothing of the disbelievers is still specific to them and the Muslims have not participated in it, praise be to Allah, as we gave two clear examples earlier: the beret and the cravat. These two examples are still specific to the disbelievers and not to the Muslims. Perhaps there are other clothes that can be cited as examples, especially those related to women; much of the clothing of the disbelieving women and the sinful women is not worn by Muslim women, praise be to Allah. So this statement is absolutely incorrect. But the important thing is to look at reality. If a style of clothing becomes widespread in all the lands of Islam such that, for example, a Turk wearing his beret comes to the Levant and a Muslim passes by him and says to him, "Peace be upon you," why? Because he does not carry the banner of disbelief on his head. But if he does not say that to him, it means that this person is still placing the flag of the disbelievers on his head. So the beret has not become general clothing such that it can be said that it is permissible to wear it. This is what I have. Yes.

The questioner : ... Shaykh, regarding the imitation that has become widespread, like the jacket and the trousers, meaning them alone, the pants, meaning this has become widespread in all countries, meaning the young people wear this clothing.

The Shaykh : Our country is from which countries?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Look now.

The questioner : In the street?

The Shaykh : We are like this from the street.

The questioner : The purpose of the question...

The Shaykh : I know what the purpose is, but do you know what the purpose of the answer is? The purpose is that this generalization is wrong, and this example is before you: the pants, and what did you also mention?

The questioner : The jacket.

The Shaykh : The jacket. We said earlier that the jacket is indeed general clothing, even the shaykhs in Saudi Arabia, meaning the country that is cited as an example of fanaticism and strictness regarding old traditions, and this is something for which they are praised, they wear the jacket. Because the jacket now is worn like the wearing of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), without likening it to the tight-sleeved Roman tunic. If I wanted to perform ablution, I would have to take it off and do as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did. So this is a correct example. As for the pants, no. You do not see in many Islamic countries except these shirts, meaning the jalabiyyah or the dishdasha or something similar. What do you call this in your country?

The questioner : Shirt.

The Shaykh : Shirt, good. And this is the old Arabic usage, meaning when it came in the books of the Sunnah that the woman prays in a shirt, it means a long dishdasha that covers the front of her feet. The point is, but the pants have another problem besides the imitation of the disbelievers. Reflect with me on how one thing leads to another. The pants are suitable for people who cannot, or at least do not feel comfortable, sitting on the ground. Do you understand this statement?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : The pants are only worn by people whose custom and tradition is not to sit directly on the ground. This is because their wearing of the pants prevents them from being able to sit on the ground, because it splits due to how tight it is tailored on the thighs and the legs. And so, as a result of that, they adopted chairs. So they always and forever sit on chairs. We took these pants from the disbelievers. This led to us not sitting on the ground except rarely, but rather on chairs. There is no harm in sitting on chairs. If it is permissible for me to say that it is from the Sunnah, then it is from the Sunnah, because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) sat on a chair. But I want to reach from this, in sequence, to other problems. So the one who wears pants prays wearing pants. He bows, and he cannot do otherwise because he is a Muslim, and he prostrates, and he cannot do otherwise because he is a Muslim. But he feels that if he prostrates as we all do without any reservation, lifting some of the garment, he is unable to do that. So he must lift some of the pants for two reasons. The first reason is so that the crease does not break; you know the crease of the pants, the sharp one. And then so that he is able to prostrate as it should be, otherwise it pinches him and prevents him from sitting as it should be. And then when he bows, you almost see, and you and I and all of us have been afflicted with praying behind him, you almost see the two halves of his buttocks. Is this Islam? This is not from Islam. And if he does not prostrate, you almost see his testicles prominent between his thighs. Is this from Islam? So if we assume that this clothing has become general clothing, may Allah forbid it, there remains a matter that is disliked with the strongest dislike, as the Hanafis say, a prohibitive dislike. Because it outlines the private parts that we were commanded to cover. And although some of the jurists, unfortunately, because they apparently, and Allah knows best, have not seen this phenomenon, say that even the Hanbalis say that the private parts must be covered with a garment that does not reveal the color of the skin. And there is no harm if it is transparent, no, it is not best if it is transparent, there is no harm if it is transparent. But the important thing is what? That it does not reveal the color of the skin. I say, Glory be to my Lord, how can this be said in the present age, and it is possible now to see a woman who is clothed yet naked, exactly as it came in the hadith. She wears, for example, of this bag that extends from her foot to her thigh, and it is all what? Outlined, but you do not see the skin, whether it is white or brown or yellow. Do you see, is this the garment that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) commanded? Far be it from Allah. Therefore, we said that in the hijab of the woman, it must not be transparent and it must not be see-through. It does not mean that it outlines, and it does not mean that it is see-through, meaning it shows us the color of the skin. So this pant, if it were Islamic clothing, may Allah forbid it, and it will not be Islamic clothing, it outlines the private parts, and this is not permissible in the religion of Allah, Mighty and Majestic. So how can it be said to us that this has become Islamic clothing, and it contradicts Islam first, and then it has not spread in many Islamic countries. Now, what prevails in Saudi Arabia? Does wearing pants prevail, or wearing the thobe? Wearing the thobe. So we do not give weight to these countries, because in countries like Syria, for example, and Algeria and Morocco, and so on, wearing pants has not spread. No, Islam is much broader than that, praise be to Allah. Therefore, we still say that the garment, if its origin is foreign, and then it becomes widespread among all Muslims such that it ceases to represent the disbelievers, then it is permissible, it is permissible. But on the condition that it does not have a color or a characteristic that contradicts the Shari'ah, as is the case with the pants. Is that clear?

The questioner: Yes.
Al-Halabi : May Allah reward you.The Shaykh .

The Shaykh : And beware of that.
Al-Halabi : I say, before you speak, Shaykh, and before you come forward, something of this issue had already been mentioned. Some of the brothers, I mean, we had discussed this issue with them, and they mentioned the opinion I cited from some of the Hanbalis that it is not permissible for a garment to reveal the color; but if it is described, there is no problem. So I told them, I said, if we bring a naked man and paint him with paint, this is not describing what is underneath, but rather the body itself. Is this permissible? They said no, even though this opinion necessitates that for them.

The Shaykh : But you, without offense, went too far; because this image is realistic without being real, and it is merely a representation for clarification, and there is no harm in it. But my brother, you know, without offense, if I forget, as they say, I will not forget. I was in the early days of my youth, and without offense, I will tell you something from the history of my life so that you and others who are in your youth can take it as a lesson. In the early days of my life, I was keen to attend football matches, wrestling, and the like, and in particular some of the champions. I remember one of them, whose name was such-and-such al-Buhra, who used to attend a place called al-Murja' al-Akhdar (the Green Marsh) in our area. This marsh was where football games were held, and sometimes they would announce in the newspaper that such-and-such a champion, for example al-Buhra, would display his muscles. What? Some of the champions, and he was one of them. I remember clearly that he stood on a platform wearing nothing but a tiban. Do you know what a tiban is? It is a pair of trousers with no sleeves, meaning like this, meaning it covers the major private parts. So I said, if I forget, I will not forget this scene: a naked man wearing this tiban, but his front private part was tense, contracted, prominent, and protruding. Is this clothing permissible in Islam? Suppose it were a man wearing a tiban, not a regular man, wearing trousers as the jurists say, covering the private parts, the man's private parts being from the navel to the knee. But this clothing was tight, squeezing the thighs and the buttocks. Who says this is disliked, meaning permissible but with dislike? And finally, and this is my last example to convince those who are not convinced, in the past, before pills for contraception were invented, there were plastic condoms that a man would wear on his organ. And there are examples of this today in miniature, for example, a man who is injured in his finger with a small bandage covering it. That bandage used to cover a man's organ, and he would have intercourse with his wife while wearing it. Does any rational Muslim say that if this man displays his organ before another man while covering his organ with such a thing, it is disliked? Who says this? The one who does not know the conditions of people or their circumstances says this.

The questioner : Do they use it to prevent pregnancy?

The Shaykh : And I tell you, what? Was the apparent one not with us?