The Book of Hajj-01a

The reciter: Yahya ibn Yahya narrated to us, saying: I read to Malik, from Nafi', from Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both): .

The Shaykh : This question that was posed to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was in Madinah, before he departed for Makkah. It appears, and Allah knows best, that he (peace and blessings be upon him), upon his departure for Hajj, was speaking about Hajj and ihram. This is evidenced by the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas, who said: I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) delivering a sermon, saying: . So a man stood up and said: O Messenger of Allah, my wife has gone out for 'Umrah, and I have signed up for such and such an expedition. He said: Go and perform Hajj with your wife.
So it appears that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke frequently about Hajj upon his departure, because he knew that people in this state need clarification of the rulings.
And he was asked: What does the one in the state of ihram wear?
And we parse it as an interrogative noun.
About what he wears or about what he does not wear?
About what he wears. What does he wear? Meaning: What garment does he wear? So you will find now that the question was posed about what he wears.
The answer: He said: He does not wear. It was expected that he would say: He wears such and such, but he said: He does not wear.
And it is known that affirmation and negation are opposites. So if what is worn is negated, the meaning is that the rest is worn. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) deviated from answering with affirmation to answering with negation, because what is not worn is less than what is worn.
So what is not worn can be enumerated, while what is worn cannot be enumerated. This is part of the excellence of the answer, that the questioner is answered with something other than what is expected, if the situation requires it, even though the answer, although contrary to expectation, was fully sufficient.
So let us look: He does not wear shirts. Shirts is the plural of shirt, and these are the known garments that a person puts on, and they have sleeves. And not head coverings: these are garments for the head, and they are the plural of head covering. And not trousers. Trousers is a plural, and is it a plural of plurals? It is just a plural, just a plural in the standard language, because trousers in the standard language is singular. Ibn Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
And for trousers in this plural there is a resemblance that necessitated the generality of the prohibition.
And in any case, whether it is the plural of trousers as has been said, and it is a dialect, or it is a plural, or the singular of trousers is known, and it is the garment for the legs, and it has sleeves.
And not woolen garments: Woolen garments is the plural of woolen garment, and it is a known garment. It is said that it is a garment where the head covering is connected to the body garment. Meaning a shirt with a head covering connected to it. But it is not known except among the Maghrebis. And the Algerians. All of the Maghreb, and the Egyptians and Sudanese are excluded from this, I think. Yes, in any case, these woolen garments.
And it is said: It is amazing that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) speaks about woolen garments while they did not exist among the Arabs at that time. It is said: Either the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) saw them during his time in Makkah from those who came to it, or it was mentioned to him. The important thing is that there is no problem with this, and it should not be criticized on that basis. It is said: How does the Messenger speak about something that was not known among the Arabs?!
We say: This does not necessitate that it be criticized, or that it be said that this word is denounced or anomalous. And not leather socks: Leather socks is the plural of leather sock, and it is the garment for the feet.
So we find that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned the garment for the head, the garment for the body, the garment for the legs, and the garment for the feet. How many? Four. But pay attention to his saying: He does not wear. Meaning, if you use these things for other than wearing, there is no harm with them. Meaning: If he makes the shirt a cloak that he wraps around himself, there is no blame on him.
He says: Except for one who does not find. How was "one" raised in case, while the speech before it was complete?
.
The student: Because it is a negation.

The Shaykh : And if it is negated?
The student: ... the rules ... .

The Shaykh : Which and which is more appropriate?
The student: Following.

The Shaykh : Following is more appropriate, good, except if the exception is disconnected. Except for one who does not find sandals, let him wear the leather socks. , meaning the negation of the existence of sandals includes the case where he finds the price but does not find the sandals, or he finds the sandals but does not find the price. Because both are a negation of existence. Let him wear the leather socks. The lam in his saying "let him wear" is for permissibility, and it is not for obligation, nor for recommendation, because it was mentioned in contrast to the prohibition, and the command in contrast to the prohibition is for permissibility, meaning: that the prohibition is lifted. Let him wear the leather socks and cut them below the ankles.
The lam here is for obligation , and that is because if he cuts them below the ankles, they become similar to sandals, so it is not far from wearing sandals.
.
: The prohibition is evidence that it is a prohibition because the nun was deleted from it, and the word "anything" is an indefinite noun in the context of prohibition, so it generalizes everything.
Meaning: It was touched by saffron, and it is a known yellow fragrance.
: And it is a known plant in Yemen that has a pleasant scent similar to or close to the scent of saffron.
Here the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) specified what is not worn, and on this basis, what is worn is everything else, everything else is worn.
But do we restrict ourselves to these mentioned items literally, or do we attach to them what resembles them in meaning?
As for according to the method of the Zahiris, we restrict ourselves to them, and we do not attach to them what resembles them.
And as for the opinion of the analogists and the people of reasoning, they attach to them what resembles them.
So let us return once more: He says: What resembles the shirt?
The student: The woolen garments?

The Shaykh : No, the woolen garments are explicitly mentioned.
The student: The shawl?

The Shaykh : The shawl resembles the woolen garment, but it has garments that are not shirts, but they resemble them in some respects, meaning they are tailored to fit the entire body. These are not worn. And among the Africans there are garments with wide sleeves, but they are not on the arm, rather they are an opening. These are attached to shirts. Even if they are not a shirt, they are attached to it.
Head coverings, the cap, the shemagh, and the beret are attached to them. And indeed, what is attached to them is not by analogy, but by text from another hadith: what covers the face, even with a handkerchief, what covers the head, even with a handkerchief, by the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding the one whose mount gored him: , do not cover his head. And on this basis, the head, among the other limbs, is specific to the customary garment, which is head coverings, and to other than the customary garment, which is covering it with anything. But is it required that the covering be in direct contact with the head? Or is there no difference between direct and indirect contact?
In this, there are two opinions among the scholars: The first says that covering the head, even with something not in direct contact, is forbidden. And on this opinion - which is the school's position - one does not take shelter under an umbrella, and one does not ride in a car that has a roof like a jeep, a small car, or a large bus.
The student: And the airplane.

The Shaykh : And the airplane. There is no airplane, O Shaykh. It is clear that there is an airplane to Makkah, but if one enters ihram from the miqat, it is possible. In any case: The well-known position of the school is that covering the head with something in direct contact and something not in direct contact is forbidden.
But this opinion is weak, and we have not seen anyone from the people of the schools act upon it except the Rafidah. The Rafidah now have specific cars that they uncover, and I have not been accustomed to this in the past.
But recently they have started using these cars because they see what our jurists also see, that it is not permissible to cover the head, even with something not in direct contact.
But the second narration from Ahmad is that it must be in direct contact, and this is what the author of al-Zad, al-Zad al-Mustaqni', followed, saying: .
Good: If the direct contact is something that is customary for covering the head, it is clear. But if it is not customary to cover the head with it, like a bundle that a person carries on his head, is it attached to that or not?
There is a detailed ruling based on one opinion, and it is not included absolutely based on another opinion. Some scholars said: If one intends to cover himself by carrying luggage, such that he is able to carry it on his shoulder but carries it on his head to protect himself from the heat of the sun or the rain, for example, then it is forbidden for him.
As for if he does not intend to cover himself, but intends to carry it, and carrying it on his head is easier for him than carrying it on his shoulder, then there is no harm in that.
But the words of the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) say: There is no difference between intending to cover oneself or not, because even if he intends to cover himself, he intends something that is not known by custom, so this intention has no effect. And based on this, there is no harm in carrying goods on one's head with the intention of covering oneself.
But it should be said here: If this thing is something that is not carried except on the head, then yes, and this is the custom, and the person intends both covering and carrying. But if it is light and can be hung in his hand, for example, but he sees that he should cover his head, then this is not permissible, even if it is not the custom.
: The sarawil (trousers) are not worn, and the apparent meaning of the hadith is that there is no difference between the tabban (short-sleeved shirt) and the long-sleeved one. The tabban has short sleeves, and it is called among them . The important point is that the sarawil with short sleeves falls under the prohibition, and it is not worn.
The izar (waist cloth): Is it included with it? It is not included with it.
Okay: Is the izar included with it? The izar is not included with it. The open izar is not included with it. And the one that can be used as an izar by tying it, but if the izar is sewn, is it included with the sarawil? No, it is not included with the sarawil. It is an izar. The sarawil must have sleeves. So if a person sews the izar and makes a loop from the top and ties it, then that is not a sarawil. It is an izar in all cases.
: The baranis (cloak) resembles the mashlah (cloak). The closest thing to it is the mashlah.
And as for , what do we include it with? Okay, we have the baranis, which is far from the kut (coat). The apparent view is that it is closer to the qamis (shirt). It is closer to the qamis. But the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) say: If he throws it over his shoulders in a way that is not wearing, then it is not considered wearing. So if a person throws over his shoulders, it is not considered wearing. And the same applies to the qaba (robe). If he throws it in a way that is not its usual manner of wearing, there is no harm. So if he turns the mashlah, for example, and puts its sleeves at the bottom and its bottom at the top, then that is not considered wearing, so there is no harm in it.
, what is included with them?
The student: The knandar (socks) and the shararib (trousers)?

The Shaykh : The knandar are the khuff (leather socks), but the jawarib (socks) are included with them, meaning , and everything worn on the foot that covers the ankle.
As for what is below the ankle, the scholars differed on whether it is permissible for the one in ihram or not.
The hadith indicates that it is permissible for the one in ihram if he does not find sandals, based on his saying: .
Then, is cutting required for the permissibility of wearing the khuff when sandals are not available, after the cutting? Is cutting required or not?
The hadith here is explicit that cutting is necessary. But is the cutting here for the sake of permissibility or for the sake of obligation?
We mentioned a little while ago that the lam of command is for obligation, and there is no doubt that it is for obligation. The evidence is: The one in ihram is not permitted to do something except by an obligation. Cutting them is ruining them and wasting money, and this is forbidden. And the forbidden is not permitted except by an obligation. This is a principle that benefits you in fiqh and its principles.
And by it, we argued for the obligation of circumcision.
By this principle, which is that the one in ihram is not permitted to do something except by an obligation, we argued for the obligation of circumcision, because circumcision is cutting skin from a person, and it is forbidden, and the forbidden is not permitted except by an obligation.
The important point is that this hadith, meaning the hadith of Ibn Umar, indicates the obligation of cutting the khuff when a person needs to wear them so that they are below the ankles. Is this ruling still in effect, or is it abrogated?
The scholars differed on this issue. Some scholars said that this condition, meaning cutting them, is abrogated. They argued for this with the hadith of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), that he heard the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) preaching at 'Arafah to the one in ihram, saying: He said: and did not mention cutting.
Some scholars said: The hadith of Ibn Abbas is general, and the hadith of Ibn Umar is restricted. The legal principle is: The general is carried on the restricted. And what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was silent about regarding the command to cut in the hadith of Ibn Abbas is known from the hadith of Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). Al-Muqaffa (may Allah have mercy on him), the author of al-Mughni, held this view.
The second opinion is: The hadith of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) abrogates the hadith of Ibn Umar. This is more juristic than the first, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) preached to the people at 'Arafah, and those in 'Arafah are much more numerous than those who heard him in Madinah. If cutting were obligatory, the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would have clarified it, because the Muslims who heard it in 'Arafah would receive the ruling as not restricted by cutting. So the generality of the hadith of Ibn Abbas abrogates the restriction, or the generality of the hadith of Ibn Abbas abrogates the restriction of the hadith of Ibn Umar. This is what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) held, and it is more juristic, in terms of what we mentioned, which is the large number of people who heard the hadith of Ibn Abbas without hearing the hadith of Ibn Umar.
And from the benefits of the hadith: The prohibition of wearing what has been touched by saffron, . The apparent meaning of the hadith is that it is not worn, whether that is before or after entering ihram. And based on this, if he perfumes his ihram clothes before making the intention, he does not wear them until he washes them.
Based on his saying: .
And in this case, the opinion that perfuming the ihram clothes is forbidden is more correct than the opinion that it is disliked. Because the ruling in this issue is that perfuming the body when entering ihram is a recommended practice, perfuming the ihram clothes is disliked, according to the well-known view of the school of thought, and it was said that it is forbidden. The correct view is that it is forbidden, due to the generality of his saying: .
If we wash it, is it necessary for the smell to go away, or is it sufficient for the substance to go away? The first answer is correct, because this is not from impurity. If a person washes impurity and its effect goes away but its smell and color remain, it becomes pure, based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding menstrual blood: But in ihram, the criterion is the perfuming or the perfume, so the smell must go away, by any means, by any trick, even if a person adds something with a strong smell but it is not perfume, and it removes the smell of the perfume, that is sufficient.
We ask questions about this hadith:
Is it permissible for a person to wear a ring?
Yes, because it is not explicitly mentioned, nor is it in the meaning of what is mentioned. Okay.
Is it permissible to wear a watch?
The students: Yes.
The Shaykh: Yes, because it is not explicitly mentioned, nor is it in its meaning.
The Shaykh: Is it permissible to wear glasses on the eye?

The Shaykh : Yes. And the cause is what we mentioned.

The Shaykh : Is it permissible to wear an earpiece in the ear?
The students: Yes.
Is it permissible to wear a necklace?
The student: What is a necklace?

The Shaykh : A necklace is when a person is gathering firewood and wears a necklace, a rope.
The student: Yes, yes, yes.

The Shaykh : Permissible, permissible, there is no problem. Okay.
The Shaykh: Is it permissible to tie his izar?
The students: Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, and it does not require hesitation.

The Shaykh : Is it permissible to tie his rida (cloak)?
The students: Yes.
The Shaykh: Yes, and it does not require hesitation, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was given the summaries of speech, and upon him is the conveyance? And he conveyed. As for what is narrated from Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and others of the Salaf regarding the dislike of tying the rida, this is a dislike that is not considered a legal dislike, such that a person is said to have committed something forbidden.
Is it permissible to put buttons on the rida from the neck to the private parts?
The students: No, it is not permissible.

The Shaykh : How fast the answer is. Yes, there are now rida, yes, they button them, buttons that are not laces, buttons from the neck to the private parts. The apparent view is that this is not permissible, because it removes the appearance of ihram and the one in ihram. Okay.

The Shaykh : Is it permissible to wear a fanila (undershirt)?
The students: No, it is not permissible.

The Shaykh : Okay, a knatafi fanila.
The student: What is knatafi?

The Shaykh : Knatafi means it is held by a string, it has no sleeves.
The student: It is not permissible.
The Shaykh: If I say that there is no stitching in it at all, meaning it is woven in this manner, we say that the original word *al-mukhayyit* (stitched garment) was not mentioned by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). What was reported from the Messenger is: "Do not wear *al-mukhayyit* at all." And according to my opinion, the first person to speak about it was Ibrahim al-Nakha'i (may Allah have mercy on him), a jurist of the Tabi'un (the generation after the Companions), and then people took it from him, so now the common people think that anything with stitching is forbidden, even the stitched sandal, they ask about it because it is stitched. This is due to deviating from the legal terms. If we had said: "Do not wear such and such" from what the text brought or what is in its meaning, it would have been clearer and more explicit. Because if this word "do not wear *al-mukhayyit*" or "it is forbidden for a man to wear *al-mukhayyit*" remained, it would include what the scholars do not intend by this word. Okay.
Is it permissible to wear the belt that has the money in it?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Even if it is stitched?

The Shaykh : Even if it is stitched, because it is not explicitly mentioned in the text, nor is it in the meaning of what is mentioned.
Is it permissible to carry a water skin around the waist to hold water?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh: Yes.
Is it permissible to carry the money pouch around the waist?
The student: It is the belt.

The Shaykh : No, the belt is tied around the belly, and this is hung on the shoulder. This is also permissible according to the stronger position.
Is it permissible to carry a sword around the waist?
The students: Yes.
The Shaykh: Yes. Is it permissible to carry a spray bottle?
The students: Yes.
But note that carrying weapons in the Haram (sacred precinct) is prohibited, unless there is a need for it. So the prohibition here is not due to the state of Ihram, but due to the Haram itself, so that people feel safe and do not fear anyone, unless there is a need for it.
In any case, we have—praise be to Allah—this foundation that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) established regarding what the person in Ihram does not wear. So whatever is other than that is permissible.

The questioner : The trousers... the sandals?

The Shaykh : Trousers are not permissible. The hadith of Ibn 'Umar and the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas regarding trousers are agreed upon, there is no disagreement. Okay.
If he does not find sandals, we say he wears leather socks, and according to the stronger position, he wears them without cutting them. If he does not find the *izar* (lower garment), he wears trousers.
Here is an issue that happens often on the plane. A person forgets his Ihram clothes in the suitcase with the luggage, and he wants to enter the state of Ihram, and he is near the Miqat (boundary). So what does he do? Do we say: "Make the intention and wear your usual clothes," or what?
We say: You can wear the Ihram clothes while you are in this state. Make the shirt an *izar* (lower garment), he can wrap himself with it, or make the *ghutra* (head covering) an *izar*.
And make the trousers a *rida'* (upper garment) or the *ghutra*, and make the intention of Ihram.
The students: But Shaykh...
The Shaykh: No, no, absolutely not... From the mercy of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is that in the matter of Ihram, no one is mocked at all, otherwise the person would fail... There is nothing, my brothers, yes.
The student: ...is it enough?
The Shaykh: No, no, it is not enough. The general rule is that its width covers what is between the navel and the knee.
The student: No one, Shaykh, can bear this?!
In any case, this is the obligatory thing. This is the obligatory thing.
But suppose a person has only a shirt with him, no trousers, no *ghutra*, and nothing else. Do we say he must take it off and make it an *izar*? Yes, he can. The plane has a restroom where the person can cover himself, then he wears this shirt and makes it an *izar*. But most people do not understand such matters; those who understand these matters are the students of knowledge.
You will find that he either delays the Ihram until he lands and takes the *izar* and *rida'* out of the suitcase, or he enters the state of Ihram as he is.
As for the first one, he has left an obligatory duty, the one who delayed the Ihram until he landed and was able to get the *izar* and *rida'*. So he has left an obligatory duty, and leaving an obligatory duty, according to the jurists, requires a sacrifice (blood).
And if he is ignorant, the sin is dropped from him, but the substitute, which is the blood (sacrifice), is not dropped from him.
And as for the second one, who entered the state of Ihram while wearing his clothes, he has here worn what is prohibited from the forbidden clothes while being ignorant. Committing a prohibited act out of ignorance does not result in anything, no sin and no blood. So which is easier and better? The second one, who enters the state of Ihram while wearing his clothes. Yes, this is the best. Therefore, students of knowledge should, rather, it is obligatory upon them in the case of need to clarify these matters, to explain this matter to people, because most of those who ask, if they forget their Ihram clothes in the suitcase inside the plane, most of those who ask say: "He did not enter the state of Ihram."