Benefits of the Hadith: (Umm Salimah (may Allah be pleased with her and him) asked the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): "Does a woman pray in a thobe and a khimar without an izar? ...")

The Shaykh : Among the benefits of this hadith, if it is authentic and traced to the Prophet, is the eagerness of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) for understanding the religion. This is evident from Umm Salimah’s question to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding what is mentioned in this hadith. The Companions’ questions to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) are numerous in the Qur'an, including about twelve questions: approximately twelve questions. However, there are many in the Sunnah, which indicates the Companions’ (may Allah be pleased with them) care for their religion and their eagerness for understanding it. Another benefit of this hadith is the permissibility of a woman praying in a thobe. Yes, in a thobe, but on the condition that it covers the backs of her feet. Another benefit of the hadith is that the feet are not an 'awrah (part of the body that must be covered). They are not an 'awrah. The reason for this is that what covers the backs of the feet does not cover the soles of the feet during prostration. If the feet were an 'awrah, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would have said: "If it is ample, covering the backs of the feet and the soles during prostration." Another benefit of this hadith is the permissibility of a woman’s garment hanging below the ankles. This is because the necessity of covering the feet, specifically the backs of the feet, requires the garment to hang below the ankles. This is unlike the man, for whom it is not permissible to let his shirt or izar hang below the ankles. If a man prays in a garment that hangs below the ankles, is his prayer valid or not? There is scholarly disagreement on this, and the correct view is that the prayer is valid, but he is sinful. This is because covering the 'awrah has been achieved, and the prohibition of the garment relates to an external matter. The evidence for this is that this prohibition is not specific to prayer, so we cannot say it is something specific to prayer that invalidates it. The prohibition of a man’s garment hanging below the ankles is general, applying in prayer and outside of prayer. A general prohibition does not invalidate the prayer. This is indicated by this principle: backbiting does not break the fast of the fasting person, even though it is forbidden, because its prohibition is not specific to fasting. Eating breaks the fast because its prohibition is specific to fasting. And from 'Amir ibn Rabi'ah (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: The discussion on covering the 'awrah has ended. That is, the hadiths that Ibn Hajar cited in *Bulugh al-Maram* regarding covering the 'awrah have ended. It remains to be said: What are the conditions of the covering? The covering must be permissible. If it is forbidden, it is not permissible to use it for covering, such as a silk garment for a man, except in cases where wearing it is permissible for him, and such as a garment that hangs below the ankles for a man. But there is disagreement regarding this condition, as I told you: Is he sinful and his prayer valid, or is he sinful and his prayer invalid? There is disagreement, and the stronger view is that his prayer is valid, but he is sinful. Among the conditions is that the garment must be pure. What is used for covering must be pure. If it is impure, the prayer with it is not valid. The evidence for this is And because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) used to wash his garment from impurity. If a boy urinated on his garment, he (peace and blessings be upon him) washed it. And because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered a menstruating woman, if menstrual blood touched her garment, to wash it and then pray in it. These are two conditions. The third condition is that it must be thick enough that the color of the skin is not visible through it. If the color of the skin is visible through it, it is not a covering. If one covers his 'awrah with a plastic garment through which the color of the skin is visible, this covering is not valid, because its presence is like its absence, so the prayer with it is not valid. But if someone says: If he finds nothing other than this plastic, should he cover himself with it or pray naked? It appears that covering himself with it is less severe than praying completely naked. So we tell him: It is better to wear this. There are now plastic garments that some people wear on rainy days instead of carrying an umbrella; they wear this garment over their regular clothes. So, what are the conditions? That it be permissible, pure, and thick. If he finds nothing, he prays naked. But does he pray standing or sitting? It is known that if he prays sitting, it is more concealing, because he covers his backside and also covers his front if he brings his thighs together. So this is more concealing. But he misses another thing, which is standing in the obligatory prayer. The scholars differed in this case: Does he sit or pray standing? The correct view is that he prays standing. The reason is that standing is a pillar, and the covering has been excused due to inability, while he is able to stand. He is able to stand, and he is able to cover himself? Or is he not able?
The student: Not able.

The Shaykh : So it is excused, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted: And on this basis, he prays standing as usual, naked. This is if he is alone, or if it is dark. But if there is someone around him, here it may be extremely difficult for him, a psychological difficulty, to pray standing. Do we say that this difficulty and preoccupation of the mind permit him to pray sitting? Because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And the preoccupation of the heart in this case is more severe than its preoccupation in the presence of food. The view in such a case is that he prays sitting, which is very close to the truth. It is said that he prays sitting for the sake of the perfection of the prayer and the peace of mind. If he finds only an impure garment and is unable to wash it, what does he do? Does he pray in the impure garment and not repeat it, or does he pray in the impure garment and repeat it, or does he pray naked? We have three possibilities. The well-known view among our jurists (may Allah have mercy on them) is that he prays in the impure garment and repeats it. This is a very weak view. Because if we say that praying in an impure garment is forbidden, it is forbidden to pray in it. And if we say that praying in an impure garment out of necessity is permissible, it is not permissible to say: Repeat the prayer, because he prayed according to what he was ordered. Does he pray naked while covering is possible? He does not pray naked, because there is no doubt that covering the 'awrah with an impure garment is better than praying naked, without a doubt. The correct view is that if he finds only an impure garment, he prays in it and does not repeat it. Because carrying the impurity in this case is a dire necessity, and covering the 'awrah is achieved with it, so the intended covering is achieved with this garment, and the impurity is excused because he is unable to avoid it. This is the stronger view in this issue. If he finds only a forbidden garment, such as a man who has only silk and no other garment, does he pray naked or pray in the silk garment? We say: He prays in the silk garment. Because when he is compelled to this garment, the prohibition is removed, and wearing it in this case becomes permissible. So he must pray in the silk garment, and there is no repetition for him. If he finds only a stolen garment, meaning a man stole a garment and wore it, and the time for prayer arrived, do we say he prays naked or prays in this forbidden garment? Some scholars said: He prays naked, because the prohibition of this is not for the right of Allah, but for the right of a human being, and he does not have the right to dispose of the property of another. So its presence is like its absence. Its presence is like its absence. And there is no doubt that this reasoning is strong: If he finds only a stolen garment belonging to another, he prays naked, because its presence is like its absence. But this strong reasoning may be countered by the fact that people are lenient in such a case, meaning that the owner of the garment does not think he would be embarrassed by this person who found only this garment. If it is most likely in our opinion that he will permit it, he must pray in the garment, and there is no problem. And if it is not most likely in our opinion, the view that he prays naked is strong. Yes.

The questioner : ... Can it be said ... he prays in it with the intention of paying rent.

The Shaykh : No, it contradicts. Even with the intention of paying rent, even with the intention of paying rent, he has no right to dispose of the property of another, even with the intention of paying rent. Yes.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : And he does not wear trousers underneath it. If he wears trousers underneath that cover what is between the navel and the knee, there is no harm. Otherwise, the prayer is not valid. Yahya.