Explanation of the author's statement: "And their clothes, if their state is unknown."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : ... meaning that their clothes become permissible. And what is meant by "their clothes" is what they made, or what they wore, or both. Both are included: the clothes they made become permissible, and the clothes they dyed become permissible. We do not say, "Perhaps they dyed them with an impure dye" or "wove them with an impure loom." No, the original state is permissibility. Likewise, the clothes they wore become permissible for us to wear. However, if one knows that a person does not guard against impurities, it is better to avoid his clothes, based on what is implied by the hadith of Abu Thalhah al-Khushni (may Allah be pleased with him). This applies to those who do not care about impurities, such as the Christians. The scholars say that the Christians do not care about impurities; their clothes become contaminated with urine, and women with menstruation, and it does not concern them. This is the opposite of the Jews. The Jews say that if a cloth becomes impure with them, they cut it off with scissors and it cannot be washed. So this Shari'ah, praise be to Allah, is a middle path between these two groups. It is not to be taken lightly, nor is the cloth that becomes contaminated cut off; rather, it is washed until this impurity is removed. And if its state is unknown, well, if its state is unknown, and if it is known...
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If it is known, my brothers, if it is known, then it is not but that either its purity is known or its impurity is known. If you know its impurity, then it is not to be used. And if you know its purity, then there is no issue with it. The issue is when the state is unknown. Do we say that the original state is that they do not guard against impurities and that it is forbidden, or that the original state is purity until the impurity becomes apparent? The answer is the latter. Therefore, the phrase "if its state is unknown" has two implications. The first implication is that you know its purity, and the second implication is that you know its impurity. If you know its impurity, then it is to be avoided until it is washed. And if you know its purity, then the matter with it is clear.
The questioner : Well, does this apply to the clothes used by them, or even if they were made?
The Shaykh : Even the made ones and the worn ones, all of them.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : If it is known, my brothers, if it is known, then it is not but that either its purity is known or its impurity is known. If you know its impurity, then it is not to be used. And if you know its purity, then there is no issue with it. The issue is when the state is unknown. Do we say that the original state is that they do not guard against impurities and that it is forbidden, or that the original state is purity until the impurity becomes apparent? The answer is the latter. Therefore, the phrase "if its state is unknown" has two implications. The first implication is that you know its purity, and the second implication is that you know its impurity. If you know its impurity, then it is to be avoided until it is washed. And if you know its purity, then the matter with it is clear.
The questioner : Well, does this apply to the clothes used by them, or even if they were made?
The Shaykh : Even the made ones and the worn ones, all of them.