Explanation of the author's statement: "...or he prayed in a garment that is forbidden for him..."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Then the author said "or he prayed in a garment that is forbidden for him". His prayer is not valid because we have previously established that one of the conditions of the covering is that it must be permissible. If he prays in a garment that is forbidden for him, either because of how it was acquired or because of its substance, his prayer is not valid. If it is because of how it was acquired, for example, if it is stolen or robbed or something similar, that is the acquisition. If it is because of its substance, for example, if it is silk for a man, or if it is depicted with images for a man or a woman, because wearing a garment with images is forbidden, is that right? Or if it is pigskin or something similar, then the prayer is not valid. Additionally, praying in pigskin involves another issue, which is ritual impurity. Yes.
Now, if he bought a garment with stolen dirhams, is the prayer valid or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Is this forbidden because of its acquisition? You are wrong.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He stole dirhams from a person and went and bought a garment. Did he pay with these dirhams?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : That is also wrong. If you said it is valid, that is wrong. If you said it is not valid, that is also wrong.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, distinguish? There are details because the garment is distinguished. Perhaps you meant. Now, if the contract was made on the specific dirhams, the prayer in it is not valid. If the contract was made on something other than the specific dirhams, meaning the price is in the buyer's liability, then the prayer in it is valid. Do you see the precision of the jurists (may Allah have mercy on them)?
For example, if you go to the owner of the garment and say, "Sell me this garment with these stolen dirhams," then the garment is not valid, and the prayer in it is not valid, because the contract is forbidden and defective. The contract is defective because it was made on the specific... what? The forbidden, stolen currency. But if I said, "Sell me this garment for ten," and he sold it to you, and you went... it is not clear that the one who stole went and the buyer stole dirhams and paid the seller, right?
The questioner : ... .
.The Shaykh : The contract is valid, even though its price is forbidden.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, because of the garment. I did not specify the dirhams. The reason it becomes invalid is if you specify them, because making the contract on the specific dirhams is invalid, is it not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is invalid. A contract on... is invalid. So the contract is defective and the garment is not owned. But if I bought the garment and the price is in my liability, then the price is established in my liability, is it not? This buyer, whose liability holds the price, went and stole dirhams and delivered them to the seller. We say the contract has been completed and ended, there is nothing wrong with it. So, if someone asks you, "Is the prayer valid in a garment whose price was stolen?" There is a distinction. If the contract was made on the specific price, it is not valid because the contract is defective. If the contract was in the liability and the price was paid from the stolen money, the contract is valid and the prayer in the garment is valid. Is that right or not? Now, pay attention to the difference.
In any case, if he prays in a garment that is forbidden for him, the author says the prayer is not valid. Why? He says because covering is a condition of prayer, and wearing this garment is forbidden. It is not possible for an obligation and a prohibition to apply to the same specific thing. This garment, for example, is forbidden to wear for prayer as an obligation, and it is forbidden to wear because it is forbidden by its acquisition or substance. He says there is a conflict here, a conflict between the obligation and... what? The prohibition. And if they conflict, the existence of the forbidden is like its absence, so it does not fulfill what is obligatory upon him. Consequently, this covering is like non-existence because it is a garment whose wearing is prohibited, and he made this prohibited thing a substitute for the commanded one. So the command and the prohibition collided, and the command became invalid, becoming as if he did not do what he was commanded to do. Do you understand now? Good.
So, his covering with this forbidden garment is like non-existence legally or physically? Legally. Physically, it is a covering, but legally it is like non-existence because this garment is prohibited from being worn. How can you continue in it and wear it? You are now commanded to take it off and distance yourself from it. How can you draw near to Allah by wearing it and rely on it as a condition of prayer? Do you understand or not? Good.
And this reasoning, as you know, is strong reasoning, and it is supported by the hadith narrated from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding the garment of the one who lets it hang. This indicates that it is a condition of the garment with which one covers the private parts that it must be permissible. Some scholars, indeed many scholars, held that prayer in a garment that is forbidden for one does not become invalid, because the covering was achieved by it, and the aspect is separate and different. The prohibition of wearing the garment is not for the sake of prayer, but it is an absolute prohibition. If the Lawgiver said, for example, "Do not pray in this garment," we would say if you prayed in this garment, your prayer is invalid. Why? Because if He said "do not pray" and you prayed based on His saying "pray in a garment," there would be a contradiction and conflict. But the Lawgiver did not prohibit me from praying in this garment; rather, He prohibited me from wearing the garment absolutely, in prayer or otherwise. This does not necessitate the invalidity of the prayer because the aspect is separate. So the command to wear the garment in prayer [Al-A'raf 7:31] is for the sake of prayer, and the prohibition of wearing the forbidden garment is not for the sake of prayer, but for the sake of using something you are not allowed to use. We say this position is the stronger one, unless the hadith is established. If the hadith is established, the position based on it becomes necessary. But many scholars weakened the hadith and said it does not constitute proof, and we cannot obligate a person to repeat his prayer based on this hadith.
Now, if he prayed in a garment that is forbidden for him and he had another one, the apparent meaning of the author's words is that the prayer is not valid, because he said "he prayed in a garment that is forbidden for him" and did not say "he covered with a garment that is forbidden for him." Accordingly, if he had a silk garment on and a cotton or wool garment underneath, his prayer is not valid according to the author's statement. It was said that if the forbidden garment is the inner garment and the permissible one is the outer garment, it is not valid, and if it is the reverse, it is valid, right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The second position says that if the garment is the inner garment, the forbidden one is the inner garment, it is not valid, and if it is the outer garment, it is valid. Yes, the inner garment is the one next to the body, and the outer garment is the one on top. He says because if it is the inner garment, the covering is achieved by it, and if it is the outer garment, the covering is by the one underneath. So a distinction is made between this and that. The apparent meaning of the author's words is that there is no difference, yes?
The questioner : ... .
Now, if he bought a garment with stolen dirhams, is the prayer valid or not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Is this forbidden because of its acquisition? You are wrong.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : He stole dirhams from a person and went and bought a garment. Did he pay with these dirhams?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : That is also wrong. If you said it is valid, that is wrong. If you said it is not valid, that is also wrong.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, distinguish? There are details because the garment is distinguished. Perhaps you meant
The audience laughed
ضحك الحضورFor example, if you go to the owner of the garment and say, "Sell me this garment with these stolen dirhams," then the garment is not valid, and the prayer in it is not valid, because the contract is forbidden and defective. The contract is defective because it was made on the specific... what? The forbidden, stolen currency. But if I said, "Sell me this garment for ten," and he sold it to you, and you went... it is not clear that the one who stole went and the buyer stole dirhams and paid the seller, right?
The questioner : ... .
.The Shaykh : The contract is valid, even though its price is forbidden.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, no, because of the garment. I did not specify the dirhams. The reason it becomes invalid is if you specify them, because making the contract on the specific dirhams is invalid, is it not?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : It is invalid. A contract on... is invalid. So the contract is defective and the garment is not owned. But if I bought the garment and the price is in my liability, then the price is established in my liability, is it not? This buyer, whose liability holds the price, went and stole dirhams and delivered them to the seller. We say the contract has been completed and ended, there is nothing wrong with it. So, if someone asks you, "Is the prayer valid in a garment whose price was stolen?" There is a distinction. If the contract was made on the specific price, it is not valid because the contract is defective. If the contract was in the liability and the price was paid from the stolen money, the contract is valid and the prayer in the garment is valid. Is that right or not? Now, pay attention to the difference.
In any case, if he prays in a garment that is forbidden for him, the author says the prayer is not valid. Why? He says because covering is a condition of prayer, and wearing this garment is forbidden. It is not possible for an obligation and a prohibition to apply to the same specific thing. This garment, for example, is forbidden to wear for prayer as an obligation, and it is forbidden to wear because it is forbidden by its acquisition or substance. He says there is a conflict here, a conflict between the obligation and... what? The prohibition. And if they conflict, the existence of the forbidden is like its absence, so it does not fulfill what is obligatory upon him. Consequently, this covering is like non-existence because it is a garment whose wearing is prohibited, and he made this prohibited thing a substitute for the commanded one. So the command and the prohibition collided, and the command became invalid, becoming as if he did not do what he was commanded to do. Do you understand now? Good.
So, his covering with this forbidden garment is like non-existence legally or physically? Legally. Physically, it is a covering, but legally it is like non-existence because this garment is prohibited from being worn. How can you continue in it and wear it? You are now commanded to take it off and distance yourself from it. How can you draw near to Allah by wearing it and rely on it as a condition of prayer? Do you understand or not? Good.
And this reasoning, as you know, is strong reasoning, and it is supported by the hadith narrated from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding the garment of the one who lets it hang
That he commanded him to repeat the prayer
أنه أمره بإعادة الصلاةO children of Adam, take your adornment at every masjid
يا بني أدم خذوا زينتكم عند كل مسجدNow, if he prayed in a garment that is forbidden for him and he had another one, the apparent meaning of the author's words is that the prayer is not valid, because he said "he prayed in a garment that is forbidden for him" and did not say "he covered with a garment that is forbidden for him." Accordingly, if he had a silk garment on and a cotton or wool garment underneath, his prayer is not valid according to the author's statement. It was said that if the forbidden garment is the inner garment and the permissible one is the outer garment, it is not valid, and if it is the reverse, it is valid, right?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : How?
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : The second position says that if the garment is the inner garment, the forbidden one is the inner garment, it is not valid, and if it is the outer garment, it is valid. Yes, the inner garment is the one next to the body, and the outer garment is the one on top. He says because if it is the inner garment, the covering is achieved by it, and if it is the outer garment, the covering is by the one underneath. So a distinction is made between this and that. The apparent meaning of the author's words is that there is no difference, yes?
The questioner : ... .