"And if a man wears sewn clothing, he must pay a fidyah"

The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and may Allah send prayers and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and all his Companions. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "And if a man wears sewn clothing, he must pay a fidyah". If a man wears this, it is among the prohibited acts, and it is referred to as wearing sewn clothing. What is the meaning of sewn clothing? Sewn clothing, according to the jurists, is "anything sewn onto a limb or onto the entire body". That is, what is sewn onto a limb according to its measurements, or onto the entire body; this is sewn clothing, such as a shirt, trousers, a jacket, a vest, and the like. The term sewn clothing does not refer to what contains stitching; rather, if it is something worn during the state of ihram, it is considered worn even if it contains stitching. Here are two things. The first is: what is sewn clothing? We say it is what is sewn onto a limb or onto the entire body, or onto a part of the body. The word "wears" is the second thing: it must be worn in the customary manner of wearing. If one merely places it on oneself, there is nothing required of him. For example, if one drapes a shirt over oneself, that does not harm, because it is not being worn. Now, what is the evidence? The evidence for this is the hadith of 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with them both), that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was asked: "What does the one in ihram wear?" "What" is a question word, meaning: what thing does he wear? He said: and he mentioned five things that are not to be worn, even though he was asked about what is to be worn, he answered with what is not to be worn. This means that the one in ihram wears everything other than these five. He turned away from mentioning what is worn to mentioning what is not worn because what is not worn is fewer in number than what is worn. And it is known that when we limit the few, we say that everything else is worn. The author (may Allah have mercy on him) says: "And if a man wears sewn clothing", so he expressed it as wearing sewn clothing. But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who was given the essence of words, did not express it as wearing sewn clothing; rather, he mentioned specific things by definition or by enumeration?
The attendees: By enumeration.

The Shaykh : By enumeration. He specified them by enumeration. It would have been better for the author and other authors to mention what the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) mentioned, as we mentioned previously, that preserving the wording of the text, even in the context of rulings, is preferable. It is mentioned that the first to express it as "wearing sewn clothing" was Ibrahim al-Nakha'i from the Tabi'un, indeed from the jurists of the Tabi'un. Because Ibrahim al-Nakha'i was more knowledgeable in jurisprudence than in hadith, he is considered a jurist, whereas in hadith he was not at the level he was in jurisprudence. So he said: "One does not wear sewn clothing". Since this expression did not come from an infallible person, there is a problem with it, first in terms of its generality, and second in terms of its implication. Because if we take its generality, we would forbid everything that contains stitching, because "makhit" (sewn) is a passive participle meaning "sewn." And because this expression gives the impression that what is permissible by the Shari'ah to wear in ihram, if it contains stitching, would be prohibited. That is, if a person has a patched cloak or a cloak joined in two places, is it sewn or not? Linguistically, it is sewn because part of it is stitched to another part, and this is not forbidden but is permissible. Therefore, the Prophetic expression is preferable to this, because it contains a limit and does not give a misleading impression. So let us return to the explanation of the hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). The shirt is what is sewn in the shape of the body and has sleeves, like the clothes we are wearing now; these are shirts, so the one in ihram does not wear them. Because if he wore them, there would be no apparent sign of the ritual, and people would differ in it: this one wears such and such, and this one wears such and such. This is unlike when they are uniform in clothing. One does not wear the shirt, nor the trousers, or "siraawil." "Siraawil" is a singular noun, not a plural, and its plural is "siraawilaat." It is said that it is a plural and its singular is "siraawal," but the eloquent language is that "siraawil" is singular. Ibn Malik said in the Alfiyyah: "And siraawil with this plural form—meaning the form of the ultimate plural—*** resembles what necessitates the generality of the prohibition".
Now, trousers are a garment cut to a specific size of the body's limbs. What are they?
The attendees: The two legs.

The Shaykh : The two legs. The two legs, so one does not wear trousers. The third is: "Nor the buran". The buran is a wide garment with a hood that covers the head, attached to it. Most of the time, we see the Maghrebis wearing them. These are the buran, so the one in ihram does not wear them. The fourth is: "Nor the 'ima". The 'ima is headwear, so the one in ihram does not wear the 'ima because it is headwear. He did not say "do not cover your head" because he was only asked about what is worn, so he mentioned what is worn on the head, which is the 'ima, and what is worn on the lower part of the body, which is the trousers, and what is worn on the upper part of the body, which is the shirt. And the fifth is: "Nor the khuff". The khuff are well known; they are what is worn on the foot made of leather or the like. So the one in ihram does not wear them, except that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made an exception: . Let us return a second time to the hadith and say: the hadith says: the one in ihram does not wear such and such, does not wear. So if one uses them in a manner other than the customary way of wearing, there is no harm in it. For example, if one makes the shirt a cloak, or makes it an izar, or makes the trousers a cloak. And with this, we close the door on the excuse of the one who says: if he boards the plane and the ihram clothes are in the suitcase inside the plane, we say this is not a problem, because one can do without the ihram clothes by what? By making the garment an izar and making the trousers a cloak, or if one is among those who wear the ghutra, he makes the ghutra a cloak, and there is no problem in the issue. Or we say: make the shirt a cloak and wear the trousers, because you do not find an izar, so the issue has no problem. Is this done out of necessity or absolutely? Meaning, if a person, as is our case today, is riding in a car that takes him to the Sacred Mosque and he does not need to walk, do we say that in this case he may wear the khuff if he does not find sandals, or do we say that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted wearing the khuff when sandals are not found because a person needs to walk, and walking around Makkah, as you know, involves valleys and mountains that are generally not free of thorns and stones that bleed the fingers? Therefore, he was granted a dispensation to wear the khuff. What appears to me is that he wears the khuff out of necessity, but if he does not need them, there is no need, as in our current time. And what remains of the clothing? We say that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) limited what is not worn to these five.