An Islamic radio claims that it is permissible to wear the trousers below the ankles because this is so according to Imaam Shaafi (rahmatullah alayh). The Molvi who maintains this view is a Hanafi. Is this correct?

The claim made by the Molvi is erroneous. On the assumption that this is so according to Imaam Shafi (rahmatullah alayh), then it follows that according to Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), it is not permissible, hence the Hanafi Molvi had to bypass the ruling of his own Math-hab and cite the view of the Imaam of another Math-hab. This flitting from Math-hab to Math-hab for no valid Shar'i reason is not permissible.
It is dhalaal (deviation). Only if there is a pressing need may an experienced and a pious Mufti issue a ruling in a specific case in terms of another Math-hab from one of the Four Math-habs. But it is haraam to jump, from Math-hab to Math-hab for sport, futility and to entertain. The programs of these radios are designed to entertain. They submit the teachings of the Shariah to nafsaaniyat. By stating that wearing the trousers below the ankles is permissible according to Imaam Shaafi (rahmatullah alayh), the Molvi is guilty of opening up a door of kabeerah sin. Wearing the trousers below the ankles is a kabeerah sin according to the Hanafi Math-hab and other Imaams, and according to Imaam Shafi while not a kabeerah sin in certain cases, nevertheless, it is NOT permissible as the molvi of the radio claims. The duty of Ulama is Amr Bil Ma'roof Nahy anil Munkar. It therefore does not behove them to encourage Muslims to drift from the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) especially in this age of immorality and total immersion in the ways of liberalism of the nude kuffaar. The duty of the Ulama is to steer Muslims away from the ways and styles of the kuffaar and bring them closer to the Sunnah of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). What really constrains a Molvi to manipulate technicalities to legalize an act the overwhelming evidences of the Shariah indicate is haraam and a kabeerah sin? He should examine his conscience and ask himself if the tareeqah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is to be abandonned and shunned in preference of a kuffaar style simply on the basis of a minority view which the Molvi in fact has not understood? Our explanation of this mas'alah appears elsewhere in this issue of The Majlis. And why is it necessary for the Molvi to overlook the view of his Imaam, Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh)—a view which is thoroughly supported by authentic Ahadith—and propagate an assumed contrary view? The only conclusion which a discerning person will gain is that the attemt is to encourage Muslims to adopt the style of the kuffaar since the style in which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah wore their trousers is mocked by the kuffaar. May Allah Ta'ala protect Muslims from the evil effect of those learned people who suffer from oblique vision and shallow understanding which cannot fathom the wisdom of the Ahkaam of the Shariah.

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Google+
• Share on Facebook