Azami 15330

Muslim narrated it in the Book of Clothing (2069) from Yahya bin Yahya, who said, "Khalid bin Abdullah informed us, from Abdul-Malik, from Abdullah, the freed slave of Asma bint Abu Bakr," and he related it.Nawawi said, "Arjuwan," with damma on the hamza and the jim, is the correct and well-known form in the transmissions of the hadith, in the books of unusual vocabulary, and in the books of language and elsewhere. Qadi Iyad likewise stated this explicitly in Mashariq. In two places in Qadi Iyad's commentary, it appears with fatha on the hamza and damma on the jim, but this is a clear error on the part of the copyists, not of Qadi Iyad.The scholars of language and others said it is a dye of intense red, this being what Abu Ubayd and the majority said. Farra said it is redness itself. Ibn Faris said it is every red color. It has also been said that it is red wool. Jawhari said it is a tree with a red blossom, the most beautiful thing there is, and he said it is an Arabized word, while others said it is genuinely Arabic. They said the masculine and feminine forms of the word are the same, one says, "this is an arjuwan garment" and "this is an arjuwan blanket." It is sometimes used as an adjective, but it is more commonly used by placing "arjuwan" in a genitive construction with what follows it.He said, "As for Ibn Umar's answer regarding the fasting of Rajab, it was a denial of what had reached her about him prohibiting it, and an assertion that he fasted all of Rajab, and that he fasted continuously. What is meant by continuously is every day except the days of the two Eids and the days of Tashriq. This is his position, and the position of his father Umar bin Khattab, Ayesha, Abu Talha, and others among the early generation of this community, and it is also the position of Shafii and other scholars, that continuous fasting throughout the year is not disliked.As for what she mentioned about him disliking the decorative marking, he did not acknowledge that he considered it forbidden, but rather stated that he avoided it out of caution, fearing it might fall under the general prohibition of silk.As for the mithara, he denied what had reached her about him regarding it, and said, "This is my mithara, and it is arjuwan," meaning that it is red, and not made of silk but of wool or something else. It was mentioned earlier that it may be made of silk or may be made of wool, and that the hadiths reporting a prohibition against it apply specifically to the one made of silk.As for Asma bringing out the cloak of the Prophet ﷺ whose edges were trimmed with silk, she intended by this to show that this is not forbidden. This is likewise the ruling according to Shafii and others, that a garment, cloak, turban, or the like, if its edge is trimmed with silk, is permissible so long as it does not exceed four fingers in width. If it exceeds that, it is forbidden, based on the hadith of Umar mentioned after this.As for his statement "a cloak of tayalisa," it is formed by placing "jubba" (cloak) in a genitive construction with "tayalisa." Tayalisa is the plural of tayalasan, with fatha on the lam according to the well-known form. The great majority of the scholars of language said that nothing other than fatha on the lam is permissible, and they counted kasra on it among the misreadings of the common people. Qadi Iyad mentioned in Mashariq, under the letters sin and ya, in his explanation of "saj," that tayalasan may be said with fatha, damma, or kasra on the lam, but this is odd and daif.As for his statement "kisrawaniyya," it is said with kasra or fatha on the kaf, the sin being silent, and the ra with fatha. Qadi Iyad reported that the majority of narrators transmitted it with kasra on the kaf. It is a relation to Kisra, the ruler of Iraq, king of the Persians, and it may carry either kasra or fatha on the kaf. Qadi Iyad said, "Harawi transmitted it in Sahih Muslim as 'khusrawaniyya.'"The prohibition of silk refers to a garment that is purely silk or one in which silk is the greater part, and it does not mean that every part of it is forbidden, unlike wine and gold, where every part of them is forbidden.As for his statement about the cloak, "it has a labna," it is with kasra on the lam and sukun on the ba. This is how Qadi Iyad and the rest of the commentators vocalized it, and likewise it appears in the books of language and unusual vocabulary. They said it is a patch at the collar-opening of the shirt, this being the wording used by all of them. Allah knows best.As for her statement "wa farjayha makfufayn," it occurs in this form in all the manuscripts, "and its two openings were trimmed," both words being in the accusative case due to an omitted verb, meaning "and I saw its two openings trimmed." The meaning of "makfuf" is that a kaffa, with damma on the kaf, was made for it, which is that with which its sides are bound and folded over, and this occurs at the hem, at the two openings, and at the two sleeves. In this is evidence for the permissibility of wearing the cloak and wearing anything that has two openings, and that there is no dislike in doing so." End of quote.