The Query

Is it permissible to wear a pouch in Ihram?

The Fatwa

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

The Reply

The Fiqh of the Reply

Among the prohibitions of Iḥrām is the wearing of clothing which is figure-hugging and fastened on the limbs by one of the following methods, as described by Ibn al-Humām (d.861 AH):

1. Ishtimāl – this refers to the person tying and fastening clothing to his body which results in the clothing taking the shape and form of the limbs, like ordinary clothing that is worn.
2. Istimsāk – this refers to the clothing having accessories such as stitching, press studs, Velcro or elastic, which result in the clothing taking the shape of limbs and resembling everyday clothing[1].

This prohibition is not specific to stitched clothing, rather it applies to anything which results in the Iḥrām clothing to resemble and appear like normal and everyday clothing. Given that the above was most apparent and common through wearing stitched clothing, the prohibition became synonymous with wearing ‘stitched clothing’ (Lubs al-Makhīṭ). However, the prohibition is not specific to stitched clothing or stitches, for that matter.

When it comes to tying something around the waist, the Fuqahā’ are explicit in the permissibility of wearing something wherein valuables are kept, as mentioned by Imam al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH), Ibn Nujaym , al-Ḥaddād al-Zabīdī (d.800 AH), Ibn ‘Ābidīn (d.1252 AH) and others[2]. The Fuqahā’ mention the word Himyān and Minṭaqah. Ibn al-Humām (d. 861 AH) mentions that this does not fall under the prohibition of Lubs al-Makhīṭ [3]. However, the jurists equally state that it is disliked to tie a rope around one’s lower garment. This has been stated by Ibn Māzah (d.616 AH) in his al-Muḥit al-Burhānī as well as others. Imam al-Sarakhsī (d. 483 AH) also narrates this, and cites a prophetic narration specifically for tying a rope. Ibn al-Humām defends the permissibility of wearing a Himyān (akin to a pouch) and differentiates it from the tying of a rope on the following premises:

1. It is not in the meaning of Lubs al-Makhīṭ
2. It is typically worn underneath the garment, and therefore does not aid in Ishtimāl and Istimsāk
3. The dislike for the rope is as a result of a specific narration

Imam al-Sarakhsī (d.483 AH) identifies another meaning in the prohibition of Lubs al-Makhīṭ, in that it refers to those garments and accessories on clothing which completely remove the need to tend to one’s clothing to keep it in place; meaning, Iḥrām clothing necessitates some level of conscious effort and labour to preserve the clothes on one’s body. In other words, a hallmark of everyday clothing and Lubs al-Makhīṭ  is that they are effortlessly kept and maintained on one’s body without having to tend to them after wearing.

Although Ibn al-Humām mentions that the Himyān (pouch equivalent) was typically worn beneath the garment (and therefore invisible), it is permitted to wear it on top of one’s garment too, as explicitly stated by Ibn ‘Ābidīn (d.1252 AH) and Shah al-Muhajir al-Makkī (d.1346 AH) in his Ghunyat al-Nāsik Fī Bugyat al-Manāsik[4]. They state that wearing the Himyān underneath the garment is acceptable because it is not worn in such an instance to maintain and keep the Iḥram garment in place. And if the Himyān is worn above the garment, then it is acceptable on the premise that it is not in the meaning of Lubs al-Makhīṭ. Hence, it seems that there are two different premises to support the conclusion in each scenario.

The question arises that why is the wearing of a Himyān on top of one’s Iḥrām not in the meaning of Lubs al-Makhīṭ? One indicator found in Ibn al-Humām’s writings is that there is no intention to wear the Himyān to maintain and support the lower garment of Iḥrām, instead it is worn to preserve one’s valuables. Another indicator is mentioned by Imam al-Kāsānī (d.587 AH); He  states that the Ishtimāl of a Himyān is similar to that of the lower garment of Iḥrām[5]; the Himyān is not adding much support to the Izār (lower garment), as the lower garment of Iḥrām is tied and fastened around the waist anyway. Therefore it seems that the Fuqahā’ may deem it as somewhat of a Tābi’ (subordinate) to the Izār and not an accessory which is stronger in meaning or dominant in keeping the Iḥrām clothing fastened and secure around the waist like ordinary clothing. When it is not stronger, it cannot be considered as a foreign and additional item being worn. When it is not additional item, it cannot then resemble Lubs al-Makhīṭ, as one feature of Lubs al-Makhīṭ is Istimsāk, which is the support of accessories or elements in making the Iḥrām clothing appear like every day wear. To summarise, the impact of the Himyān is less than the Izār itself in maintaining it around the waist. When that is the case, it cannot be in the meaning of Lubs al-Makhīṭ, as Lubs al-Makhīṭ always is dominant in adding Ishtimāl and Istimsāk to clothing.

The tying of the rope was discouraged in the prophetic narration, and the reason for that according to Ibn al-Humām (d.861 AH) is that it closely resembles the function of Lubs al-Makhīṭ , in that it effortlessly maintains the lower garment on one’s body. This meaning can be found in wearing a belt too. As such, tying a belt solely to hold the lower Iḥrām garment in place would also be disliked. However, the Fuqahā’ clearly state that there is no atonement or penalty due as a result of tying something around the waist on top of one’s Iḥrām[6].

The Rationale of the Reply

The Prophet ﷺ described a pilgrim as “dishevelled and odorous.” [Tirmidhi][7] The state of Iḥrām is one where a person is disorderly, unkempt, ungroomed. Iḥrām erases distinction between class and status. There is nobody that stands out on account of riches or luxury clothing. However, the purpose of not being permitted to wear everyday clothes and being made to assume an uncommon, irregular and unfamiliar guise is to train the heart and mind; You should not be in the same state as you are in the comfort of your home. Coming out of one’s comfort zone is where spiritual growth occurs.

A person’s appearance and physical state has an impact on their internal being. The physical state and physical experience impacts the way we feel and think. Iḥrām brings within us a sense of weakness and humbleness. It facilitates the conscious dependence and reliance upon Almighty Allah. Among the greatest reminders and facilitators of the sovereignty and power of Allah is the clothing of Iḥrām. Iḥrām conditions the heart, mind and soul.

The pouch is acceptable as the objective of Iḥrām is not to put a person into actual worry and anxiety. There is a natural need to preserve valuables and be able to carry important items with oneself. That can only occur by strapping something to yourself or carrying something. As such, preserving valuables in a pouch is acceptable. This beautiful balance in allowing us to preserve ourselves and yet facilitate growth is another example of how Islam maintains equilibrium.

And Almighty Allah Alone Knows Best

Mufti Faraz Adam,
Darul Iftaa Muadh ibn Jabal
www.fatwa-centre.com | www.darulfiqh.com

DISCLAIMER:

The views and opinions expressed in this answer belong only to the author and do not in any way represent or reflect the views of any institutions to which he may be affiliated.

Arguments and ideas propounded in this answer are based on the juristic interpretations and reasoning of the author. Given that contemporary issues and interpretations of contemporary issues are subjective in nature, another Mufti may reach different conclusions to the one expressed by the author. Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure total accuracy and soundness from a Shari’ah perspective, the author is open to any correction or juristic guidance. On the event of any juristic shortcomings, the author will retract any or all of the conclusions expressed within this answer.

The Shari’ah ruling given herein is based specifically on the scenario in question.  The author bears no responsibility towards any party that acts or does not act on this answer and is exempted from any and all forms of loss or damage.  This answer may not be used as evidence in any court of law without prior written consent from the author.  Consideration is only given and is restricted to the specific links provided, the author does not endorse nor approve of any other content the website may contain.

[1]  في فتح القدير ج 5 ص 390 ط دار الكتب:

وَكَذَا إذَا لَبِسَ الطَّيْلَسَانَ مِنْ غَيْرِ أَنْ يُزِرَّهُ عَلَيْهِ لِعَدَمِ الِاسْتِمْسَاكِ بِنَفْسِهِ فَإِنْ زَرَّ الْقَبَاءَ أَوْ الطَّيْلَسَانَ يَوْمًا لَزِمَهُ دَمٌ ؛ لِحُصُولِ الِاسْتِمْسَاكِ بِالزِّرِّ مَعَ الِاشْتِمَالِ بِالْخِيَاطَةِ ، بِخِلَافِ مَا لَوْ عَقَدَ الرِّدَاءَ أَوْ شَدَّ الْإِزَارَ بِحَبْلٍ يَوْمًا كُرِهَ لَهُ ذَلِكَ لِلشَّبَهِ بِالْمَخِيطِ وَلَا شَيْءَ عَلَيْهِ ؛ لِانْتِفَاءِ الِاشْتِمَالِ بِوَاسِطَةِ الْخِيَاطَةِ .

[2] المبسوط للسرخسي (ت 483 ه) ج 4 ص 127 ط دار المعرفة:

(قَالَ): وَلَا بَأْسَ بِأَنْ يَلْبَسَ الْهِمْيَانَ وَالْمِنْطَقَةَ يَشُدُّ بِهَا حَقْوَيْهِ فِيهَا نَفَقَتُهُ هَكَذَا رُوِيَ عَنْ عَائِشَةَ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا – أَنَّهَا سُئِلَتْ هَلْ يَلْبَسُ الْمُحْرِمُ الْهِمْيَانَ فَقَالَتْ اسْتَوْثِقْ مِنْ نَفَقَتِكَ بِمَا شِئْتَ، وَفِي حَدِيثِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا – «عَنْ النَّبِيِّ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَرَ لِلْمُحْرِمِ بَأْسًا بِأَنْ يَعْقِدَ الْهِمْيَانَ عَلَى وَسَطِهِ وَفِيهِ نَفَقَتُهُ»، وَكَانَ مَالِكٌ – رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى – يَقُولُ: إنْ كَانَ فِيهِ نَفَقَتُهُ فَلَا بَأْسَ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِيهِ نَفَقَةُ غَيْرِهِ كَرِهْتُ لَهُ ذَلِكَ؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَا حَاجَةَ إلَى حَمْلِ نَفَقَةِ غَيْرِهِ، وَلَكِنَّا نَقُولُ: جَوَازُ لُبْسِ الْهِمْيَانِ وَالْمِنْطَقَةِ بِاعْتِبَارِ أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ فِي مَعْنَى لُبْسِ الْمَخِيطِ، وَفِي هَذَا يَسْتَوِي نَفَقَتُهُ وَنَفَقَةُ غَيْرِهِ. وَعَنْ أَبِي يُوسُفَ – رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى – أَنَّهُ كَرِهَ لِلْمُحْرِمِ لُبْسَ الْمِنْطَقَةِ الْمُتَّخَذَةِ مِنْ الْإِبْرَيْسَمِ، فَقِيلَ: لِأَنَّهُ فِي مَعْنَى الْمَخِيطِ، وَقِيلَ: هُوَ بِنَاءٌ عَلَى أَصْلِ أَبِي يُوسُفَ – رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى – فِي كَرَاهَةِ مَا قَلَّ مِنْ الْحَرِيرِ وَكَثُرَ لِلرِّجَالِ

الفتاوى الهندية ج 1 ص 224:

وَلَا بَأْسَ بِشَدِّ الْهِمْيَانِ أَوْ الْمِنْطَقَةِ لِلْمُحْرِمِ سَوَاءٌ كَانَ فِي الْهِمْيَانِ نَفَقَتُهُ أَوْ نَفَقَةُ غَيْرِهِ، وَسَوَاءٌ كَانَ شَدُّ الْمِنْطَقَةِ بِالْإِبْرَيْسَمِ أَوْ بِالسُّيُورِ هَكَذَا فِي الْبَدَائِعِ وَالسِّرَاجِ الْوَهَّاجِ

(قَوْلُهُ وَيَشُدَّ فِي وَسَطِهِ الْهِمْيَانَ) بِالْكَسْرِ وَهُوَ شَيْءٌ يُجْعَلُ فِيهِ الدَّرَاهِمُ وَيُشَدُّ عَلَى الْحَقْوِ (الجوهرة ج 1 ص 152)

البحر الرائق ج 2 ص 350:

(قَوْلُهُ وَشَدَّ الْهِمْيَانِ فِي وَسَطِهِ) أَيْ لَا يَجْتَنِبُهُ وَهُوَ بِالْكَسْرِ مَا يُجْعَلُ فِيهِ الدَّرَاهِمُ، وَيُشَدُّ عَلَى الْحَقْوِ أَطْلَقَهُ فَشَمِلَ مَا إذَا كَانَ فِيهِ نَفَقَتُهُ أَوْ نَفَقَةُ غَيْرِهِ؛ لِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ بِلُبْسِ مَخِيطٍ وَلَا فِي مَعْنَاهُ.

حاشية ابن عابدين ج 2 ص 481:

(قَوْلُهُ مِنْ السُّرَّةِ إلَى الرُّكْبَةِ) بَيَانٌ لِتَفْسِيرِ الْإِزَارِ وَالْغَايَةُ دَاخِلَةٌ لِأَنَّ الرُّكْبَةَ مِنْ الْعَوْرَةِ (قَوْلُهُ عَلَى ظَهْرِهِ) بَيَانٌ لِتَفْسِيرِ الرِّدَاءِ قَالَ فِي الْبَحْرِ وَالرِّدَاءُ عَلَى الظَّهْرِ وَالْكَتِفَيْنِ وَالصَّدْرِ (قَوْلُهُ فَإِنْ زَرَّرَهُ إلَخْ) وَكَذَا لَوْ شَدَّهُ بِحَبْلٍ وَنَحْوِهِ لِشَبَهِهِ حِينَئِذٍ بِالْمَخِيطِ مِنْ جِهَةِ أَنَّهُ لَا يَحْتَاجُ إلَى حِفْظِهِ، بِخِلَافِ شَدِّ الْهِمْيَانِ فِي وَسَطِهِ لِأَنَّهُ يُشَدُّ تَحْتَ الْإِزَارِ عَادَةً أَفَادَهُ فِي فَتْحِ الْقَدِيرِ أَيْ فَلَمْ يَكُنْ الْقَصْدُ مِنْهُ حِفْظَ الْإِزَارِ وَإِنْ شَدَّهُ فَوْقَهُ

[3] شرح فتح القدير ج 5 ص 99:

( وَ ) لَا بَأْسَ بِأَنْ ( يَشُدَّ فِي وَسَطِهِ الْهِمْيَانَ ) وَقَالَ مَالِكٌ رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ : يُكْرَهُ إذَا كَانَ فِيهِ نَفَقَةُ غَيْرِهِ لِأَنَّهُ لَا ضَرُورَةَ .

وَلَنَا أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ فِي مَعْنَى لُبْسِ الْمَخِيطِ فَاسْتَوَتْ فِيهِ الْحَالَتَانِ ( وَلَا يَغْسِلُ رَأْسَهُ وَلَا لِحْيَتَهُ بِالْخِطْمِيِّ ) لِأَنَّهُ نَوْعُ طِيبٍ ، وَلِأَنَّهُ يَقْتُلُ هُوَامَّ الرَّأْسِ .

( قَوْلُهُ وَلَنَا أَنَّهُ لَيْسَ فِي مَعْنَى لُبْسِ الْمَخِيطِ فَاسْتَوَتْ فِيهِ الْحَالَتَانِ ) قَدْ يُقَالُ : الْكَرَاهَةُ لَيْسَ لِذَلِكَ بَلْ لِكَرَاهَةِ شَدِّ الْإِزَارِ وَالرِّدَاءِ بِحَبْلٍ أَوْ غَيْرِهِ إجْمَاعًا .

وَكَذَا عَقْدُهُ وَالْهِمْيَانُ حِينَئِذٍ مِنْ هَذَا الْقَبِيلِ .

قُلْنَا : ذَاكَ بِنَصٍّ خَاصٍّ سَبَبُهُ شَبَهُهُ حِينَئِذٍ بِالْمَخِيطِ مِنْ جِهَةِ أَنَّهُ لَا يَحْتَاجُ إلَى حِفْظِهِ ، وَعَنْ ذَلِكَ كُرِهَ تَخْلِيلُ الرِّدَاءِ أَيْضًا ، وَلَيْسَ فِي شَدِّ الْهِمْيَانِ هَذَا الْمَعْنَى لِأَنَّهُ يُشَدُّ تَحْتَ الْإِزَارِ عَادَةً ،

[4]  في غنية الناسك في بغية المناسك ص 122:

وإن شده فوقه فلم يكن فيه معنى لبس المخيط

[5]وفي بدائع الصنائع ج 2 ص 186 ط دار الكتب:

 وَلِأَنَّ اشْتِمَالَ الْهِمْيَانِ وَالْمِنْطَقَةِ عَلَيْهِ كَاشْتِمَالِ الْإِزَارِ فَلَا يُمْنَعُ عَنْهُ.

[6] المحيط البرهاني ج 2 ص 446:

والأصل أن المحرم ممنوع عن لبس المخيط على وجه المعتاد حتى لو اتزر بالسراويل وارتدى بالقميص إذا فسخ به فلا بأس به؛ لأن المنع عن لبس المخيط في حق المحرم لما فيه من معنى الترفيه، وذلك في اللبس المعتاد لا في غيره؛ لأن غير المعتاد يحتاج إلى تكلف حفظه عند استعماله كما يحتاج إلى تكلف حفظ الأزرار، ويكره له أن يزر ليس أن يعقده على إزاره بحبل أو نحوه؛ لأنه لا يحتاج في حفظه إلى تكلف، فيشبه المخيط مع هذا لو فعل لا شيء عليه لأن المحرم عليه لبس المخيط ولم يوجد،

[7]  في سنن الترمذي:

عَنْ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، قَالَ: قَامَ رَجُلٌ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ: مَنِ الحَاجُّ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ؟ قَالَ: «الشَّعِثُ التَّفِلُ» فَقَامَ رَجُلٌ آخَرُ فَقَالَ: أَيُّ الحَجِّ أَفْضَلُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ؟ قَالَ: «العَجُّ وَالثَّجُّ» فَقَامَ رَجُلٌ آخَرُ فَقَالَ: مَا السَّبِيلُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ؟ قَالَ: «الزَّادُ وَالرَّاحِلَةُ»: «هَذَا حَدِيثٌ لَا نَعْرِفُهُ مِنْ حَدِيثِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ إِلَّا مِنْ حَدِيثِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ يَزِيدَ الخُوزِيِّ المَكِّيِّ، وَقَدْ تَكَلَّمَ بَعْضُ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ فِي إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ يَزِيدَ مِنْ قِبَلِ حِفْظِهِ»