Is it permitted to extend trousers or garments below the ankles (isbaal)?

TL;DR: Yes it is permitted to extend/trail trousers or garments below the ankles (isbaal). The majority of Islamic scholars agree that it is disliked, but not haram, for a man to extend his garment below the ankles, unless it is done out of arrogance, pride, or vanity. The reason for this prohibition is the arrogance and pride associated with the act, not the act itself. Therefore, if there is no arrogance involved, the prohibition does not apply. Introduction The issue of Isbaal, or the extension/trailing of garments below the ankle for men, has been a subject of scholarly discourse within the Islamic tradition. This answer aims to provide an overview of the scholarly opinions on this matter and to highlight the nuances and context surrounding the prohibition. Scholarly Opinions on Lowering/Trailing Garments (Isbaal) According to the majority of scholars, it is disliked, but not Haram, for a man to extend his garment below the ankles, unless it is done out of arrogance, pride, or vanity (takabbur - khiya'). This is the reason for the prohibition (illat al-tahrim). A minority took the view that it's forbidden regardless of intention. Regardless, there are major scholars on both side of the debate. Some narrations mention this reason explicitly. For instance, the Prophet (saw) said: مَنْ جَرَّ ثَوْبَهُ مَخِيلَةً : لَمْ يَنْظُرْ اللَّهُ إِلَيْهِ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ "Whoever allows his lower garment to drag out of arrogance will find that Allah will not look at him on the Day of Resurrection." (Sahih Bukhari, 5791) Other narrations do not mention this specific reason, but the jurists (fuqahā') say that all general narrations should be understood in light of this specific hadith, due to the principle of "haml al-mutlaq ala al-muqayyad" (interpreting the unrestricted in light of the restricted). For this reason, if an Eskimo were to extend his garment to cover his ankles for protection against the cold, one would not tell him, "What is below the ankles of the garment is in the Hellfire." This is because the prohibition is based on the presence of arrogance, not the mere act of extending the garment. As the juristic principle states: "When the reason (illa) is present, the ruling is present. When the reason is absent, the ruling is absent." (idhā wujidati l-illa wujida l-hukm, wa idhā intafat al-illa intafa l-hukm) There are some people today who raise their garments above the ankle, but then look down on others who do not, which makes them fall into the very reason for the prohibition (arrogance) that they were trying to escape in the first place. Okay, here is the document redrafted into sections while retaining all the original quotes, including the Arabic: Ibn Hibban in ("Sahih Ibn Hiban", 2/281): فَمَتَى عُدِمَتِ الْخُيَلَاءُ، لَمْ يَكُنْ بِإسْبَالِ الْإِزَارِ بَأْسٌ "In absence of arrogance/vanity, there is nothing wrong with having the garment extended below the ankles." Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal in ("Masail Imam Ahmad wa Ishaaq", 3349): قلت جر الإزار وإسبال الثوب في الصلاة قال: إذا لم يرد به الخيلاء فلا بأس به، قال رسول الله:من جر ثوبه من الخيلاء "Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal was asked about dragging the lower garment during prayer. He replied: 'If it's not associated with arrogance, then there is nothing wrong with this. The Prophet said: "Whoever allows his lower garment to drag out of arrogance..."'" Ibn Taymiyah Hanbali in ("Sharh al-Umdah", 4/366): قال ابن تيمية رحمه الله: ولأن الأحاديث أكثرها مقيدة بالخيلاء فيحمل المطلق عليه, وما سوى ذلك فهو باق على الإباحة, وأحاديث النهي مبنية على الغالب والمظنة . "Because the majority of these Ahaadith link this issue with arrogance, this issue has to be restricted to this. Whatever is outside of this remains on the original ruling of permissibility..." Imam Nawawi in ("Sharh Sahih Muslim", 14/62): قال النووي في شرح مسلم ١٤/ ٦٢ (الإسبال يكون في الإزار والقميص والعمامة، وأنه لا يجوز إسباله تحت الكعبين إن كان للخيلاء، فإن كان لغيرها فهو مكروه، وظواهر الأحاديث في تقييدها بالجر خيلاء تدل على أن التحريم مخصوص بالخيلاء، وهكذا نص الشافعى على الفرق كما ذكرنا ...فما نزل عن الكعبين فهو ممنوع، فإن كان للخيلاء فهو ممنوع منع تحريم، والا فمنع تنزيه) "It is not permissible to extend any clothes below the ankles if it is done out of arrogance. If it's for other than this, then it is disliked (Makrooh)....The apparent meaning of the narrations restrict this issue to arrogance/pride, which proves that the prohibition is also restricted to arrogance..." al-Baji Maliki in 'al-Muntaqa' (9/314): قال في المنتقى(9/314- 315): «وقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم الذي يجر ثوبه خيلاء يقتضي تعلق هذا الحكم بمن جره خيلاء، أما من جره لطول ثوب لا يجد غيره، أو عذر من الأعذار فإنه لا يتناوله الوعيد "And the Prophet's statement: 'Whoever drags his garment out of arrogance...' means that this ruling has to be restricted to whoever drags it out of arrogance. But if someone drags it because the garment is too long and he can't find another, or for some other excuse, then this threat of punishment does not apply to him." Badrudin al-'Ayini Hanafi in 'Umdat al-Qari' (21/229): وقال العيني في شرحه للبخاري ٢١/ ٢٢٩ ((باب من جر إزاره من غير خيلاء) أي: هذا باب في بيان حكم من جر إزاره من غير قصد التخييل، فإنه لا بأس به من غير كراهة "[Imam Bukhari] Chapter on whoever extends the garment WITHOUT PRIDE/ARROGANCE. [Badrudin Ayni comments]: 'This means that Imam Bukhari made this chapter to explain the ruling on the one who drags his garment without intending vanity/pride. There is nothing wrong with this - it's not even disliked...'" Ibn Abdul-Barr Maliki in 'al-Tamheed' (3/244): قال في التمهيد : (3/244) «... وهذا الحديث يدل على أن من جر إزاره من غير خيلاء ولا بطر أنه لا يلحقه الوعيد المذكور غير أن جر الإزار والقميص وسائر الثياب مذموم على كل حال،وأما المستكبر الذي يجر ثوبه فهو الذي ورد فيه ذلك الوعيد الشديد ...». "This narration shows that the one who drags his garment for other than pride and arrogance, then he is not subject to the mentioned warning/threat. However, dragging any type of clothes is blameworthy in all cases. But this severe warning/threat is only applicable to the arrogant one, who drags his garment [out of pride]." Conclusion The general scholarly consensus on the issue of Isbaal emphasizes the importance of intent and context - whilst a minority view disagrees. The prohibition is not about the mere act of extending the garment below the ankles, but rather the presence of arrogance, pride, and vanity associated with it. When these negative qualities are absent, the prohibition does not apply.