Chapters on Dress

The report leaves the pronouns ‘they’ and ‘them’ without an explicit antecedent in the quoted sentence; they are not expanded in the translation.

قَالَ نَهَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ عَنْ لُبْسِ الْحَرِيرِ وَالذَّهَبِ وَقَالَ ‏ "‏ هُوَ لَهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَلَنَا فِي الآخِرَةِ ‏"‏ ‏.

The Arabic uses a singular pronoun for the stated items and plural pronouns for ‘them/us’ without naming the groups in this sentence.

Should the pronouns remain unresolved as in the source rather than be expanded?

The Arabic calls the garment a ḥullah siyaraʾ, rendered ‘striped silk suit’; the report does not provide further detail about its cut or exact pattern.

أَخْبَرَهُ أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ رَأَى حُلَّةً سِيَرَاءَ مِنْ حَرِيرٍ فَقَالَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ لَوِ ابْتَعْتَ هَذِهِ الْحُلَّةَ لِلْوَفْدِ وَلِيَوْمِ الْجُمُعَةِ ‏.

The garment term ḥullah siyaraʾ is specialized, and ‘for the delegations’ does not specify whether the suit is intended for receiving, meeting, or another purpose related to delegations.

Does ‘striped silk suit for the delegations and for Friday’ remain close enough to the source without supplying the implied context?

The Arabic explicitly gives the garment count as two silk shirts and describes the ailment as ḥikkah (itching); it does not assign one shirt to each man.

نَبَّأَهُمْ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ رَخَّصَ لِلزُّبَيْرِ بْنِ الْعَوَّامِ وَلِعَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَوْفٍ فِي قَمِيصَيْنِ مِنْ حَرِيرٍ مِنْ وَجَعٍ كَانَ بِهِمَا حِكَّةٍ ‏.

The Arabic says ‘two silk shirts’ for both named men without specifying their distribution, and calls the condition itching.

Does the translation preserve the dual count and symptom without supplying an allocation or broader diagnosis?

The sequence of pointing with one finger and then the second, third, and fourth likely indicates a measure, but the Arabic does not explicitly state ‘the width of four fingers’; that explanation is not inserted into the translation.

إِلاَّ مَا كَانَ هَكَذَا ثُمَّ أَشَارَ بِإِصْبَعِهِ ثُمَّ الثَّانِيَةِ ثُمَّ الثَّالِثَةِ ثُمَّ الرَّابِعَةِ فَقَالَ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ يَنْهَانَا عَنْهُ ‏.

The wording names the first, second, third, and fourth fingers but does not explicitly state the resulting measure or its application.

Should the gesture be translated literally without inserting ‘the width of four fingers’?

The Arabic says the turban had an ʿalam, a mark or decorative band, which Ibn ʿUmar cut off. The final garment features are named as the sleeves, the neck opening, and two openings or slits; the report does not specify their exact construction further.

Dibāj is a brocade fabric; it is retained as a textile term to distinguish the trim from the garment itself.

مَوْلَى أَسْمَاءَ قَالَ رَأَيْتُ ابْنَ عُمَرَ اشْتَرَى عِمَامَةً لَهَا عَلَمٌ فَدَعَا بِالْجَلَمَيْنِ فَقَصَّهُ فَدَخَلْتُ عَلَى أَسْمَاءَ فَذَكَرْتُ ذَلِكَ لَهَا فَقَالَتْ بُؤْسًا لِعَبْدِ اللَّهِ يَا جَارِيَةُ هَاتِي جُبَّةَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ ‏.

The turban has an ʿalam, which can indicate a mark or band, and Asmāʾ’s exclamation بوءسًا لعبد الله expresses disapproval or pity without further explanation.

Do ‘decorative band’ and ‘What a pity for ʿAbd Allāh!’ adequately preserve these brief expressions?

‏ فَجَاءَتْ بِجُبَّةٍ مَكْفُوفَةِ الْكُمَّيْنِ وَالْجَيْبِ وَالْفَرْجَيْنِ بِالدِّيبَاجِ ‏.

The Arabic identifies trim on the sleeves, neck opening, and two openings or slits but does not describe their precise construction.

Does ‘two slits’ adequately convey al-farjayni in this garment description?

The wording ‘either its warp or its weft’ preserves the narrator’s uncertainty about which part of the garment was silk. ‘The Fāṭimahs’ retains the plural name in the Arabic rather than identifying particular women.

أَنَّهُ أُهْدِيَ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ حُلَّةٌ مَكْفُوفَةٌ بِحَرِيرٍ إِمَّا سَدَاؤُهَا وَإِمَّا لُحْمَتُهَا فَأَرْسَلَ بِهَا إِلَىَّ فَأَتَيْتُهُ فَقُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ مَا أَصْنَعُ بِهَا أَلْبَسُهَا قَالَ ‏ "‏ لاَ وَلَكِنِ اجْعَلْهَا خُمُرًا بَيْنَ الْفَوَاطِمِ ‏"‏ ‏.

The report is uncertain whether the warp or weft was silk, and refers to recipients collectively as ‘the Fāṭimahs’ without identifying them.

Does ‘either its warp or its weft was silk’ preserve the textual alternative, and should ‘the Fāṭimahs’ remain unelaborated?

The Arabic names ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr as the narrator; the supplied English witness instead says ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar. The translation follows the Arabic source.

عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو،

The Arabic source says ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr, while the English witness supplied for the source says ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar.

Should the recorded attribution follow the Arabic source as translated?

Siyarāʾ describes the silk fabric as striped or patterned; ‘striped’ follows the concise conventional rendering.

قَالَ رَأَيْتُ عَلَى زَيْنَبَ بِنْتِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ قَمِيصَ حَرِيرٍ سِيَرَاءَ ‏.

Siyarāʾ is a descriptive textile term that can refer to striped or patterned silk.

Is ‘striped silk shirt’ a sufficiently clear rendering of the garment description?

The Arabic describes the Prophet as mutarajjilan, with his hair combed or groomed, and wearing a red ḥullah, a suit or two-piece garment.

قَالَ مَا رَأَيْتُ أَجْمَلَ مِنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ مُتَرَجِّلاً فِي حُلَّةٍ حَمْرَاءَ ‏.

Mutarajjilan refers to combed or groomed hair, while ḥullah can mean a suit or two-piece garment.

Does ‘with his hair combed and wearing a red suit’ preserve both descriptions clearly?

The Arabic says that Ḥasan and Ḥusayn stumbled and rose as they came forward. The phrase ‘I saw these two and could not be patient’ is kept close to the report without adding an explanation of the Prophet’s response.

حَدَّثَهُ قَالَ رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ يَخْطُبُ فَأَقْبَلَ حَسَنٌ وَحُسَيْنٌ عَلَيْهِمَا قَمِيصَانِ أَحْمَرَانِ يَعْثُرَانِ وَيَقُومَانِ فَنَزَلَ النَّبِيُّ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ فَأَخَذَهُمَا فَوَضَعَهُمَا فِي حِجْرِهِ فَقَالَ ‏ "‏ صَدَقَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ ‏‏{إِنَّمَا أَمْوَالُكُمْ وَأَوْلاَدُكُمْ فِتْنَةٌ}‏ رَأَيْتُ هَذَيْنِ فَلَمْ أَصْبِرْ ‏"‏ ‏.

The Arabic says the children were stumbling and getting up and that the Prophet could not be patient after seeing them, without spelling out the precise emotional implication.

Does retaining ‘stumbling and getting back up’ and ‘could not be patient’ avoid adding an interpretation?

The report itself explains al-mufaddam as saturated or deeply dyed with safflower; the term is retained alongside that gloss.

‏ قَالَ يَزِيدُ قُلْتُ لِلْحَسَنِ مَا الْمُفَدَّمُ قَالَ الْمُشْبَعُ بِالْعُصْفُرِ ‏.

Al-mufaddam is explained as saturated with safflower dye; the Arabic does not identify the garment type or shade.

Does retaining al-mufaddam with the source’s own dye gloss avoid adding details about the garment or color?

The speaker explicitly limits his wording to ‘he forbade me’ and says he does not claim that the prohibition was addressed to the listeners.

Rayṭah is retained as a garment term; the report does not describe its exact cut. The cloth is described as deeply dyed with safflower.

قَالَ أَقْبَلْنَا مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ مِنْ ثَنِيَّةِ أَذَاخِرَ فَالْتَفَتَ إِلَىَّ وَعَلَىَّ رَيْطَةٌ مُضَرَّجَةٌ بِالْعُصْفُرِ فَقَالَ ‏"‏ مَا هَذِهِ ‏"‏ ‏.

Rayṭah is a garment term not further described in the report, and Adhākhir is a place name.

Does retaining rayṭah and transliterating the pass name preserve the source without an unsupported garment gloss?

‏ فَأَخْبَرْتُهُ فَقَالَ ‏ "‏ أَلاَ كَسَوْتَهَا بَعْضَ أَهْلِكَ فَإِنَّهُ لاَ بَأْسَ بِذَلِكَ لِلنِّسَاءِ ‏"‏ ‏.

The Arabic says to clothe ‘some of your family’ with it and then states that there is no harm for women; it does not name the intended relative.

Does ‘someone in your family to wear’ preserve the open reference while keeping the permission for women?

Wars (wurs) is a yellow dye plant. The Arabic refers to folds of the Prophet’s body; ‘folds of his belly’ follows the supplied witness’s anatomical gloss.

قَالَ أَتَانَا النَّبِيُّ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ فَوَضَعْنَا لَهُ مَاءً يَتَبَرَّدُ بِهِ فَاغْتَسَلَ ثُمَّ أَتَيْتُهُ بِمِلْحَفَةٍ صَفْرَاءَ فَرَأَيْتُ أَثَرَ الْوَرْسِ عَلَى عُكَنِهِ ‏.

Wars is a yellow dye plant, and ʿukān refers to folds of the body; the Arabic does not specify the dyeing process or further describe the folds.

Does ‘traces of wars on the folds of his belly’ preserve the image without specifying the process?

The Arabic uses a singular pronoun referring collectively to the preceding actions and qualifies them by extravagance or conceit.

قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ ‏ "‏ كُلُوا وَاشْرَبُوا وَتَصَدَّقُوا وَالْبَسُوا مَا لَمْ يُخَالِطْهُ إِسْرَافٌ أَوْ مَخِيلَةٌ ‏"‏ ‏.

The Arabic qualifies the listed actions with isrāf and makhīlah, rendered here as extravagance and conceit.

Does ‘no extravagance or conceit accompanies it’ convey the scope of the qualification across all four actions?

The Arabic says ‘a garment of shuhrah’ (notoriety or conspicuous fame); the supplied English witness interprets this as pride and vanity, but those words are not in this Arabic text.

قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ ‏ "‏ مَنْ لَبِسَ ثَوْبَ شُهْرَةٍ أَلْبَسَهُ اللَّهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ ثَوْبَ مَذَلَّةٍ ‏"‏ ‏.

The Arabic says ‘garment of shuhrah’ (notoriety/conspicuous fame), while the English witness renders this as ‘pride and vanity.’

Should the translation follow the Arabic term ‘garment of notoriety’ rather than the witness’s interpretive expansion?

The Arabic says ‘garment of shuhrah’ (notoriety or conspicuous fame); the supplied English witness interprets this as pride and vanity, but those words are not in this Arabic text. The final pronoun in ‘kindle a fire in it’ refers back to the garment.

قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ ‏ "‏ مَنْ لَبِسَ ثَوْبَ شُهْرَةٍ فِي الدُّنْيَا أَلْبَسَهُ اللَّهُ ثَوْبَ مَذَلَّةٍ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ ثُمَّ أَلْهَبَ فِيهِ نَارًا ‏"‏ ‏.

The Arabic says ‘garment of shuhrah’ (notoriety/conspicuous fame), while the English witness renders this as ‘pride and vanity.’

Should the translation follow the Arabic term ‘garment of notoriety’ rather than the witness’s interpretive expansion?

The Arabic says ‘garment of shuhrah’ (notoriety or conspicuous fame), whereas the supplied English witness interprets this as pride and vanity. The repeated phrase at the end, ‘whenever he takes it off,’ is retained without further explanation.

عَنِ النَّبِيِّ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ قَالَ ‏ "‏ مَنْ لَبِسَ ثَوْبَ شُهْرَةٍ أَعْرَضَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ حَتَّى يَضَعَهُ مَتَى وَضَعَهُ ‏"‏ ‏.

The Arabic says ‘garment of shuhrah’ and includes ‘until he puts it down, whenever he puts it down’; the witness omits the latter phrase and substitutes ‘pride and vanity.’

Does ‘garment of notoriety … until he takes it off—whenever he takes it off’ best preserve the Arabic’s wording and repetition?