Second Hadith
ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbbās (may Allah be pleased with them both) said:
“I heard the Prophet ﷺ delivering a sermon at ʿArafāt: ‘Whoever cannot find two sandals should wear leather socks; and whoever cannot find a waist-wrapper should wear trousers’—that is, for the pilgrim in the state of consecration.”
Overall meaning:
While addressing the pilgrims at ʿArafāt during the Farewell Pilgrimage, the Prophet ﷺ clarified the rulings of the rites. The Muslims of that time were experiencing material hardship, so he explained that whoever lacks sandals may substitute leather socks even if they cover the ankles, and whoever lacks an izār (waist-wrapper) may wear trousers without cutting them. This is a divine concession and an instance of the Lawgiver’s leniency, for Allah does not burden any soul beyond its capacity.
Points derived from the hadith:
1- The sermon at ʿArafāt serves to explain the obligations and courtesies of Hajj.
2- People should be reminded, whenever appropriate, of what benefits them.
3- Whoever cannot find sandals may wear leather socks. The wording appears to permit this without cutting them; the scholarly dispute on the matter will follow.
4- Whoever cannot find a waist-wrapper may wear trousers, and no expiation is required for wearing either the leather socks or the trousers in this circumstance.
5- The breadth and ease of this Sharīʿah: Allah does not burden a soul beyond its capacity.
The scholars’ disagreement and reconciliation of the two hadiths:
The jurists differed over the case of a pilgrim in iḥrām who cannot find sandals but does find leather socks. Must he cut them below the ankles—incurring sin and expiation if he fails to do so—or is he allowed to wear them intact with no expiation due?
The majority—including the three Imams Abū Ḥanīfah, Mālik, and al-Shāfiʿī, along with al-Thawrī and Isḥāq—adopted the first view, citing the earlier hadith of Ibn ʿUmar: “If he does not find sandals, let him cut them below the ankles.” Because a command denotes obligation, they qualify Ibn ʿAbbās’s hadith by it, following the legal maxim that an unrestricted text is confined by a restricted one.
Imām Aḥmad, in the well-known report from him, held the second view. It is also narrated from ʿAlī, and it was the opinion of ʿAṭāʾ and ʿIkrimah, who relied on the hadith of Ibn ʿAbbās presented here.