What is the ruling on wearing something that covers the ankles nowadays, and does it fall under the warning mentioned in the Hadith, given that the cause for arrogance is absent?

The majority of scholars have concluded that the hadiths prohibiting isbal (letting one's garment hang below the ankles) are qualified by the condition of khuyala' (arrogance/pride). If khuyala' is absent, then isbal is not forbidden, though they differ on whether it is disliked (makruh (definition)).

They based their argument on the hadith (definition) of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) when the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to him: "You are not one of those who do that out of khuyala'." This indicates that the pivot of prohibition is khuyala', and that isbal may occur without khuyala', and that the absolute hadiths are to be interpreted in light of the qualified ones.

Others, however, have taken the view that isbal is absolutely forbidden, whether it is done out of khuyala' or not. They based their argument on the hadith: "Whatever is below the ankles is in the Hellfire," and that isbal inherently entails khuyala', even if the wearer does not intend it. They cited the Prophet's (peace be upon him) prohibition of isbal to Amr ibn Zurarah, even though it outwardly seemed he did not intend khuyala', and the statement of Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar: "And the apparent meaning of the hadiths is also its prohibition."