wiping over thin cotton or woolen socks

[waziri]

asalamulaykum

ive noticed that some people wipe over nonrmal socks when making wudhu, this practice is not allowed in any of the 4 schools of islamic jurisprudence.

this is a serious matter as proper wudhu is essential for salah,if wudhu is invalid then salah will be invalid aswell.

please brothers wash your feet properly or buy some khuffain(leather socks)as all 4 schools agree about wiping over them.

[asharee_salafi]

Thanks for your scholary opinion brother, ;).

I think I have to disagree with your "ijtihad" here.( are you a scholar or a layman?) Brother, do you know its not right for laymen's to issue fatwa? For instance, if I go to a scholar and he tells me that I can wipe over socks, then this is fine, because one is simply doing taqleed of a scholar to whom he trust, as are you. I heard from some Talibul Ilm actually, that even some of the early Hanafi scholars said you could. But again, you must consult a scholar.

Its not right for us layman to make outright statements like saying " the 4 madhabs all agree in such and such..." . For us to make such strong statements require us to have actually studied all 4 schools of thought, something which few do.

I hope you understand :)

The last thing we need to do is get involved with fiqh disputes which we are not qualified to have, we should rather worship Allah. I think thats more fitting, and those that disagree and follow different fiqh opinions must be allowed to, and cannot be condemmed because he does not go with your line of thinking.

WS

[Logic lover]

Asslamu alaikum.

I understand that brother wazeerey is under such impression (as stated in his post), not out of his own ijtihad, rather he is stating the position of the madhabs as has been conveyed to him by a reputable scholar.

If one would like to disagree with what has been stated, one should rather dispute as to whether that is the position of the 4 madhabs. One may also say that there may be other valid opinions outside of the 4 madhabs.

Allah knows best.

[waziri]

JazakAllah khair Ikhwan for your input,and jazakAllah khair once again to you brother Logic lover for clarifying my position,I couldnt have put it better myself.

As you can see I posted this some time ago, since then after having discussed with some brothers about the issue I have changed my position slightly.

I still do not regard wiping over thin cotton or woolen socks to be permisible,but where as before i regarded it to be a incorrect practice, I now accept that some ulema have allowed it and now I regard it to be a very very weak practice.I would still not advocate it but can understand those who choose to follow the opinion that it is allowed(just about).

As far as Im aware it is not the position of any of the four schools of law but accept that some ulema from the respective schools have permited it.

Personally I would rather go with the view of the vast majority of ulema who have not allowed it rather than the few respected ulema who have.

Also I agree that alot of us (and i speak for myself first and formost)tend to spend alot of time discussing/debating such matters when in reality we have far more important things to worry about.

wasalam.

ps it would be easier to just wipe over the socks when making wudu but Im afraid that I would only(if I chose to follow the view that it is allowed)be looking for convenience and thus might fall into following my desires.(Im speaking for myself here and am in no way suggesting that those who follow the opinion of wiping over thin woolen or cotton socks are doing such)

[Abuz Zubair]

The Hanbali Madhab is that it is permissible to wipe over socks, i.e. not just leather, but normal socks, so long as they are:

i) not usurped and legally owned
ii) cover the entire foot, including the ankles, i.e. they are not so thin as to reveal a person’s skin colour, or with holes in them
iii) they fit on the foot by thsemelves, i.e. that one can walk with them on without fearing that they will slide off

Ibn al-Mundhir says: wiping over socks (i.e. normal socks – jawrabayn) is narrated from nine different companions, and there was none known to oppose them.

[asharee_salafi]

Salaams,

I asked one da'ee from madinah and another hanbali scholar whom you know, he said that to wipe over those socks even if it has a hole in them is fine.
The da'ee agreed, because he quotes ibn taymiyyah to say that we Allah wouldn't exclude the poor people of this "permission" as they would have holes in their socks. I think teh hole you must be talking about must be massive, and also about seeingt through the socks, I think if you tilt your foot in an angle next to the light you would be able too, maybe you mean if you can see the whole foot in a cursory glance

[waziri]

Mufti Taqi Uthmani was asked about this he answered.

Answer:--AL-JAWAB BILLAHI AT-TAUFEEQ (THE ANSWER WITH ALLAH'S GUIDANCE)
It is not permissible to make masah (wipe) over the socks that are worn nowadays made from cotton, wool, and nylon, etc., by any one of the A'immah Mujtahideen (Imaams of Ijtihaad). Your assumption, that there are differences of opinion among the Fuqaha (Jurists) in these regards, is incorrect. On the contrary, all of the Imaams of Ijtihaad are unanimous that it is not permissible to make masah on thin socks. Allamah Kaasaani (R.A.) writes in Bada'e us Sana'e, first volume, page 10: "If they (the socks) are so thin that water seeps (penetrates) through them, then it is not permissible to make masah over such socks by the consensus of the Scholars." And Allamah ibn Nujaim (RA.) writes in Al-Bahr-ur-Ra'iq, first volume, p. 192: "And it is not permissible to make masah over thin socks made from yarn or hair. There are no differences of opinion on that.
However, if the socks are thick, to the extent that one can walk one Farsakh (three miles) or more, then the jurists have differences of opinion." From the above it is clear that if (a) the socks are not thick, and water penetrates through them, ( b) they can not stay upright without having to tie them, {3 it is not possible for one to walk with them continuously without the socks tearing. To perform masah on these types of thin socks is not held permissible by any of the Imaams of the madhaahib (Schools of Thought). If all three of the above mentioned conditions are present then only the scholars have differences of opinion. In regards to Sayyed Abul 'Aalaa Mawdoodi, he has chosen a path apart from the majority of the Ummah. In this specific issue he has once again gone against the Jumhoor-e-Fuqaha ( majority of the Jurists), and has been mistaken.
Upon analyzing the evidence sited in his support, I have come to this conclusion that he did not exert himself to understand the reality of the issue. For your satisfaction on this issue, I briefly present the following explanation. Actually, the Qur'an has ordered us to perform ablution (Wudhu) in a particular way and has expressed and explicitly commanded the washing of the feet in Surah Al-Ma'idah, verse 6, not the performing of masah (wiping) of the feet. Allah Ta'ala says, "Oh Believers, when you stand up for prayer (i.e. when you intend to pray and are not in the condition of Wudhu) then ( perform Wudhu and) wash your faces and (wash) your arms including your elbows, and wipe your heads (with wet hands) and (wash) your feet including the ankles". (Al-Qur'an, Surah Al-Maidah, verse 6).
In the above verse Allah commands us to wash our feet. Therefore to perform masah of the feet should not be permissible in any situation, even if the socks are made of leather. However, permissibility of performing masah over leather socks has been approved by the consensus of the Ummah. The consensus is based on the certainty of the matter by Tawaatur (overwhelming number of authentic narrations from the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam)). Had there been only two or three narration's from the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), then such a few Hadith (narration's from the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam)) would not have been sufficient to specify (Taqyeed) the generality of this Qur'anic verse, due to Akhbaar-e-Ahaad (a few narration's from the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) not being influential enough to specify or abrogate the generality of the verse).
On the contrary, the narration's in regards to masah 'alal khuffain (performing masah on leather socks) are established by Tawaatur (overwhelming number of narration's), thus being influential in elaborating and specifying the verse in Surah Al-Ma'idah, that is, washing of the feet is only specific in the case that a person is not wearing leather socks. In regards to this, Imaam Abu Hanifah (R.A) said, "I did not declare the validity of performing masah on leather socks until its evidence was clear to me as daylight" (AI-Bahr-ur-Ra'iq, first volume, p. 173.) Moreover, masah 'alal khuffain is proven and established in narration's from more than eighty companions of the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam). Hafiz Ibn Hajar (RA) says in Fathul-Baari, (Naylul Awtaar, first volume, p.176). "A overwhelming group of the Huffaz (Experts in Hadith) have declared that masah 'alal khuffain is established by Tawaatur), and some of them have mentioned that they collected and enumerated the narration's from the companions of the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) and found them to be more than eighty in number, from which ten of them are narrated by the Asharah-e-Mubasharah (the ten companions that were given glad tidings of Paradise in a single gathering from the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam)."(Naylul-Awtaar, first volume, p. 176). Hasan Al- Basri (R.A.) says, "I met seventy companions who participated in the Battle of Badr, all of whom believed in the performing of masah 'alal khuffain."(Talkheesul-Habeer, first volume, p. 158, and Bada'e us-Sana'e, first volume, p.7).
If the masah of the leather socks was not established from the Tawaatur or Istifaadhah (overwhelming number of narration's) then Takhsees (specification) could not have been applied on the verse of the Qur'an which orders us to wash our feet during Ablution. In this regards, Imaam Abu Yusuf (R.A.) says, "The command of the Qur'an can be abrogated by the Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) only if it has reached the level of Tawaatur or Istifadhah, such as the level of narration's of masah 'alal khuffain." (Ahkaamul-Qur'an Lil-Jassaas, second volume, p.425). In summary, Allah Ta'ala commands us in the Qu'ran to wash our feet when performing Wudhu .
This ruling can't be specified by any condition or limited on the basis of a few narrations from the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam). It is necessary to have a continuous chain of authentic narration's, like in the case of masah 'alal khuffain. It has reached the level of Tawaatur. Also, in regards to "KHIJFFAIN" (leather socks), Tawaatur has been established that the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) himself performed masah over them, and he also gave permission to others to practice upon it. Apart from leather socks, to perform masah on other types of socks is not established by Tawaatur The meaning of "KHUFF" in Arabic applies only to socks made out of leather. Socks made from cloth are not called "KHUFF" in Arabic.
Therefore, the permission of making masah is only specific with the leather socks. Regarding other types of socks the command of the Qur'anic verse of washing the feet must be implemented. However, if the material of the socks is so thick that is equal or better than leather socks, that is(a) water does not penetrate through them, (b) they do not have to be tied with something in order for them to stay upright, and ~ it is possible to walk with them at least one mile. In such types of socks there are differences of opinions among the Jurists. Some say, since they have retained the same qualities of leather socks, therefore they should be permissible to make masah (wipe) over them. Others say that Tawaatur is established only for wiping over leather socks, thus it is not permissible to wipe over any other type of socks.
Socks are of three types: (1)KHUFFAIN, (Leather socks), it is permissible to make masah over them based on consensus supported by Tawaatur. (2)Thin socks, not made of leather, nor having the qualities of leather, but are like the regular socks made from cotton, wool, or nylon. It is not permissible to make masah on such socks as it is not established with enough evidence that would enable one the leave the order of washing the feet as mentioned in the Qur'an. (3)Thick socks, not made from leather, but have the qualities of leather. According to some Jurists, it is permissible to make masah over such socks. While others say it is not permissible. In conclusion, socks not having the qualities of leather are not a point of disagreement among the Jurists. They all agree on its impermissibility. The reason being that the Qur'anic command ( washing of the feet) can't be left until the establishment of performing masah is at the level of Tawaatur, as in the case of masah 'alal khuffain. Therefore, the conditions that are mentioned by the Fuqaha (Jurists) are not there own made up specifications. They have verified a level to meet the standard of leather socks.
Ahaadith on masah (wiping) over the socks (Jowrab) After explaining the fundamental principle and its application to the reality of this issue, let us consider the Ahaadith concerning wiping over socks (Jowrab). From all the collections of Ahaadith, there are only three Hadith. One Hadith is narrated by Bilal (Radhi Allahu anhu), the second by Abu Musa Ash'ari (Radhi Allahu anhu), the third by Mughirah ibn Shu'bah (Radhi Allahu anhu). The narration of Bilal has been recorded in M'ujam Sagheer Tabraani, and the narration of Abu Musa in Ibn Majah and Baihaqi.
However, Hafiz Zayla'ee (a far renowned Muhaddith) in his famous works, Nasbur-Raaya, Vol. 1, pp. 183-184., has proven that both the Sanads (chain of narrators) are defective and weak. In regards to Abu Musa's narration, Imaam Abu Dawood Sajastaani (R.A.), in his works of Abu Dawood, being one book from the Sihaah Sittah (six most authentic books of Ahaadith) has written: "It (the Hadith's sanad) is not continuous, nor is it reliable (strong)."(Bazhlul-Mujhood, Vol. 1, p.96) Therefore, both these narration's do not need to be further discussed The remaining Hadith of Mughirah ibn Shu'bah is mentioned by Imaam Tirmizi as being a good and sound Hadith. Some other eminent Muhadditheen have disagreed with Imaam Tirmizi. Imaam Abu Dawood (R.A.), after recording this narration states, "And Abdur-Rahman ibn Mahdi should not narrate this Hadith, because the authentic famous narration from Mughirah ibn Shu'bah is that the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) used to perform masah 'alal khuffain."(Bazhlul-Majhood, Vol. 1, p.96) Imaam Nasai (R.A.) writes in Sunan Kubra', "Apart from Abu Qais no one else has narrated this Hadith, and I don't know of any other narrator who supports this narration. Although with certainty, Mughirah ibn Shubah's narration about masah 'alal khuffain is sound (Sahih)."(Nasbur-Raaya, Vol. 1, p. 183)
Many Imaams, for example, Imaam Muslim, Imaam Baihaqi Imaam Sufyaan Thawree, Imaam Ahmed, Imaam Yahya ibn Mu'een, Imaam Ali ibn Madinee, and others have declared this narration as weak, due to Abu Qais and Huzail ibn Shurjeel being defective narrators. Allamah Nawawi (R.A.), Commentator of Sahih Muslim, (Nasbur-Raaya, Vol. I, p. 183) writes, "H all the Muhadditheen who criticized this Hadith as being weak were separate in their statements (i.e. not voiced together), even then, they would be correct over the ruling of Imaam Tirmizi, as the fundamental principle is that criticism prevails over approval. All the Huffaz of Hadith agree that the narration is weak.
Therefore, the statement of Imaam Tirmizi, "This Hadith is Hasan, Sahih", is not acceptable."(Nasbur-Raaya, Vol. l, p.l83) .This is the status of the Hadith's sanad, that people like, Mawdoodi, sites to support his claim. You can now justify and clearly see that the majority of the Muhadditheen have declared it weak and unacceptable to use as a daleel ( proof). Assuming the statement of Imaam Tirmizi is correct, then too it is only one Hadith from the entire collection of Ahaadith. Again the same question arises, can we leave the clear command from Allah Ta'ala to wash our feet while performing Wudhu on the basis of one Hadith. As mentioned previously, the establishment of masah 'alal khuffain reached the level of Tawaatur, and that Imaam Abu Yusuf said that if it hadn't reached that level then we would not have the flexibility of specifying the command of Allah Ta'ala, of washing the feet. The Ahaadith about masah 'alal jowrabain do not reach the level of Tawaatur.
In fact, in all the collections of Ahaadith we find only three narration's, from which two are unanimously weak, and the third is criticized by majority of the Muhadditheen, only Imaam Tirmizi declares it as a Sahih Hadith. So to leave, restrict, or define the command of Allah Ta'ala on the foundation of such weak narration's is not acceptable in the Shari'ah. Imaam Abu Bakr Jassaas writes in Ahkaamul-Qur'an Lil-Jassaas, second volume, p.428, "As mentioned previously the real objective in the verse of Wudhu is to wash the feet. In fact, even performing masah over leather socks would have never been made permissible, had it not been established by Mutawaatir Ahaadith. So due o the fact that the narration's of masah 'alal jowrabain are not on the same scale as the narration's of masah 'alal khuffain, the main objective of washing of the feet must be applied.
The statement that the Sahaabah (Companions of Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) were reported to have wiped over their socks and permitted others to do so, is incorrect. It is not proven in any narration or practice of the Sahaabah that they wiped over thin socks of cloth, etc. A very famous 'Aalim, Allamah Shamsul Haqq Saheb Azeem Abaadi (RA.), (popular among the Ahle-Hadith) writes, "Socks can made out of leather, wool, cotton, etc., everyone of them are called "SOCKS". It is not permissible to wipe over any type of sock until it is not established that the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) used to wipe over socks of wool, etc."('Awnul-M'abood, first volume,p.62). From this, it is even more apparent that the Sahaabah used to wipe over either leather socks, or thick socks that would match attributes of leather socks. In regards to this there is a narration in Musannaf ibn Abi Shayba, first volume, pl88, "Sayed ibn Musayyab and Hasan Al-Basri used to say that it is permissible to wipe over socks, with the condition that they are thick." Note, that the word, "SAFEEQ" in Qaamoos and Mukhtaar As-Sihaah (the names of two Arabic dictionaries, means, "VERY THICK AND STRONG CLOTH". Both of the above mentioned men were eminent Tabi'een, and they used to issue Fatawa (Shariah decrees) after seeing the practice of the Sahaabah. Therefore, the Fatwa (Shariah decree), that the socks must be thick matching the attributes of leather is nothing new. For convenience, I have repeated the conditions of the thickness of the socks below:
a. water proof (water should not be able to seep through them)
b. so thick that they can stand upright without having to tie them
c. possible to walk in continuously for at least a mile (without tearing)
With these three conditions in thick socks, they now share the same quality as leather socks. Most of the Fuqaha (Jurists) have permitted making masah over such socks. See the following: (1) Dalaalatun-Nass, (the derived objective) from the Hadith in masah 'alal khuffain, also applies to thick socks. Dalaalatun-Nass remains in the category of Qat'ee-uth-Thuboot (established on the basis of certainty), and is not the same as Qiyaas, as mistakenly understood by some. (2) Athaar (practices) of the Sahaabah Based on the above two proofs it would be permissible to wipe over thick socks. Allamah ibn Hamaam (R.A.) writes in Fathul-Qadeer, first volume, p. 109, "There is no doubt that the permission to wipe on the khuff is Khilaaful Qiyass (contradictory to reasoning and analogy).Therefore, to compare another thing with it (the khuff), would be incorrect, except by using Dalaalatun-Nass, being that the same characteristics of the khuff be present for it to be in the same category of the khuff. "Principally, one may leave the act of washing the feet by performing Masah over them only if the narration's reach the level and standard of Tawaatur. Masah 'alal khuffain satisfies condition. On the other hand, masah 'alal jowrabain is not at that level.

Therefore, it is not permissible to make masah on the jowrabain. However, if jowrabain have characteristics similar to those of leather socks, through Dalaalatun-Nass and the practices of the Sahaabah and pious ancestors, most of the Fuqaha allow masah on such socks. After elaborating on the attributes of the leather socks, all the Imaams of Ijtihaad have reached a consensus about this issue. As to the opinions of Allamah Ibn Hazam, Allamah Ibn Taymiyyah, and Allamah Ibn Qayyim, with due respect of their status and position, they have differed from the Jumhoorul-Fuqaha on many issues. Among others one is this issue. We are bound to follow the ruling of the majority Fuqaha, Muhaddithee4 and all of the Mujtahideen. How daring it is for one to even leave washing the feet, as it is the order of Allah Ta'ala! If someone wraps his foot in cloth and performs masah over it, "WILL THIS BE PERMISSIBLE TOO???"

Making masah over shoes
In your question you mentioned that Sayyid Abul-'Aalaa Mawdoodi also permitted to wipe over the shoes. I wish to explain that as well. Some Fuqaha allow performing masah over the Jowrab when it is thick, but none of them allow making masah on shoes. Sheikh Yusuf Benori (R.A.) writes, "None of the Imaams have given permission to make masah over shoes."(Ma'arifus-Sunan Vol. 1, p. 347). The reason for this is the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) wiped over his shoes only when he already was in the state of Wudhu. He would perform a fresh Wudhu for every prayer, because he was already in the state of Wudhu, instead of washing his feet he would wipe over his shoes. The proof of this is in Sahih Ibn Khuzaimah, "It is reported from Ali (Radhi Allahu anhu) that he asked for a glass of water, he then performed a brief ablution and wiped over his shoes. He then said, this is how the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) used to perform his wudhu when he his wudhu was not broken. (Sahih Ibn Khuzaimah, Vol. 1, Hadith 300, Chapter 154, p. 100). From this Hadith we learn that a person who does not have Wudhu, can't wipe over his shoes. After the clear evidence has been brought, there is no flexibility in the issue.

Conclusion
In conclusion, all reliable Fuqaha and Muitahideen agree that thin socks that allow water to seep through them, do not stand upright without support, and can not be walked in continuously, are not permissible to make masah on. Shoes are also not allowed to be wiped over. Thin socks of today that are made out of cotton, wool, nylon, etc., do not have the features of leather socks, therefore, it is not permissible to make masah over them. If someone does, their wudhu will not be valid, according to Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi, Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal, or any other Mujtahideen.


Answer by: Muhammad Taqi Uthmani - Jumadul-Ulaa, 1397 Hijrah

Translated by: Adil Khan, 27 Ramadhan, 1420.

[terrorthreat]

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=13954&dgn=4

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=8186&dgn=4

[Abuz Zubair]

As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,

To begin with, Sheikh Taqi Uthmani – may Allah preserve him – is a recognised well respected renowned Hanafi scholar. I am a ‘no body’ in comparison to his eminence, to be critical of his fatwas.

However, I did have a few observations to make, which I would humbly like to present as follows.

1) From the Madhab point of view, we basically agree with the Sheikh that masah is not allowed on thin socks that let the water penetrate through to the skin. However, we differ with the Sheikh when he suggests that masah over normal socks allows the water to penetrate. Making masah means wiping one’s wet hand over the socks. It does not mean soaking the socks with water. Hence, wiping one’s wet hand over normal socks, does not allow for water to penetrate.

2) The Sheikh says that there are only three Ahadeeth with respect to masah over jawrabayn, i.e. cotton socks, and all of them are declared to be weak by many scholars. This is true, but there are also other scholars who considered such Ahadeeth to be authentic, such as al-Tirmidhi, Ahmad Shakir, al-Albani as well as al-Qasimi who wrote a treatise on the topic. Even those of the scholars who weakened such Ahadeeth still acted on them, from them Imam Ahmad who explicitly stated the permissibility of wiping over jawrabayn. We can also add to the Ahadeeth the statements and actions of at least 14 of the companions of the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wa-sallam, whose names we will mention.

3) The Sheikh says that even if the Ahadeeth are authentic then they are Ahad and therefore dhanni, and not qata’i to make an exception to the generality of the qata’i Quranic verse which orders us to wash our feet, and that the hadeeth of masah over leather socks is only acted upon due to its Tawatur; then this is only a Hanafi principle, where they have opposed the majority of the scholars who believe that Ahad narrations can make exceptions (takhsis) to the generality of the qata’i Quranic verse. The reason for this is that although Quran is qata’i in its text, it is still dhanni in its indication, and therefore, a dhanni can make an exception (takhsis) in dhanni. Hence, according to the Usul of the majority, the Ahadeeth of masah over jawrabayn can make takhsis of the Quranic verse about washing the feet.

4) Towards the end of the Fatwa the sheikh seems to be contradicting himself, for on one hand he says that dhanni Ahad Hadeeth cannot make exceptions in qata’i Quranic verse, yet at the same time, he allows one to wipe over waterproof footwear. Because to make waterproof footwear an exception is still dhanni, whether it is based on dalalat al-nass, or qiyas, and yet with this dhanni case, the Sheikh is making takhsis of qata’i generality of the verse, and thereby opposing his own usul.

Now to list some of those who allowed masah over cotton socks:

From the Companions:

Abu Dawud mentions in his Sunan that the following companions made masah over their socks jawrabayn: ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, Ibn Mas’ud, al-Bara b. ‘Azib, Anas b. Malik, Abu Umama, Sahl b. Sa’d, ‘Amr b. Hurayth. It is also narrated from ‘Umar b. al-Khattab and Anas b. Malik

In fact, according to Imam al-Nawawi, some of the Shafi’is narrated from ‘Umar and ‘Ali the permissibility of wiping over the socks, even if they are thin.

From the Tabi’in:

Ibn Hazm mentions in his al-Muhalla: Qatada, Sa’id b. al-Musayyib, ‘Ata, Ibrahim al-Nakha’i, al-A’mash, al-Hasan and al-Khallas b. ‘Amr, Sa’id b. Jubayr and Nafi’

Amongst the Fuqaha Ibn Hazm mentions Sufyan al-Thawri, al-Hasan b. Hay, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad b. al-Hasan, Abu Thawr, Ahmad b. Hanbal, Ishaq b. Rahwayh and Dawud al-Dhahiri.

From the Malikis:

Ibn al-Qasim mentions in al-Mudawwana that Imam Malik’s earlier opinion was the permissibility of wiping over socks, but he later retracted. Yet, Ibn al-Qasim himself preferred Malik’s first opinion.

From the Shafi’is:

Al-Tirmidhi in his Sunan says that to wipe over thick socks (jawrabayn) is the opinion of several scholars, amongst whom he mentions Sufyan al-Thawri, Ibn al-Mubarak, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad and Ishaq.

It is noteworthy that al-Tirmidhi narrates al-Shafi’is opinions from several of his students as he stated towards the end of his Sunan.

Al-Shirazi in the Shafi’i manual of Fiqh clearly states that if one wears socks (jawrab), it is permissible to make masah over it if it is thick enough, and worn with slippers. Al-Nawawi in his Sharh also agrees with al-Shirazi.

From the Hanafis:

Al-Kasani says in Bada’i al-Sana’i that to wipe over thick socks (jawrabayn) is not permissible in Abu Hanifa’s opinion, while permissible in the opinion of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad al-Shaybani. He then mentions that it is narrated that Imam Abu Hanifa changed his opinion during his last days.

The Hanbalis:
Unlike the Shafi’is, they allowed one to make masah over socks (jawrabayn), even if one does not wear slippers on them. Their argument is that as long as socks fit on a person’s foot such that he can walk a distance, he may wipe over it. This is the Madhab position as stated in al-Insaf, al-Furu’, al-Iqna’, al-Muntaha and others.

Wallahu Alam

[abubakr]

Asalamu alaykum

Akhi abu zubair you mentioned that mufti taqi usmani is well respected eminent scholar. however, isnt he a deobandi sufi? it is known that deobandis are guilty of shirk and many innovations

[Abu Muqatil]

Abuz-Zubayr-

1. It is argued that what are known as 'socks' today are not jawrabayn mentioned in these texts. Rather they were more akin to bandages that were wrapped around feets and hence like turbans would be very cumbersome to frequently wrap and unwrap for daily ablutions.

2. Ibn al-'Uthaymeen in his al-Sharh al-Mumti' refers to the more general word used in the texts tasaakheen ('warmers') thus anything worn on the feet to keep them warm would be permissable to be wiped over.

3. It is argued that there is no specific evidence to stipulate conditions like it must cover the ankles, have no holes and so on.

Kindly share any educational insight into the matter.

[justabro]

assalamu alaykum

when al-mughirah reached down to remove the khuffs of Allah's Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) he told him,

دعهما فإني أدخلتهما طاهرتين
"Leave them, for I INSERTED THEM (adkhaltuhumaa) while they were pure."

It seems, and Allah knows best, that this hadith indicates the hukm of mash is tied to this condition, that the feet be "inserted" or "entered" inside the foot covering of choice.

[Abuz Zubair]

1. It is argued that what are known as 'socks' today are not jawrabayn mentioned in these texts. Rather they were more akin to bandages that were wrapped around feets and hence like turbans would be very cumbersome to frequently wrap and unwrap for daily ablutions. <o></o>
Lisan al-‘Arab states:
الجورب لفافة الرجل
Al-Jawrab is foot-covering
<o></o>
Ibrahim b. Muflih al-Hanbali says in al-Mubdi’:
<o></o>
فائدة الجورب أعجمي معرب قال الزركشي هو غشاء من صوف يتخذ للدفء
<o></o>

Al-Jawrib originally is a non-Arabic, Arabised word. Al-Zarkashi says: It is a covering of wool, used for warmth.
<o></o>
2. Ibn al-'Uthaymeen in his al-Sharh al-Mumti' refers to the more general word used in the texts tasaakheen ('warmers') thus anything worn on the feet to keep them warm would be permissable to be wiped over.
<o></o>
3. It is argued that there is no specific evidence to stipulate conditions like it must cover the ankles, have no holes and so on. <o></o>
Yes, and this is also the Madhab. What isn’t allowed in the Madhab is to wrap the feet with some sort of cloth and then to make masah over it.
<o></o>
However, whatever is usually worn on the feet, and it covers one’s feet up to the ankles, and wiping it does not allow water to touch the skin, is allowed according to the Madhab.
<o></o>
The reason why the Madhab does not allow one to wipe over socks that allow water to penetrate is because the asl is to wash the feet, whereas wiping over the socks is only a substitute. According to the Madhab, one may either adhere to the asl, or the substitute, but one may not combine between the asl and the substitute. Hence, if water reaches some of the skin during the masah, then that part of skin requires washing, and not wiping.
<o></o>
Ibn Taymiyya’s preference is that it is permissible to wipe over the socks with holes in them, and he is regarded to be a Mujtahid amongst the Hanbalis, whom a layperson can make Taqlid of. His arguments are also strong, but there is no need to go into that here.
<o></o>
It seems, and Allah knows best, that this hadith indicates the hukm of mash is tied to this condition, that the feet be "inserted" or "entered" inside the foot covering of choice. <o></o>
Yes, of course. One cannot wipe over his shoes and then put them on! His feet must be inside the shoes before he makes masah.

[justabro]

assalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullah

what i meant was that this statement of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would imply the feet up to the ankles must be inserted for the mash to be acceptable as someone asked what is the evidence for the condition that the ankles be covered.

[Abuz Zubair]

what i meant was that this statement of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would imply the feet up to the ankles must be inserted for the mash to be acceptable as someone asked what is the evidence for the condition that the ankles be covered.
I dont think so.

It is more because we are ordered to wash the feet upto ankles in the Quran. In case of substituting washing with wiping, the whole organ must be substituted and not part of it.

wallahu alam

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

As-sallamu 'alaikum

Akh Abuz-Zubair I thought it was also permissable to wipe over the socks as long as as you stated the area that one washes the feet are covered and one cannot see their skin beneath the fabric of the socks? Penetration I have read is not a condition to invalidate?

Here is musa furber's take on this:



Wiping Over Khuff & Other Barriers



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The science of hadith terminology, mustalih al-hadith, recognizes a category of hadith known as that which is well known to laymen . This category has nothing to do with the authenticity of the hadith or the lack thereof; it simply has to do with the hadith being well known to non-specialists. Today s article is about a fiqh issue that fits into a category analogous to this category of hadith, since it is one of those fiqh issues well known outside of the Hanbali mathab, without much concern over whether what is known is authentic or not.

I wrote a short article on this several years ago, where I showed what various books in the mathab had to say and the evidence for the positions. Today I'm just going to give the basic fiqhi details about wiping over khuff and what takes their place, and leave the evidence for another day.

The following text is adapted from an English translation of `Ali al-Hijjawi's Zad al-mustaqni , with notes from Mansur al-Bahuti's commentary Al-Raudh al-murbi .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wiping over Khuff & Other Barriers


Conditions
It is permissible to wipe over footgear for the duration of 24 hours when the person is a resident or a traveler who is not permitted to shorten prayers, or for the duration of 72 hours when the person is traveler who is permitted to shorten.

The period of times begins from nullifying ritual purity after wearing.

The conditions of what is wiped over are that it:
(1) be ritually pure
(2) be lawful
(3) cover the essential portion washed during ablution, including hiding the color of the skin beneath it
(4) attach by itself
(5) be worn after completing ablution
(6) not be removed after meeting the above conditions and after entering a state of ritual impurity

The things that can be wiped over during when in a state or minor ritual impurity include:
(1) leather socks (khuff)
(2) thick socks[1]
(3) a man s turban which loops under the neck or possesses tails
(4) a woman s head-covering which wraps around her throat
(5) a splint which covers only what is necessary

When in a state of major ritual impurity, only the last one (a split) can be wiped over.


How long one wipes
Someone wipes like a resident if he:
(1) wiped while traveling and then became resident
(2) wiped while resident and then became a traveler
(3) has doubts concerning its beginning.

If ritual purity is nullified while resident and he travels before wiping on khuff or what takes their place, he wipes like a traveler.


What cannot be wiped over
One does not wipe over:
(1) hats
(2) something wrapped around the foot simply to keep it warm
(3) something which does not adhere to the foot
(4) something from which part of the wiped area is visible even if just the color of the underlying skin


Socks over socks
If one leather sock was worn over another, then the ruling is for the top one.


How much must be wiped
It is essential to wipe:
(a) the majority of a turban
(b) the top of the foot from the toes to the ankle, not the bottom or the ankle
(c) and the entirety of a splint


Renewing his purification
It is necessary to renew the purification without the khuff or whatever takes its place if one of the following occurs:
(1) the time expires
(2) part of what is essential to wipe over becomes uncovered after the first incident of losing purification.

[Adapted from `Ali al-Hijjawi's Zad al-mustaqni , and Mansur al-Bahuti's commentary Al-Raudh al-murbi .]

[1] In the book Nail al-ma`arib it is explicitly stated that it is not a condition that the material be water repellent. Other books define thick as being thick enough to hide the color of the skin underneath it.


http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/h/32.html

[Abuz Zubair]

Akh Abuz-Zubair I thought it was also permissable to wipe over the socks as long as as you stated the area that one washes the feet are covered and one cannot see their skin beneath the fabric of the socks? Penetration I have read is not a condition to invalidate?

Musa Furber is correct.

Notice the wording: 'thick socks'. The reason why it is thick is so that water does not reach the skin, for if that happens then the person will be combining the asl (washing) with the badal (wiping), and according to the Madhab, it is not allowed.

[1] In the book Nail al-ma`arib it is explicitly stated that it is not a condition that the material be water repellent. Other books define thick as being thick enough to hide the color of the skin underneath it.

Yes, it is not a condition that it must be water repellent, like leather, but just thick enough such that when one makes masah, water does not penetrate through.

To my knowledge, when one wipes over cotton socks, water does not penetrate through them. Yes, if one soaks them, which is not what we are supposed to do, then it is obvious that water will reach the skin.

wasalam

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

Musa Furber is correct.

Notice the wording: 'thick socks'. The reason why it is thick is so that water does not reach the skin, for if that happens then the person will be combining the asl (washing) with the badal (wiping), and according to the Madhab, it is not allowed.



Yes, it is not a condition that it must be water repellent, like leather, but just thick enough such that when one makes masah, water does not penetrate through.

To my knowledge, when one wipes over cotton socks, water does not penetrate through them. Yes, if one soaks them, which is not what we are supposed to do, then it is obvious that water will reach the skin.

wasalam

As-sallamu 'alaikum

JazakALLAHU Khairan akhee,

just another point, the point musa make is that in some books thickness is in relation to thick enough so the skin is not seen beneath the sock?

[Abuz Zubair]

just another point, the point musa make is that in some books thickness is in relation to thick enough so the skin is not seen beneath the sock?

This is correct. For if the skin is seen, then the wajib becomes washing (ghasl) and not wiping (mash).

Quite like washing the face with thick beard. The skin that is seen through the beard must be washed.

wasalam

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

so what about those brothers who say they are hanbali but say you can wipe over socks with holes in them? I don't do this myself because of the fact the sock does not cover the area of washing which i though was a condition?

[abuzakarya]

Well, hold on a second. Surely the only reason one says "thick socks" is to distinguish them from "thin socks". Almost by definition, thin socks are our regular cotton socks and anyone who ever wiped over cotton socks knows that even wiping with a single damp finger causes the mositure to seep through to the skin.

[Abuz Zubair]

so what about those brothers who say they are hanbali but say you can wipe over socks with holes in them? I don't do this myself because of the fact the sock does not cover the area of washing which i though was a condition?

1) Beware of those who claim to be Hanbalis, yet they have never studied the Madhab. With all the popularity Hanbali Madhab has received, and continues to receive even today, no doubt Hanbalism has become a fashion for many who became disappointed with Salafiyya, primarily because they did not understand Salafiyya from day one.

2) A Hanbali can do what he likes, so long as he is following the fatwa of a qualified Mufti from any of the four Madhabs. He is only a Hanbali because this is the path he has taken to study Fiqh - and that is, IF he is thoroughly studying Fiqh!

3) Wiping over the socks with holes in them, though it is not the Hanbali Madhab, it still is the preference of Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya, the Mujtahid in the Hanbali Madhab, nay Islam! So whoever follows his Ijtihad is correct in doing so, be he a Hanbali, a Hanafi or whichever Madhab.

Well, hold on a second. Surely the only reason one says "thick socks" is to distinguish them from "thin socks". Almost by definition, thin socks are our regular cotton socks and anyone who ever wiped over cotton socks knows that even wiping with a single damp finger causes the mositure to seep through to the skin.

When the Hanbali scholars speak of think socks, they define it as that through which skin colour can be seen.

If the skin colour cannot be seen, as is the case with most cotton socks, it is permissible to wipe over them.

Again, wiping over the socks refers to simply that - i.e. wiping over the socks. It does not mean soaking the socks with water. Simply rubbing ones wet hand over the socks do not, and rationally, cannot result in water penetrating through.

[abuzakarya]

But surely, that is the point. It is inconceivable that water would not penetrate through because the material is absorbent unlike leather. This occurs with simple wiping not just with soaking.

[waziri]

The main position of the Hanbali school is the same as the dispensation given in the Hanafi school, with emphasis on but two points: the jawarib must be thick, and they must be sufficiently resistant to wear and tear while walking in them. This is stated plainly by Ibn Qudama in al-Mughni (1994 ed. 1:220): "Imam Ahmad said: Wiping over the soft non-leather shoe is impermissible unless it is thick-textured (jawraban safiqan) and stands alone on one's leg without collapsing, just like the khuff, and the people used to wipe on the jawrabayn only because, in their usage, it provided the same function as the khuff and stood up on the leg like the khuff, allowing one to come and go with it."

Shawkani in Nayl al-awtar (1:178) said: "The khuff is a leather shoe which covers the ankle-bones. The jurmuq (spat) is larger than it and is worn over it, while the jawrab is larger than the jurmuq." This definition, as well as Imam Ahmad's specifications, give an idea of the jawrab that is different from even the largest woolen socks available today, and invalidates the view of those who claim that the jawrab merely refers to "socks."

It should be stressed that in none of the reports adduced to support this position is the fabric of the jawarib specified, so that it is not certain over exactly what fabric the Companions wiped when they wiped over the jawarib

[Umm Ahmed]

Enlighting thread. For us sisters the nylon socks (which the majority of us wear) will have to be removed to perform ablution , wearing really thick socks would constitute larger sized shoes. Ah well if needs must.

[Ibn Adam]

Is there any specific proof that when a person wipes over his socks his right hand must be used to wipe over his right foot and his left hand must be used to wipe over his left foot?

Rather than a person who, wipes his right foot then his left foot but, wipes using whichever hand happens to be convenient at the time.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

i got some questions to clarify regarding masah al-khuffayn

1-When do the 24 hours commence for the one who intends to wipe over his sock?

2-Does one break his wudu by simply removing the socks (i.e. he has to renew his wudu by washing the feet not just by wearing the socks again and wiping) or does this depend upon the person having wudu or not prior to removing the sock?

jazakALLAHU Khairan

[Abuz Zubair]

1-When do the 24 hours commence for the one who intends to wipe over his sock?

Two opinions in the madhab:

a) It starts when one actually performs the mash
b) It starts when one breaks wudu after having performed the mash.

2-Does one break his wudu by simply removing the socks (i.e. he has to renew his wudu by washing the feet not just by wearing the socks again and wiping) or does this depend upon the person having wudu or not prior to removing the sock?

According to the madhab, one breaks wudu by simply removing the socks, and according to Ibn Taymiyya he doesn't; it is like shaving one's head after having performed mash over it.

In all cases, before a person can make mash over his socks, he must have wudu anyway.

[Milk Shaykh]

According to the madhab, one breaks wudu by simply removing the socks

So does one just wash the feet again, or re-do the whole wudu?

[Abuz Zubair]

if the part(s) he is supposed to wash before washing the feet is still wet he should start from there, otherwise he should re-do the whole wudu, according t the madhab.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

jazakALLAHU Khairan bro!

[Logic lover]

How should we calm down those brothers from the sub-continent background, who think they are Hanafis - insisting that those who wipe over the socks and praying are in fact doing so without the wudu?

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

Translated from al-Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah:

( 220 ) في المسح على الجوربين ( 1 ) حدثنا أبو بكر قال نا ابن نمير عن الاعمش عن إبراهيم عن همام أن أبا مسعود كان يمسح على الجوربين .Regarding wiping over socks (al-jawrabayn). Abu Mas'ud used to wipe over the socks.

( 2 ) حدثنا وكيع عن سفيان عن منصور عن خالد بن سعيد عن عقبة بن عمرو أنه مسح على جوربين من شعر .
'Uqbah ibn 'Amr wiped over socks made from hair.

( 3 ) حدثنا وكيع عن سفيان عن أبي قيس عن هذيل عن مغيرة بن شعبة أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مسح على الجوربين والنعلين .
From al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, that the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam, wiped over the socks and sandals.

( 4 ) حدثنا وكيع عن أبي خباب عن أبيه عن جلاس بن عمرو أن عمر توضأ يوم جمعة ومسح على جوربيه ونعليه .
'Umar made wudhu' on the day of al-Jumu'ah, and he wiped over his socks and sandals.

( 5 ) حدثنا أبو بكر بن عياش عن حصين عن إبراهيم قال الجوربان والنعلان بمنزلة الخفين .Ibrahim [an-Nakha'i] said: "Socks and sandals are in the same category as khuffs."

( 6 ) حدثنا هشيم قال أخبرنا يونس عن الحسن وشعبة عن قتادة عن سعيد بن المسيب والحسن أنهما قالا يمسح على الجوربين إذا كانا صفيقين .
Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab and al-Hasan [al-Basri] both said: "He wipes over the socks if they are thick."

( 7 ) حدثنا هشيم قال أخبرنا حصين عن إبراهيم أنه كان يمسح على الجوربين .
Ibrahim [an-Nakha'i] used to wipe over the socks.

( 8 ) حدثنا وكيع عن هشام عن قتادة عن أنس أنه كان يمسح على الجوربين .
Anas used to wipe over the socks.

( 9 ) حدثنا وكيع عن حماد بن سلمة عن أبي غالب قال رأيت أبا أمامة يمسح على الجوربين .
Abu Ghalib said: "I saw Abu Umamah wiping over the socks."

( 10 ) حدثنا أبو بكر بن عياش عن عبد الله بن سعيد عن جلاس قال رأيت عليا بال ثم مسح على جوربيه ونعليه .
Sa'id ibn Jallas said: "I saw 'Ali urinate, then he wiped over his socks and sandals."

( 11 ) حدثنا إسحاق الازرق عن جويبر عن الضحاك أنه كان يقول في المسح على الجوربين لا بأس به .
Adh-Dhahhak used to say regarding wiping over the socks: "There is no problem with it."

( 12 ) حدثنا ابن مهدي عن سفيان عن واصل عن سعيد بن عبد الله بن ضرار أن أنس بن مالك توضأ ومسح على جوربين مرعزي .
Anas ibn Malik made wudhu' and wiped over fine woolen socks.

( 13 ) حدثنا الثقفي عن إسماعيل بن أمية قال بلغني أن البراء بن عازب كان لا يرى بأسا بالمسح على الجوربين وبلغني عن سعد بن أبي وقاص وسعيد بن المسيب أنهما كانا لا يريان بأسا بالمسح على الجوربين .
From Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas and Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab, that they saw no problem with wiping over the socks.

( 14 ) حدثنا وكيع عن الاعمش قال حدثنا إسماعيل بن رجاء عن أبيه قال رأيت البراء توضأ فمسح على الجوربين .
Al-Bara' made wudhu' and wiped over his socks.

( 15 ) حدثنا وكيع عن سفيان عن الزبرقان العبدي عن كعب بن عبد الله أن عليا بال ثم توضأ ومسح على الجوربين والنعلين .
'Ali urinated, then made wudhu' and wiped over his socks and sandals.

( 16 ) حدثنا وكيع قال حدثنا يزيد بن مردانبة عن الوليد بن سريع عن عمرو بن كريب أن عليا توضأ ومسح على الجوربين .
'Ali made wudhu' and wiped over the socks.

( 17 ) حدثنا وكيع قال حدثنا مهدي بن ميمون عن واصل الاحدب عن أبي وائل عن عقبة بن عمرو أنه توضأ ومسح على الجوربين .
'Uqbah ibn 'Amr made wudhu' and wiped over the socks.

( 18 ) حدثنا وكيع عن الاعمش عن المسيب بن رافع عن بسر بن عمرو قال رأيت أبا مسعود بال ثم توضأ ومسح على الجوربين .
Abu Mas'ud urinated, then made wudhu' and wiped over his socks.

( 19 ) حدثنا جعفر بن عون عن أبي العميس عن فرات قال رأيت سعيد بن جبير توضأ ومسح على الجوربين والنعلين .
Sa'id ibn Jubayr made wudhu' and wiped over his socks and sandals.

( 20 ) حدثنا زيد بن حباب عن هشام بن سعد عن أبي حازم عن سهل بن سعد أنه مسح على الجوربين .
Sahl ibn Sa'd wiped over the socks.

( 221 ) من قال الجوربان بمنزلة الخفين ( 1 ) حدثنا أبو بكر قال حدثنا يحيى بن سعيد عن ابن جريج عن عطاء قال المسح على الجوربين بمنزلة المسح على الخفين .
Whoever said that the socks are in the same category as khuffs. 'Ata' said: "Wiping over the socks is the same as wiping over the khuffs."

( 2 ) حدثنا أبو داود عن عباد بن راشد قال سألت نافعا عن المسح على الجوربين فقال هما بمنزلة الخفين .
'Abbad ibn Rashid said: "I asked Nafi' about wiping over the socks, so he said: "They are in the same category as khuffs."

( 3 ) حدثنا حفص عن عمرو عن الحسن قال كان يقول الجوربان والنعلان بمنزلة الخفين وكان لا يرى أن يمسح على واحد منهما دون صاحبه .
Al-Hasan used to say: "The socks and sandals are in the same category as khuffs." But he did not view that one of them should be wiped in the absance of the other.

( 4 ) حدثنا وكيع قال نا أبو جعفر الرازي عن يحيى البكاء قال سمعت ابن عمر يقول المسح على الجوربين كالمسح على الخفين .
Ibn 'Umar said: "Wiping over the socks is like wiping over the khuffs."

End of quote from al-Musannaf by Ibn Abi Shaybah.

Wiping over the socks (al-jawrabayn) is conditional upon them being thick and not see-through.

Wping over the thick socks (al-jawrabayn) was the madhhab of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, Sufyan ath-Thawri, 'Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak and 'Abd ar-Rahman al-Awza'i. It is the final view that was narrated from Abu Hanifah several days before he died. He was seen wiping over his socks in the illness from which he died, and he said: "I am doing what I used to forbid." It was also the choice of his two students, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan and Abu Yusuf.

[Tauheed]

It is the final view that was narrated from Abu Hanifah several days before he died. He was seen wiping over his socks in the illness from which he died, and he said: "I am doing what I used to forbid." It was also the choice of his two students, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan and Abu Yusuf.

Asalaam alaikum,
have you got the reference to this as I understand that Imam Abu Hanifah only initially allowed the wiping over two types of socks however around the time of his illness he changed his opinion and allowed four types like that of his students but it did not include Jawrabayn.

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

have you got the reference to this as I understand that Imam Abu Hanifah only initially allowed the wiping over two types of socks however around the time of his illness he changed his opinion and allowed four types like that of his students but it did not include Jawrabayn.

Sunan at-Tirmidhi:

باب ما جاء في المسح على الجوربين والنعلين

[ 99 ] حدثنا هناد ومحمود بن غيلان قالا حدثنا وكيع عن سفيان عن أبي قيس عن هزيل بن شرحبيل عن المغيرة بن شعبة قال توضأ النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ومسح على الجوربين والنعلين قال أبو عيسى هذا حديث حسن صحيح وهو قول غير واحد من أهل العلم وبه يقول سفيان الثوري وابن المبارك والشافعي وأحمد وإسحاق قالوا يمسح على الجوربين وإن لم تكن نعلين إذا كانا ثخينين قال وفي الباب عن أبي موسى قال أبو عيسى سمعت صالح بن محمد الترمذي قال سمعت أبا مقاتل السمرقندي يقول دخلت على أبي حنيفة في مرضه الذي مات فيه فدعا بماء فتوضأ وعليه جوربان فمسح عليهما ثم قال فعلت اليوم شيئا لم أكن أفعله مسحت على الجوربين وهما غير منعلين

Translation:

Chapter: What has come regarding wiping over the socks (jawrabayn) and the sandals.

[After mentioning the hadith of al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah that the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa-sallam, wiped over his jawrabayn and sandals, Abu 'Isa at-Tirmidhi said:]

This is a hasan sahih hadith, and it is the saying of more than one of the people of knowledge. It is the saying of Sufyan ath-Thawri, Ibn al-Mubarak, ash-Shafi'i, Ahmad and Ishaq. They said: The jawrabayn are wiped over even if they are worn without sandals, as long as they are thick.

He [i.e. at-Tirmidhi] said: And it is narrated in this regard from Abu Musa.

Abu 'Isa [at-Tirmidhi] said: I heard Salih ibn Muhammad at-Tirmidhi say: I heard Abu Muqatil as-Samarqandi saying: I entered on Abu Hanifah while he was in the illness from which he died. He called for water to be brought, and he made wudhu', and he was wearing jawrabayn and he wiped over them. He said: I have done today something that I did not use to do. I wiped over the jawrabayn and they are not muna''alayn [i.e. they do not have leather soles].

[syedi]

Question


I have heard that during the last days of IMAM Abu Hanifa, he did masah on his feet and people use this as a proof to do masah on cotton socks. Is this correct

Answer

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful


Assalaamu `alaykum waRahmatullahi Wabarakatoh

The information is not true. Imam Abu Hanifa (R.A) did not make masah on his feet. The issue was about making masah on thick socks which are like leather.

Imam Abu Hanifa (RA) initially did not believe making masah on such thick socks was permissible. He then retracted that before he passed away and believed masah on such socks is permissible. Masah on thin and regular socks is still not permissible. All the four famous Jurist are unanimous on that.

And Allah knows best

Wassalam

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
Darul Iftaa, Madrassah In'aamiyyah

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

The information is not true. Imam Abu Hanifa (R.A) did not make masah on his feet. The issue was about making masah on thick socks which are like leather.

Where does it say in at-Tirmidhi's quote from Abu Hanifah "thick socks which are like leather"? All it says is jawrabayn which are not muna''alayn, i.e. not having leather soles.

Imam Abu Hanifa (RA) initially did not believe making masah on such thick socks was permissible. He then retracted that before he passed away and believed masah on such socks is permissible. Masah on thin and regular socks is still not permissible. All the four famous Jurist are unanimous on that.

As for thin "regular" socks, then yes mash should not be made on them. But what about thick "regular" socks?

And what is the definition of "thin" and "thick" in this context?

The 'ajeeb thing is that some of the muta'assib ahnaaf say that it is only allowed to make mash on non-leather socks if they are waterproof (Allahu a'lam what kind of non-leather socks these are, if anyone has heard of such miraculous socks then please let me know!).

The reasoning behind this, they say, is that if it is not waterproof, the water will reach the foot, and thus because part of the foot has been "washed", the mash is invalid, because washing and wiping cannot be combined.

Yet, they contradict themselves entirely by allowing mash on leather khuffs which have small tears or holes in them, when it is clear that the likelihood of water penetrating through the holes or tears in leather khuffs in much higher than with normal thick regular socks (like work socks or sports socks).

[Yasir]

And what is the definition of "thin" and "thick" in this context?In the sense that neither are made from leather, yet the thicker socks have the qualities of leather, whilst the thinner do not.

[Yasir]

(Allahu a'lam what kind of non-leather socks these are, if anyone has heard of such miraculous socks then please let me know!).SealSkinz and Gortex socks.

[Tauheed]

The reasoning behind this, they say, is that if it is not waterproof, the water will reach the foot, and thus because part of the foot has been "washed", the mash is invalid, because washing and wiping cannot be combined.

Yet, they contradict themselves entirely by allowing mash on leather khuffs which have small tears or holes in them, when it is clear that the likelihood of water penetrating through the holes or tears in leather khuffs in much higher than with normal thick regular socks (like work socks or sports socks).

Asalaam alaikum,

In the event the leather khuff was torn and water did penetrate the skin. In that circumstance the mash would become invalid.

Shukran for the reference.

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

In the sense that neither are made from leather, yet the thicker socks have the qualities of leather, whilst the thinner do not.

Such a statement is very vague and does not help much, because it appears that the hanafi fuqaha' have placed very strict conditions on when you can wipe over non-leather socks. When strict conditions are given, but then those conditions are described very vaguely, it doesn't really help to clarify anything.

So what we want to know is: In practical terms, what kind of non-leather (i.e. wool or cotton) socks would be allowed to wipe over today?

You mentioned:

SealSkinz and Gortex socks.

Ok, fair enough. But were these "Sealskinz" and "Gortex" socks around in the time of the hanafi scholars who made being waterproof a condition for mash?

In other words, what kind of waterproof socks were around in the time of the classical jurists, what were they made of, and what were they like.

In the event the leather khuff was torn and water did penetrate the skin. In that circumstance the mash would become invalid.

Is that what is actually said by the hanafi fuqaha who allow wiping over khuffs with holes in them? Because it seems contradictory that they would allow mash on a khuff with holes on one hand, but then on the other hand disallow mash on the very same khuff because of the water penetrating those holes!

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

what is a shame is that the ahnaaf are told no to pray behind the hanabilah who follow the position that you can do masah over the socks. They say because their wudu is not valid then their salah is not valid.

This kind of extreamism means they can't pray behind a shafi'e as his conditions for a valid wudu would not make it acceptable for the hanafis. But they don't say this. The reason why is because fundamentally its about being at war with salafis. wal ALLAHU Musta'an!

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

Jazakallahu khayran brother Abu Iman, I think you've hit the nail on the head, as they say.

[Skillganon]

what is a shame is that the ahnaaf are told no to pray behind the hanabilah who follow the position that you can do masah over the socks. They say because their wudu is not valid then their salah is not valid.

This kind of extreamism means they can't pray behind a shafi'e as his conditions for a valid wudu would not make it acceptable for the hanafis. But they don't say this. The reason why is because fundamentally its about being at war with salafis. wal ALLAHU Musta'an!

I thought hanafi's are salafi's?

[Tauheed]

Is that what is actually said by the hanafi fuqaha who allow wiping over khuffs with holes in them? Because it seems contradictory that they would allow mash on a khuff with holes on one hand, but then on the other hand disallow mash on the very same khuff because of the water penetrating those holes!

Asalaam alaikum,

It does not seem contradictory to me (even though I am not in a position to evaluate) as the original case is that you can do masah over leather socks. If the leather sock has got a tear in it (by the way it can’t be more than a certain size) then you can still do masah as it still is a leather sock, but if water penetrates through the tear then the masah has become invalid. This opposed to having something that is not waterproof in the first place.

Allah knows best.

[Tauheed]

The reason why is because fundamentally its about being at war with salafis. wal ALLAHU Musta'an!

Asalaam alaikum,

A bit of general statement don't you think, painting all the Ahnaaf with the same brush?

I know for a fact that this not the case with all Hanafis. However your statement would appear to imply that this is the case with all the Ahnaaf.(don't know if that was your intention?)

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

A bit of general statement don't you think, painting all the Ahnaaf with the same brush?

I know for a fact that this not the case with all Hanafis. However your statement would appear to imply that this is the case with all the Ahnaaf.(don't know if that was your intention?)

True, it is not the case with 100% of all of the hanafis in the east and west of the earth. However, it is generally a characteristic that tends to be particular (however not necessarily restricted) to many of the contemporary hanafis particularly from the subcontinent and perhaps also Turkey, as they seem to be the most vocal about it. Wallahu a'lam.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

sorry brothers, I didn't mean to be too general.

I mean those ahnaaf who hate salafis.

I remember in King College London years ago In heard of how the deobandis would "pretend" to pray behind the salafis because of 'aqeedah issues and apparently masah over socks. This is the type of extreamism I'm refering to.

In my old uni we had a "stick the article on the wall debate" (i.e. annonymous muslim telling others it is haram to pray behind people who do masah over any type of socks and putting up mufti taqi usmani's fatwa on the wall!) about masah al-khuffayn. I said even 'ash'aris like Musa furber said it was not ijmaa' etc etc but as we know from experiance some people just don't want to listen.

this is the rubbish hanafi/salafi clash I'm refering to, obviously not all are like that - wal-lillahi-hamd!

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

Jazakallahu khayran brother Abu Iman,

wa iyyakum akhee

[Ummatun Wasata]

Asalaamu 'Alaikum,

I think the whole argument here is what constitutes Jawrabayn. What I understand is that the Ahnaaf say that 'woollen socks' do not fall into the category of Jawrabayn.

Allahu-Alim

[waziri]

Asalaamu 'Alaikum,

I think the whole argument here is what constitutes Jawrabayn. What I understand is that the Ahnaaf say that 'woollen socks' do not fall into the category of Jawrabayn.

Allahu-Alim


Shawkani in Nayl al-awtar (1:178) said: "The khuff is a leather shoe which covers the ankle-bones. The jurmuq (spat) is larger than it and is worn over it, while the jawrab is larger than the jurmuq." This definition, as well as Imam Ahmad's specifications, give an idea of the jawrab that is different from even the largest woolen socks available today, and invalidates the view of those who claim that the jawrab merely refers to "socks."

It should be stressed that in none of the reports adduced to support this position is the fabric of the jawarib specified, so that it is not certain over exactly what fabric the Companions wiped when they wiped over the jawarib

[Logic lover]

Did the jurists who considered wiping over 'socks' permissible, not take into consideration as to what the companions or some of them wore as 'jawrab'?

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

The argument that jawarib are larger than khuffs is debatable. It is narrated that many of the Salaf wiped over their sandals and jawarib. If the jawrab is a kind of thick shoe that is bigger than a khuff, in the way that some people understand from the quote of ash-Shawkani, how did they possibly manage to wear them under their sandals?

Anyway, there is a good booklet written about this issue by Shaykh al-Albani (Tamam an-Nas'h fi Ahkam al-Mas'h), and another one by Shaykh Muhammad Jamal ad-Din al-Qasimi (al-Mas'h 'alal-Jawrabayn), in which the evidences of wiping over normal socks are clearly and impartially explained with reference to the practice of the Sahabah and Tabi'un. The latter book has an introduction by Shaykh Ahmad Shakir (the great Egyptian Hanafi scholar of al-Azhar), who fully agreed with the contents of the book.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

where can one get the books?

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

where can one get the books?

http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=30&book=999

[waziri]

where can one get the books?

Akhi shoudnt you be asking where can one get these khufs?


http://adeela.industradegroup.com/khuffain.htm


wasalam

[waziri]

Did the jurists who considered wiping over 'socks' permissible, not take into consideration as to what the companions or some of them wore as 'jawrab'?

No doubt they did,and that is why they stipulated certain conditions.So the question is wheather the socks that we have today meet those conditions or not?

Thakheen are such heavy woollen socks which have all the attributes of leather. They are not the normal processed and 'refined' woollen socks available nowadays in the modern world. According to the majority of Hanafi Fuqaha, masah on Thakheen is valid because such socks are in the very same category as Khuffain. The validity of Masah on Thakeen is dependent on the following conditions

• It is possible to walk in them for more than three miles

without them tearing. The walking is without shoes on.

• They must be non-porous preventing water seeping through.

• They must remain firm on the foreleg without being tied with

laces, elastic, etc. They should not slip down while walking as

ordinary socks do.

If the socks arc of this standard, having all the properties of Khuffain (leather socks), then according to the Ahnaaf they are in fact in the same category as leather socks, hence it is not a question of transferring the hukm of masah to an item which does not comply with the Maurad (the khuffain) mentioned in the Nass (Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatarah).


"The actual basis is that the purport of the Aayat (of Wudhu) is washing which is proven (by Nass-e-Qat'i), If it were not for the Ahaadith-e-Mutawaatarah narrated from the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) regarding Masah alal Khuffain, we would not have made lawful Masah. Since authentic Ahaadith (of the Mutawaatir class) have been narrated we utilized it as proof for its (i.e. the masah's) employment (and validity), and we used it in conformity with the aayat in that it covers the exigency of masah (by virtue of the Ahaadith). And, we left the balance (of the narrations which are not Mutawaatar) on the basis of the aayat's command. Since the narrations of masah on jurabain (non-leather socks have not been narrated to the extent of the narrations of masah on khuffain, we retained the hukm of washing on the maurad of the aayat, (i.e. washing of the feet)."

JURABAIN

Jurabain are non-leather socks of wool, cotton or any other cloth. There are some narrations which mention masah on jurabain. However, these narrations are not of the Mutawaatar class, hence may not be cited to override or water down a command by the Qur'aan. Nevertheless, an explanation for masah on jurabain mentioned in some Ahaadith is necessary to dispel the confusion . Firstly, there is not a single Authority among the Salf-e-Saaliheen (the illustrious and pious predecessors of the Khairul Quroon era) who claims that masah on ordinary socks is valid notwithstanding the Hadith narrations which mention masah on Jurabain. The Authorities of those early ages had more awareness of the meaning of jurabain in the context of masah. Those authorities who hold the view of the validity of masah on jurabain, do not say that masah is valid on just any type of socks such as the socks we have in our day. According to them, if the jurabain are covered with leather, then masah on them is valid. In this regard it is necessary to explain in some detail for a proper understanding.

In Ahkaamul Qur'aan, Jassaas says: "They (the Fuqaha) differed on the question of masal alah jurabain. According to Imaam Abu Hanifah and Imaam Shaafi (rahmatullah alayhima) masah on jurabain is not permissible except if they are mujallad (i.e. leather sewn over them). Tahaawi narrates from ImaamMaalik (rahmatullah alayh) that masah on jurabain is not valid even if they are mujalladain (on which leather has been sewn). Some of the Companions of Imaam Maalik narrate that according to him, masah on jurabain is not permissible except that they be mujalladain like khuffain. Thauri, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Hasan Ibn Saalih (rahmatullah alayhim) said that if the jurabain are thakheenain, then masah on them is valid even if they are not mujalladain." (We have already explained the meaning of Thakheen earlier.)
Thakheen Socks

In the terminology of the Fuqaha, Thakheen are socks of such durable and tough material which renders them khuffain for all practicalpurposes, We have already explained the properties of Thakheen earlier on.

According to Imaam Maalik's one view masah on jurabain is not valid even if they are Thakheen and even if leather is sewn on them. In another view, he avers that masah will be valid on socks of the Thakheen kind if leather is sewn on them, for then they will in reality bo khuffain. According to Imaam Shaafi, masah will be valid on Thakheen socks only if leather is sewn on them. In the view of the Hanafi and Hambali Math-habs, masah is valid on Thakheen socks even if leather is not sewn on them, i.e. they are Mujalladain.

Raqeeq Socks

Non-leather socks in which the properties of Thakheen socks are not found, are called Raqeeq in the terminology of the Fuqaha. Not a single Authority of the Shariah holds the view of validity of masah on Raqeeq socks
From the time of the Sahaabah, it was always the mas'alah that masah on Raqeeq (non-!eather socks not of the Thakheen type) was never permissible.



So I guess it boils down to what one would consider Thakheen.

Personaly Ill stick with my Khufain in which there is no doubt that one can do masah over them and they look cool aswell.

wasalam

Allah knows best

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

http://www.almeshkat.net/books/open.php?cat=30&book=999

jazakALLAHU Khairan!

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

Akhi shoudnt you be asking where can one get these khufs?


http://adeela.industradegroup.com/khuffain.htm


wasalam

lol! maasha'ALLAH

[Abuz Zubair]

Akhi shoudnt you be asking where can one get these khufs?


http://adeela.industradegroup.com/khuffain.htm


wasalam
There's plenty of them in the Western part of the world I suppose?

[waziri]

There's plenty of them in the Western part of the world I suppose?

Sorry akhi I dont quite understand I think maybe youll need to spell it out for me.

wasalam

[Abuz Zubair]

lol...

who else doesn't get it?

[waziri]

lol...

who else doesn't get it?

Come on akhi dont shame me further,you might aswell ask who else is thick lol

[Abuz Zubair]

Nothing to be ashamed about bro... I am just waiting to see who can guess what it's about.

[Skillganon]

Nothing to be ashamed about bro... I am just waiting to see who can guess what it's about.

Batty men and Bikers...and very camp wierd people who wear it for fetish or something...

Perfect for you daily stroll in Soho

Imagine if they sold leather whip to go with it?

[Abuz Zubair]

ROFL!

I was NOT thinking along those lines, at all! :)

The question was: 'Where can I find kuffs?', right?

[MosDef]

Perfect for you daily stroll in Soho

Imagine if they sold leather whip to go with it?

LOL dont give them any ideas.

[Ibn Muhammad]

Lol @ Batty men

Kuffs = Kufaar, and plenty of them in the western world :)

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

come on! kuffs and khuffs! lol!

[Yasir]

There's plenty of them in the Western part of the world I suppose?According to anonymouse we could all be classified as such!

[Abuz Zubair]

According to anonymouse we could all be classified as such!
exactly! Including him!

[waziri]

Yes well I still dont get it

[Husayn Adam]

The hanafi verdicd for masah on jouraaab and its conditions:-
the making of masah on any footwear will be dependent on seven conditions.

1. The adorning should only be after the feet are washed or wudhu is made.
2. They should cover the ankles.
3. A person has to be able to walk on them for a long distance without them getting torn.
4. There should not be any holes in it equal to the size of three toes.
5. They should be made so that they do not need any elastic or any thing to keep it upon the shin.
6. They should be non porous , not allowing water to reach the skin.
7. The amount that will make masah permissible is required to be left on the garment/footwear.

[Tuwaylib]

here.....invest in these....and we are all ok.

http://www.sealskinz.com/cgi-bin/psProdDet.cgi/KE351||~@c~@b|0|user|1,0,0,1|26|

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

as salaamu alaykum

jazakallah khayr, a great thread. I have a question! How do you wash leather socks? A friend of mine bought some and well... I dont think he has washed them in a while lol. Can i throw them in the washer?

[Abu Maryam PK]

i looked at the evidence a while ago, perhaps two years ago, and to me there is no sahih hadith supporting wiping over socks other than leather. Allahu a'alam.

[Salah ad-Din]

Brother Abu Zubair!
How can you explain the words of Ibn Jibreen?
فإن عقيدة أهل السنة والجماعة إباحة المسح على الخفين، لما في ذلك من التيسير على العباد، والوقاية من أضرار البرد الشديد. وقد انقسم الناس فيه إلى ثلائة أقسام:
الأول: أنكروه وضللوا من فعله، وهم طوائف كثيرة، سيماهم البعد عن السنة، فحكم السلف عليهم بالابتداع وإنكار السنة المتواترة التي هي من محاسن الدين.
والقسم الثاني: تساهلوا في ذلك وخرجوا عن الحد المحدود، فأحقوا بالخفاف لفائف وخرقا وجوارب شفافة وأحذية غير ساترة، ومسحوا على ما يسمى بالشراب، ولو كان مخرقا ورقيقا لا يحصل به الستر ولا الوقاية من شدة البرد ونحوه، فوقعوا فيما يبطل طهارتهم عند الجمهور وما لا يجوز المسح عليه عند جميع الأئمة.
والقسم الثالث: توسطوا واتبعوا ما جاء به الدليل. ولما ظهر إنكار الرافضة والإباضية في هذا الزمان على من يمسح على الخفاف ونحوها رد عليهم أهل السنة وأوضحوا كل ما أشكل أمره، وبينوا الأدلة على ذلك، ولكن لما كثر بيننا الذين تساهلوا في المسح على الجوارب ولو شفافا أو مخرقا استلزم ذلك البحث عن حكمه، وقد اتضح لنا أن جواز المسح علي الجوارب خاص بالإمام أحمد وأن غيره اشترط كونه صفيقا تحصل به التدفئة، وغيره اشترطوا أن يكون منعلا وأن يمكن المشي فيه وحده، وأن لا يخرقه الماء، وأن الإمام أحمد اشترط كونه صفيقا تحصل به التدفئة، وكونه يثبت بنفسه، وكان المعروف إمكان المشي فيه وحده، وعدم الخرق فيه.
وقد اتضح أن المسح عليه مع عدم الشروط لا يرفع الحدث، وقد أخذ بعض المشايخ بالرخصة في المسح على الخف المخرق، كما رجحه شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية وجهلوا أن كلام شيخ الإسلام في الخفين لا في الجوارب، وأن الجوارب في عهده كانت صفيقة وفي أسفلها رقعة من جلد، وأن هذا الشراب لباس جديد مثل الفانيلة والكنادر والشباشب والتليك ونحوها من المسميات الجديدة.

[justabro]

i looked at the evidence a while ago, perhaps two years ago, and to me there is no sahih hadith supporting wiping over socks other than leather. Allahu a'alam.
Which is why in the chapter on wiping over socks, Abu Dawud goes out of his way to mention that it was practiced by a number of Companions, something he usually only doesn't do without some reason

[nonameyet]

This Fatwa should also be read for additionnal info on hanafi mazhab:
http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=750e078f68e16ca8b0f63c93bfc377de

wassalaam alykum.

[AbuNaim]

very detailed:

http://alhaadi.org.za/Download/Masah%20on%20Socks.pdf

Was salaam

[waziri]

Asalamualaykum,

Interesting, according to the above pdf 2 of the major scholars of the Ahle Hadith movement of the Indian subcontinent(Shams ul Haq Azeemaabadi and shaikh Abdur Rahman Mubarakpuri (ra) ) were also of the view that masah on normal cotton socks was impermissible.


wasalam

[AbuNaim]

The Hanbali Madhab is that it is permissible to wipe over socks, i.e. not just leather, but normal socks, so long as they are:

i) not usurped and legally owned
ii) cover the entire foot, including the ankles, i.e. they are not so thin as to reveal a person’s skin colour, or with holes in them
iii) they fit on the foot by thsemelves, i.e. that one can walk with them on without fearing that they will slide off

Ibn al-Mundhir says: wiping over socks (i.e. normal socks – jawrabayn) is narrated from nine different companions, and there was none known to oppose them.

The Hanbali Mazhab:

Imaam Ahmad states regarding masah on such socks which do not have(leather) sole: “If a person is able to walk in them and they remain firm on the feet (without anything to fasten them), then in this case performing masah upon them will be permissible.”

On another occasion Imaam Ahmad stated: “It is permissible to make masah on socks provided it remains firmly attached to the feet.”

In yet another place he (Imaam Ahmad ) states: “If a person walks with socks, without it slipping off the foreleg and falling to the ankles, then it is permissible to make masah on them, because if they are not firmly attached to the feet and continuously fall, the place of Wudhu will become exposed (rendering the masah invalid).”


Imaam Ahmad does not consider it necessary for the socks to be Mujallad. (i.e. entirely covered in leather.) However, he does deem it imperative that the socks be of a tough and durable nature where one can continuously walk in them.

Imaam Ahmad was once asked regarding the one who performs masah on a sock made from pieces of thin cloth. He (Imaam Ahmad ) did not approve of it. He once said: “Masah is impermissible on the socks unless it is thick (tough) and stands upright on the feet without falling, as is the case with the Khuff (leather sock). The Sahaabah (ra) only made masah on the socks due to it resembling the Khuff in this way that a person would be able to continuously walk in them (without them tearing). And it is impermissible to make masah on pieces of thin cloth.”This has been clearly recorded from Imaam Ahmad .

(Al Mughni, Vol. 1, Pg. 331-334.)

See:

Masah on Socks : http://alhaadi.org.za/Download/Masah%20on%20Socks.pdf

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

as salaamu alaykum,

My friend let me burn his CD set from Faqir Publications called "Pearls of Purity" by Shaykh Husain Abdul Sattar (of Chicago) and he has made some good points on why wiping over other than leather socks is not valid. I suggest anyone who is interested in hanafi madhab should get this set of lectures.

[AbuNaim]

as salaamu alaykum,

My friend let me burn his CD set from Faqir Publications called "Pearls of Purity" by Shaykh Husain Abdul Sattar (of Chicago) and he has made some good points on why wiping over other than leather socks is not valid. I suggest anyone who is interested in hanafi madhab should get this set of lectures.

Why dont you putt it online for download?