Follow @AhleDhikr
-The rulings here are connected to Wudhoo and we will discuss the issues connected to wiping over leather socks, normal socks, turban, plaster casts and the headscarf for women.
-Socks include leather socks and socks made out of any other material.
Uthaymeen states that there is scholarly consensus that wiping over leather socks is legislated and the only rejection came from the Raafidah (Shia). The proof for wiping over the socks has preceeded in the Aayah of Wudhoo (5:6) and Imaam Ahmad stated that there over forty Hadeeth which prove the legislation of wiping over socks.
Conditions for wiping over socks:
1. Duration
-The duration for wiping over socks is a day and a night for the resident.
Uthaymeen states the ruling is Sunnah to wipe over the socks if one put them one in the state of Wudhoo. In fact, taking them off in order to wash would be an innovation which is against the Sunnah.
Benefit: the word permissible (الجواز) is often used in the books of Fiqh to refute the idea of something being impermissible (المنع). In this case, the word “permissible”doesn’t mean permissible in the technical sense, rather permissible could be something Waajib or Mustahab.
Uthaymeen also explains the term “resident” as being the opposite of a traveller.
However, the Hanbalee Madhab has three stages of accommodation:
1-The person is in his home town (مسطوتن)
2-The person is staying a place which is not his home town but not considered a traveller either (مقيم)
3. A traveller (مسافر).
Uthaymeen states that these three types has no real basis; either one is considered as a resident or a traveller, affirming 1 and 3 only. This is also the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah.
So what are the implications of having three types?
It would mean that a person staying in a place which is not his home town (number 2 above) would not be obliged to pray Jumu’ah, for example, even if he stayed there for many years.
The scholars have stated that Jumu’ah is only obligatory upon those who are staying in a place permanently.
However, what is correct is to have only two types – a traveller or a resident. The resident wipes over his socks for a day and night.
-The traveller wipes for three days and three nights. Uthaymeen explains that this includes all types of travelling, whether it be far or near. It also includes travelling that involves shortening the prayer or not (for those who hold the opinion of following 80km, then they must pass 80km in order to be included in this issue).
The Madhab specifies a time period but also specifies that travelling for the purpose of sin is not included.
-The time for wiping begins after losing Wudhoo. Uthaymeen explains that there is a difference on when the time periods mentioned above begin:
-The Madhab is of the of opinion that it starts after one loses their Wudhoo, because the ruling is connected to the reason (Sabab) for invalidating the Wudoo.
-Others said it begins when putting on the socks, because the time period specifies the time when they are worn.
-Others said it begins after the first period of wiping, because this is when the period of one day for the resident or three days for the travelers begins. A ruling cannot be attached to merely wearing socks but the Hadeeth refers to after the first wiping. This is the correct opinion with Uthaymeen.
Examples:
If a man wore socks and he was a resident. Then he lost his Wudhoo. Then he travelled and then he performed Wudhoo by wiping over his socks. The period for him as that of a traveler because he has now changed in his status.
Another example, a man performed Wudhoo at Fajr and then wore his socks. He remained in Wudhoo until 9AM. Then he broke his Wudhoo and performed Wudhoo again by wiping at 12PM. The correct opinion is the time period starts at 12PM and not 9AM.
2. Purity
The socks must be pure in and of themselves.
Uthaymeen explains purity can refer to the sock being made of a impure material, such as pig skin and the likes. And it can also mean that the socks are free from having any impurities on them. Although it is true that the socks must have impurities removed from them, it is not a condition for the wiping to be correct. One may wipe over them and the Wudhoo is valid but must remove the impurity before praying. The evidence for what has been said here is the Hadeeth of Mughayrah bin Shu’bah (may Allaah be Pleased with him) where the Prophet (Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “I entered them whilst being pure (i.e. pure with Wudhoo and the sock itself being from a pure material).”
Benefit: if the leather is impure but from an animal we can eat, then the correct view is that this leather can be purified by tanning but one must wait for it to be dried. If one wears them or even touches them whilst they are wet and not fully tanned, then the Najasah (inpurity) has been transmitted. The Hanbali Madhab hold the opinion that tanning doesn’t purify Maytah (carrion) which is from an animal that we are originally allowed to eat, but Uthaymeen prefers the former opinion.
3. Gained in a Permissible Manner
Uthaymeen explains that the sock cannot be stolen or taken from someone else’s property unlawfully. It can also mean that it is not made from something Haraam, like silk for men or socks with images on them.
There is not specific evidence for this but we have a general principle: Rukhsah (exceptions) to rulings cannot be made via something Haraam.
Also by analogy (Qiyaas), if one was to say that praying in a Haraam garment nullifies the prayer, then making Wudhoo in a Haraam garment nullifies the Wudhoo.
4. It Covers the Foot Up To the Ankle and Material.
Uthaymeen explains that this is the case because wiping takes the place of washing up to the ankles.
-Holes in the sock don’t effect the validity of the wiping. The Hanbalis stated that a hole the size of a toe poking out nullifies the wiping. Uthaymeen states, there is no benchmark. If the hole is deemed as being minor, or the sock having a minor tear, this doesn’t invalidate the wiping.
-Socks that show the colour of the skin are permissible to wipe over, as there is no evidence to set this as a condition. This is the view of Shafi’ee.
Ahmad was of the view that it does by analogy to praying in clothes which display the persons skin colour underneath. If a person prays in a garment in which the skin colour (of the ‘Awrah) underneath can be seen, then the Salaah is null.
Uthaymeen states that the opinion of Shafi’ee is closer here because the point is that the sock covers the foot and that water doesn’t seem through it. As for the analogy with prayer then this is not correct here because the rulings connected to the ‘Awrah differ to the covering of the feet. Also, there is no evidence to prove that the skin colour must not be visible.
The Dhaahirees are of the view that anything that is called a sock is sufficient to wipe over, even if it doesn’t reach the ankles. They argue that a sock is called sock and can be wiped over. Also, the Companions were poor and they covered their feet with what was easy for them, and with this, the Prophet didn’t specify a specific limit to the sock. This is also the view of Ibn Taymiyyah and favoured by Uthaymeen even though the difference of opinion is very strong (TN: and perhaps to err on the side of caution).
5. The Socks Must Stay Up.
Uthaymeen explains that the Hanbalees stated that if he is able to walk in them without falling down, it is permissible for wiping.
So for example, if a man with small feet wore socks that were too big for him and they kept falling down, then it would not be permissible to wipe over them. Even if he kept them up with something.
Others didn’t hold this opinion. Uthaymeen says this is the correct view; as long as a person is wearing sock and he can walk in them then this is permissible to wipe over.
Next post: Types of Garments Permitted to Wipe Over
No comments:
Post a Comment