If a person travels and then returns
home. ‘Uthaymeen explains that the person follows the status he is in. So if a
person wears his sock as a traveler he continues as a traveler and if he wears
it as a resident he continues as a resident. If he starts as a resident and
then becomes a traveler, he completes the duration for being a traveler (for
three days and three nights) and visa-versa (a day and a night for a resident).
There is another view from the
scholars which is that he continues and his status doesn’t change. This is
because when the reason (سبب) is met
then the ruling (حكم) applies.
Therefore, if he starts as a traveller then the rulings of a traveler remain
upon him until the three days and nights are over.
Uthaymeen states that the first
opinion is stronger because Allaah says:
“And when you travel in the land, there
is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat” [an-Nisaa’ 4:101]
The point is that ones’ status
changes accordingly.
For example, if a person starts the
day as a resident and then he travels, the majority state that he can pray the
Salawaat that he is travelling for by shortening and combining, but the view of
the Hanbalees is that he must complete the prayers without combining.
But the view of the majority is
stronger and it is also narrated that Imaam Ahmad changed his opinion
afterwards.
-If a person doubts when he first
wiped. Uthaymeen explains that if a person doubts when the wiping first began,
was he a traveler (for three days and three nights) or a resident (a day and a
night), then he should follow what is likely. If he is not able to decipher
then follow that which is safer. The Hanbalees state that he should follow the
lesser duration.
-If a person invalidates his Wudhoo
and then travels. Uthaymeen explains that a person has worn his socks in a
state of purity but then he nullifies his Wudhoo whilst he is resident. Then he
travels – he is permitted to wipe over his socks as a traveler (for three days
and three nights) because, as explained above, the duration of wiping (either
three days or one day) begins as the point of wiping and not at the point of
nullification of Wudhoo.
One of the views of the Hanbalees
here is that the one who starts as a resident and then he travels and wipes
whilst travelling then he completes the period as a resident as he started to
wear his socks as a resident, but this view is somewhat contradictory with
Uthaymeen.
-It is not permitted to wipe over
hats. Uthaymeen explains that we have been commanded to wipe over our heads
(5:6) with the only exception of the turban.
Some have stated that if the
headgear is worn because of a dire reason and taking it off would cause a lot
of harm or difficulty then it is permitted to wipe over these types of hat.
This view is very strong with Uthaymeen. He argues that the Sharee’ah bases
rulings on things that are similar, so if we are permitted to wipe over turbans
because of difficulty and harm, then hats that are similar take the same ruling.
-It is not permitted to wipe over
footwear which are not shoes or socks. Uthaymeen explains that in the former
generations, they weren’t always able to wear shoes or socks so they would wrap
a piece of clothing around their feet and legs. So some of the scholars have
stated these coverings do not come under the ruling of wiping over shoes or
socks.
Ibn Taymiyyah, similar to what was
stated about hats above, stated that it is permissible because of the same
reason of wiping over shoes and socks – to remove hardship and spare
difficulty. So if a person preformed Wudhoo and wore these types of footwear in
the state of purity then it is permitted to wipe over them.
The evidence for this is that the
Prophet permitted wiping over head gear (العصائب) and footwear (النسخين), so the wording here is general.
-If a sock is worn over another
sock, then the ruling of the one on top is followed. Uthaymeen explains sock above sock
- some
people wear socks worn up to the ankle and another sock above falls below the
ankle. According to the view of the Hanbalees, the second one which is below
the ankle is not permitted to wipe over as it is below the ankle. Uthaymeen
states however, that they are deemed as one sock if they cling together (such
as normal socks and ankle socks), so if one reaches the ankle and the other
doesn’t, then he wipes as normal – from the toes to the ankles. However, if the
shorter sock is completely separate to longer sock then the shorter one must be
removed (such as shoes and socks).
Uthaymeen states that the strongest
view with him is that covering the ankle is not a condition, so if one is
wearing what is called a sock, then it is permitted to wipe over it (TN:
however the opinion of the majority is safer, that it must cover the ankle –
and Allaah Knows Best).
Note: If a person wears a sock in a
state of purity but then wears another pair of socks on top, then the one on
top must be removed and the one below must be wiped over, as the one on top
wasn’t worn in a state of purity, as the Prophet said, “I wore them when I was
pure”. This is the view favoured by Uthaymeen.
Others stated that the one on top
takes the ruling of the worn below, but
the former opinion is correct.
-Uthaymeen states that there
scholars also differed if one takes off the socks, can he put them back on in
order to wipe? The Hanbalees stated that if one takes off his socks then he
cannot put them back on without making Wudhoo again in order to wipe over them
again, as the duration has been nullified.
Other stated that it is permissible
to put them back on and wipe over them.
For example, if a person wore socks
whilst he was pure then he took them off, and he remains pure, and then puts
them back on and then loses his Wudhoo, the Hanbalees say he cannot wipe over
them. Uthaymeen favours the opinion that he can because he wore them whilst he
was pure.
To be continued
No comments:
Post a Comment