Chapter: Wiping Over Leather Socks (Part 4)

Follow @AhleDhikr

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 

Chapter: Wiping Over Leather Socks (Part 3)

Follow @AhleDhikr

-Wiping can only be for minor impurities. Uthaymeen explains major impurities need to be removed via Ghusl however minor impurities are lifted by Wudhoo. In this case, one is permitted to wipe over his socks, turban and the headscarf. The evidence is the Hadeeth of Safwaan bin ‘Assaal [may Allaah be Pleased with him] where they were commanded to wipe, except for Ghusl, for three days and three nights during their travels for the impurities of going to the bathroom, urination and sleep.

Now the author has discussed all the conditions for wiping (over socks, turbans and headscarfs):

-Wiping is only for minor impurities.

-The garment is pure in and of itself.

-The garment is permissible to wear.

-The garment was worn in the state of Wudhoo.

-Wiping is done for its specified duration.

The scholars are agreed on all of the above.

-Turban are only for men and headscarves are only for women. However, socks can be wiped over by both genders.

However they differed on:

-The clothing must reach a certain area, i.e. up to the ankles for the socks and the whole head for the turban and headscarf.

-It is permissible to wipe over casts. Uthaymeen explains that it only permitted to wipe over the cast to the extent of the limb it covers. For example, if the arm is broken and it covers the wrist as well, then one must wash the wrist if he is able and wipe over the area which is injured. If he is not able to get to the wrist, or remove the cast without any harm, then he may wipe over the cast.

-Some scholars said that if one is unable to get the uninjured part of the body which is covered by a case, then they must perform Tayammum over it. Uthaymeen says the correct opinion is that one wipes over the cast with water.

-Wiping over the cast is for both major and minor impurities. Uthaymeen explains that taking off the cast would involve great hardship and danger for the injured, so they are allowed to wipe over the cast for both types of purification. The evidences for this include:

-Clear proof to make Tayammum for the injured for major and minor impurities. The Prophet [Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him] described the Tayammum for those who had an injury, “It is sufficient for you to preform Tayammum and wipe if over your casts.” [Reported by Aboo Dawood (336) and classed as weak by Ibn Hajar in Buloogh (136). Uthaymeen suggested it could be Hasan, however]

-Wiping over the cast is out of necessity, however with sock, turbans and headscarves there is no necessity for major impurities.

-Wiping over the cast is like wiping over the wound itself, as one is unable to wash the wound.

-If one is unable to do an act of worship, they must try their best to what is closest.

-Wiping over the cast clears the cast from any impurities or dirt that may be on it.

Ibn Hazm held the opinion that wiping over casts is not permissible whatsoever, because of the Hadeeth being weak (quoted above) and that he rejected making Qiyaas. Some of the scholars also sided with him in this view. So they stated that if one is unable to wash or wipe over the wound itself, they make Tayammum, by wiping over the wound with dry earth because water may harm the wound. The evidence they quoted is the fact that where water becomes difficult to use, one must do Tayammum and not wipe over a piece of clothing which there is no evidence for:

“and you find no water, then perform Tayammum with clean earth and rub therewith your faces and hands” [al-Maa’idah 5:6]

So the sick person is like one who finds no water.

Others said one should wipe and perform Tayammum, doing both to reconcile the two opinions above. But this is wrong because the majority state there is no Tayammum at all, and the view of Ibn Hazm is that we don’t use water over casts at all, so combining both opinions doesn’t actually reconcile both opinions. In fact, the Aayah above tells us to either use water or earth and there is no mention of using both.

Others from the scholars said that there is no wiping over the wound and there is no Tayammum either, because if one is unable to wash or wipe in Wudhoo then the Waajib is exempted from him. Uthaymeen states that this is the weakest of all the views, because purification is either by water or Tayammum.

Uthaymeen states that the first opinion, that of the majority is stronger, as the Aayah (5:6) proves that one must use water in all its ways before moving onto Tayammum. Also, Tayammum is restricted to the hands and face, so if one has a cast on his foot, how can we tell him to make Tayammum on his foot?

So the correct opinion is that one must wipe over his cast and not combine between wipng with water and Tayammum.

Conclusion: Uthaymeen states that the scholars have stated that wounds are of two types – that which is uncovered and that which is bandaged. 

-As for wounds that are exposed then one must wash them if he is able, otherwise they must wipe over it if washing is not possible due to excessive pain or harm.

-As for wounds which are bandaged then one must wipe over the bandage, as stated above.

One continues to wipe over the wound as long until it has been healed.

-Wiping over the socks, turban and headscarf can only become permitted once purification has been completed. Uthaymeen explains that it only becomes permissible to wipe over these garments once the Wudhoo has been completed and the person wearing them in a state of purity.

For example, if a person needs to make Ghusl from major impurity but only washes his feet and then wears his socks. In this case it is not permissible for him to wipe over the socks because he hasn’t completed the act of purification (i.e. Ghusl) and he didn’t wear his socks in a state of purity, even though he washed his feet and they were clean.

Ibn Taymiyyah as well as the Hanafees are of the opinion that partially completing the Wudhoo/Ghusl permits wearing the socks and thus wiping.

For example, if a person was to wash his right foot and then wear his right sock and then wash his left foot and wear his left sock, then this would be permitted with them.

The majority would not permit this because he needs to wash both feet in order to complete his Wudhoo. The proof for this is in the Hadeeth, “The Prophet permitted preforming Wudhoo and then wiping over the socks.” So here there is a sequence. Uthaymeen sides with this opinion also.

-One can wipe over the cast without entering the cast in a state of purification. Uthaymeen explains that some scholars held this view because it is similar to socks, turbans and headscarves. However, the correct opinion is that injuries occur suddenly, thus we can’t obligate preforming Wudhoo before wearing the cast. This is the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ahmad.

Benefit: Uthaymeen states some people believe that it is permissible to wipe over false nails for women in analogy to casts. This is false, because what we have been permitted to wipe over garments worn on our head or feet and that’s it.

So now we know the conditions for wiping over casts:

            -It be for an injury where the cast cannot be removed.

            -Wiping over casts last for the duration of the injury.

            -Casts can be wiped over even if one has entered them in a state of impurity.

To be continued.

Chapter: Wiping Over Leather Socks (Part 2)

Follow @AhleDhikr

It is permissible to wipe over the leather sock (Khuff). 

Uthaymeen explains that this includes socks made of other materials. The proof for this is Qiyaas (analogy) – that there is no difference in the use and the need to wipe over leather socks and normal socks. The Prophet (Peace and Blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded a delegation that was sent out from al-Madeenah to, “Wipe over your turbans and your socks.” [Reported by Aboo Dawood and others, adh-Dhahabi said its chain is very strong]. It is also narrated that the Prophet wiped over a normal sock which is worn over the Khuff called al-Mawq [Reported by Aboo Dawood and others, but the authenticity of this narration is under great dispute]

Conditions for Wiping Over Normal Socks is that covers up to the ankles. Uthaymeen states, whatever we call the sock be it a leather sock, a cotton sock, a woolen sock etc. as long as it fulfills this condition it is permissible to wipe over them.

-It is permissible to wipe over the turban. Uthaymeen explains, this is headgear which is wrapped all around the head. It is reported in Saheeh Muslim that the Prophet wiped over his turban and leather socks. But the condition here is that the turban is wrapped around the head and doesn’t include any other form of headgear, such as the Shemagh or hats etc.

-Conditions for wiping over the turbans: that it only be (1) for men. Uthaymeen explains that it is only permitted for women as women are  not allowed to wear turbans as it is a form of imitating the dress of men. (2) That is passes under the chin of the man. (3) It is pure and permissible to wear.

Note: Ibn Taymiyyah differed to the second condition. He stated there is no evidence for this and whatever is called as turban can be wiped over. Uthaymeen seems to side with this opinion.

-Wiping over the head includes the turban and whatever is left of the head. Uthaymeen explains that this is Sunnah, i.e. to wipe over the turban and if there is anything from the head which is not covered and hasn’t been wiped over, to wipe over it.

-Wiping over the headscarf for women (الخمار). Uthaymeen explains that this is exclusive to the head covering which is worn on the head. The scholars differed:

-Some said it is not permissible as she is obligated to wipe over her head without any barrier.

-Others said it is permissible, just like men who are permitted to wipe over their turbans. In fact, women are more in need in order for her hair and not to be exposed. Uthaymeen states this is the correct opinion – in times of need or difficulty she may wipe over her headscarf. She starts at the top of the forehead and wipes over her scarf to the back of her head without coming back, wiping in just one motion in one direction.

-It is permissible for men to wipe over their hair which may have substances on it. Uthaymeen explains that in those days they would gather their hair together with gum or honey (similar to gel nowadays), this is permitted. The same applies to women who may apply henna to their hair. Similarly, if women decorate their hair with jewelry then it is permissible for them to wipe over it without needing to remove it, in analogy to this point and the headscarf. There is also a point in the Sunnah, the Prophet used to wipe over the ring he used to wear without removing it.

-Condition for wiping over the headscarf: (1) it must be wrapped around her whole head and including under the chin.

-Time period for wiping over the headscarf: some said it’s the same as sock, one day for the resident and three for the traveler. Others states that there is no time period. This was supported by ash-Shawkaanee and Ibn Hazam, as there is no exists no evidence. Rather, the reason for permitting wiping over the headscarf is to make ease of difficulty and as long as this exists it remains permitted. Uthaymeen seems to side with this opinion.

To be continued. 

Baab Mas ‘ala al-Khuffayn (Chapter:Wiping Over Leather Socks) (Part 1)

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